Understanding The Effect of Knowledge Management Strategies On Knowledge Management Performance A Contingency Perspective

Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Information & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/im
Understanding the effect of knowledge management strategies on

knowledge management performance: A contingency perspective
Tae Hun Kim a, Jae-Nam Lee b,*, Jae Uk Chun b, Izak Benbasat c
a
Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Korea University Business School, Korea University, Anam-Dong, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-701, Republic of Korea
c
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 25 March 2013
Received in revised form 11 January 2014
Accepted 7 March 2014
Available online 18 March 2014
The universalistic perspective research on employing a unidimensional knowledge management (KM)

strategy has yielded conflicting findings and recommendations in different contexts. This study proposes
a contingency model for investigating the effects of KM strategies on KM performance to resolve these
contradictions. Drawing on the knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm, which identifies knowledge
type and origin as two key KM dimensions, this study first defines four KM strategies: external
codification, internal codification, external personalization, and internal personalization. A multiple
contingency model of KM strategy is then developed based on a technologyorganizationenvironment
framework. This study proposes that the effectiveness of each KM strategy depends on both external and
internal contextual conditions, namely, environmental knowledge intensity and organizational
information systems (IS) maturity. To test and validate the contingency model, we analyze data from
141 firms to explain the effects of KM strategies on KM performance. Our results reveal three KM
strategies, not including the internal personalization strategy, which have a significant association with
KM performance in their hypothesized contexts. This study expands KM strategy research by
theoretically developing an advanced contingency model aligned with external and internal contexts
and by providing valuable practical suggestions to managers for selecting a KM strategy based on
multiple contingencies related to the external and internal conditions of a firm.
! 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Knowledge management
Knowledge management strategy
Knowledge management performance
Contingency perspective
Technologyorganizationenvironment
framework
Environmental knowledge intensity
Organizational IS maturity
1. Introduction
Developing a knowledge management (KM) strategy is important in effective KM. An appropriate KM strategy enables a firm to
create, acquire, access, and leverage knowledge in a timely
manner, thereby resulting in better performance [1]. Considering
this KM strategy impact, the knowledge-based view (KBV) of the
firm has extended the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm,
which contends that organizational resources should be valuable,
rare, and appropriable to generate a competitive advantage and be
sustainable over time because of their low substitutability, low
mobility, and low imitability. That is, the KBV contends that
organizational knowledge is the primary resource for creating and
sustaining competitive advantage [2].
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant
funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A5A2A01014969).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 3290 2812; fax: +82 2 922 7220.
E-mail addresses: thkim@broad.msu.edu (T.H. Kim), isjnlee@korea.ac.kr
(J.-N. Lee), juchun@korea.ac.kr (J.U. Chun), izak.benbasat@sauder.ubc.ca
(I. Benbasat).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.001
0378-7206/! 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
AlthoughpriorstudiesonKMhaveimprovedourunderstandingof
KM strategy, its roles and impact are fragmented for several reasons.
First, studies on KM strategy have primarily adopted the universalistic perspective under the assumption that certain KM strategies are
consistently effective regardless of their organizational contexts
[3,4]. However, overlooking contextual factors creates a vulnerability
to contingencies under certain conditions because the effects of
different KM strategies on knowledge management performance
(KMP) are themselves affected by a firms external and internal
contexts. Nonetheless, the alignment of KM strategy with organizational contexts has not been fully addressed in the KM literature [5,6].
Second, the KBV has devoted substantial attention to KM strategy
analysis by identifying two major dimensions at the firm level: (1) the
extent to which knowledge is accumulated by a person or a system
(knowledge type) [7,8]; and (2) whether knowledge originates from
within or outside a firm (knowledge origin) [9,10]. However, previous
studies examining the effects of KM strategies on KMP have only
considered a single KM dimensioneither knowledge type (system/
person) or origin (external/internal)and have neglected the
possible combinations of these two dimensions [e.g., 4,6]. Therefore,
these studies do not elucidate the effect of KM strategies because of
T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416
their failure to investigate interactions between different strategic

dimensions of KM.
To explore these gaps, this study uses the KBV to define
individual KM strategies that indicate the two dimensions of
strategic KM approaches: i.e., knowledge type and origin [11].
Combining both dimensions, this study proposes four KM
strategies: external codification (external system-oriented), internal
codification (internal system-oriented), external personalization
(external person-oriented), and internal personalization (internal
person-oriented). To suggest the optimal choice of KM initiatives
given multiple contingencies, we propose a contingency model
based on the technologyorganizationenvironment (TOE) framework [12], which identifies environmental knowledge intensity and
organizational information systems (IS) maturity as two key
contextual factors that interact with KM strategy. As proposed
by Sambamurthy and Zmud [13], the multiple key contingencies
that we propose for organizations using the four KM strategies
posit that KMP is determined by a firms fit formation of KM
strategies with its external information-processing needs arising
out of its environment and its internal, technology-oriented
capabilities [14]. The major premise underlying this study is that
the effectiveness of KM strategies depends on their external and
internal contexts [15,16].
Specifically, this study aims to answer the following question:
How does the effect of KM strategies on KMP differ depending on a
firms external and internal contexts, i.e., the degree of environmental knowledge intensity and the level of organizational IS
maturity? This study attempts to answer the question using data
collected from 141 Korean firms that have implemented enterprise-wide KM initiatives. This study expands KM strategy
research by theoretically developing an advanced contingency
model aligned with external and internal contexts and by
providing valuable practical suggestions to managers in selecting
a KM strategy that will be successful in different external and
internal contexts. We also believe that our two factor-contingencies fill another gap in the KM literature, which faces difficulty in
integrating the effect of KM strategy into multiple contingencies,
such as business-related environmental and information system
(IS)-oriented organizational contexts [14], in an empirical analysis.
The gap is primarily due to the tradeoff between the omitted
variable bias among multiple existing contingencies and a
parsimonious research design for robust empirical evidence
[17]. The findings of this study can be added to existing studies
from North America [4,18,19] and Europe [5,6,8] to provide a more
international and comprehensive perspective on KM strategies.
2. Knowledge management strategy
Research on the effect of KM strategies on KMP has yielded
conflicting findings in different contexts [e.g., 8,1820]. For
example, certain studies [8,19] propose that the internally
system-oriented KM strategy provides firms with a competitive
advantage because people can easily access and acquire codified
knowledge from internal rather than external sources. However,
other studies [18,20] indicate that this strategy has the opposite
effect. The basis for those studies conclusions is that overreliance
on codified knowledge-oriented strategy results in internal
knowledge losing its integrity and the causal connections between
organizational knowledge and firm-specific contexts in which
knowledge is applied because codified knowledge in electronic
form primarily contains basic and general information rather than
new insights or creative ideas. Thus, prior studies have not fully
resolved such conflicts, as summarized in Table 1.
The KBV indicates that conceptualizing the type and origin of
organizational knowledge is important to simultaneously explain
organizational learning [19,20]. However, little is known about the
399
combined functions of knowledge type and origin, despite their

interrelationship. This insufficient consideration has seriously
limited the KBV because the functions and effects of different
knowledge aspects have not been understood in an integrated
manner. Although KM researchers have emphasized the need to
simultaneously consider external and internal contexts, prior KBVbased studies have not integrated multiple contexts into a single
study [e.g., 5,6]. In prior KM studies, the relationship of a firms
strategic effort with its environment was not a key concern in
explaining how the firm improves its KMP [5]. Therefore, the KBV
must be advanced by considering strategic KM alignment in both
external and internal contexts.
To fill these research gaps, this study uses the KBV to define KM
strategies based on two major dimensions of KMknowledge type
(person- or system-oriented) and knowledge origin (internal- or
external-oriented). The KBV suggests that implementing a KM
strategy requires not only firm-specific accumulated knowledge
assets but also knowledge flows within or channeled into a focal
firm, which is assimilated and developed into its accumulated
knowledge [11]. Therefore, we define KM strategy as a logical plan
with regard to firms decisions about the types and origins of
knowledge to create and sustain a competitive advantage. KM
strategy does not need to be a conscious, unidimensional decision;
rather, it may be a manifestation of multiple decisions.
The effects of KM strategies on KMP, the degree to which a firm
achieves knowledge-oriented benefits by adopting and implanting
KM [21], have been analyzed from various theoretical perspectives,
such as the integrative capability view [10], knowledge sourcing
theory [1], organizational learning theory [22], and transaction
cost theory [4]. In particular, the KBV posits that organizational
knowledge is the most significant resource that leads to long-term,
sustainable, competitive advantage [2]. The main focus of KBV is on
value creation through the use of knowledge. Thus, its core purpose
is to understand how KM should be pursued to improve a firms
capability and performance.
A critical contribution of the KBV is the recognition of two KM
dimensions based on knowledge type: system-oriented (codification) and person-oriented (personalization) [3,7]. Although several
studies across disciplines such as economics, psychology, strategic
management, and IS have proposed different dimensions of
knowledge, the most enduring distinctions are both explicit and
tacit [8]. Codification and personalization provide underlying
mechanisms for creating, accessing, and acquiring both explicit
and tacit knowledge. Codification relies on simple and explicit
knowledge and attempts to improve firm performance through the
use of KM systems [23]. Personalization deals with complex and
tacit knowledge and applies personal contacts and socialization
processes to increase the effectiveness of KM [3].
Another contribution of the KBV is identifying two distinct KM
choices based on knowledge origin: internal-oriented and externaloriented [9]. Thus, the forces that motivate a firm toward internal
knowledge sourcing may not be the same as those motivating it
away from external knowledge sourcing [24]. The internal-oriented
approach attempts to increase firm performance by integrating
knowledge within a firms boundaries [18]. Knowledge generated
within a firm is unique and specific. Thus, competitors may find it
difficult to imitate that knowledge, yielding considerable value for
the firm. By contrast, the external-oriented approach attempts to
import knowledge from outside sources via acquisition or
imitation and then transfer that knowledge within the organization [25]. Thus, firms can obtain fresh ideas to complement their
knowledge bases, thereby leading to higher KMP [4].
Individual KM approaches can improve KMP. However,
generating synergies among the four KM dimensions can be more
beneficial to firms. Given the existing synergies among the
approaches based on knowledge type and origin, the KBV suggests
400
Table 1
Review of key extant studies on knowledge management strategy.
Author(s)
Study dimensions
Studies focused on knowledge type in organizations

Choi and Lee [3]
! System-oriented
! Human-oriented
Theoretical
proach
ap-
Research
methodology
Main findings and contributions
! RBV
! Universalistic
view
! 51 firm-level
data
! This study defines system- and human-oriented along with

dynamic (high system- and high human-oriented) and passive
(low system- and low human-oriented) KM styles by focusing
only on knowledge type, thus ignoring knowledge origin.
! This studys results indicate that a dynamic KM style
effectively enhances performance, thus suggesting the
importance of a balance between tacit and explicit knowledge.
However, its results are generalized to organizations with
different levels of internal capabilities in various industries
without consideration of their given contexts.
! This study classifies KM strategy into codification and
personalization strategies according to knowledge type.
! This study suggests that the personalization strategy can be
combined with the codification strategy in cases involving
internationally operating firms. However, this study does not
provide any empirical evidence.
! This study focuses on knowledge types (collectiveness and
tacitness) without consideration of contextual factors.
! This studys results indicate that collectiveness is
advantageous to business service improvements/new service
introductions, whereas tacitness is disadvantageous to
innovation.
! This study considers only knowledge type as a dimension of
KM strategy, implying that the managerial choice of KM
strategy depends on the environment. However, it only focuses
on environment as a context.
! This studys results indicate that a more dynamic and more
complex environment demands both exploitation and
personalization strategies. However, it sampled only managers
of Spanish companies who are engaged in product
development.
Gammelgaard and
Ritter [20]
! System-oriented
! Human-oriented
! KBV
! Universalistic
view
! Conceptual
study
Leiponen [8]
! System-oriented
! Human-oriented
! KBV
! Universalistic
view
! 16 case studies
! 167 firm-level
data
Revilla et al. [6]
! System-oriented
! Human-oriented
! KBV
! Contingency view
based on external
factors
! Survey data
from 80
functional-level
managers
! Complementary
view
! Contingency view
based on multiple
contexts
! 269
individual-level
data
Studies focused on knowledge origin in organizations

Cassiman and
! External sourcing
Veugelers [5]
! Internal sourcing
De Clercq and
Dimov [18]
! External sourcing
! Internal sourcing
! KBV
! Universalistic
view
! Longitudinal
200 firm-level
data of venture
capital industry
Nevo et al. [4]
! External sourcing
! Internal sourcing
! RBV
! Universalistic
view
! 111 firm-level
data
Zahra and Nielsen [19]
! External sourcing
! Internal sourcing
! RBV
! Contingency
perspective based
on internal
contexts
! Longitudinal
119 firm-level
data
! This study considers only knowledge origin without

consideration of knowledge type.
! This studys results indicate that internal R&D and external
knowledge acquisition are complementary to each other in
improving innovation.
! This study shows that the mutual relationship (a contextual
factor) between internal and external innovation strategies is
sensitive to reliance on basic R&D, which reflects
organizations specific contexts.
! This study sampled only innovation-active companies in the
Belgian manufacturing industry.
! This study defines KM strategy as accessing external
knowledge and developing internal knowledge (knowledge
origin only).
! This studys results indicate that accessing external
knowledge is more beneficial than developing internal
knowledge for firms in more knowledge-intensive industries.
In addition, if there are gaps between knowledge obtained by a
firm and knowledge that the firm needs, interactions between
accessing external knowledge and developing internal
knowledge are positive.
! With respect to empirical evidence, this study focuses only on
the venture capital investment sector in the U.S.
! This study focuses exclusively on knowledge origin in
defining innovation strategies, explaining the impacts of
external and internal IT capabilities on IT productivity without
any consideration of potential contextual factors.
! This studys results indicate that relying on external IT
consultants provides tangible benefits (e.g., IT productivity),
which are moderated by internal IT capabilities.
! This study considers only internal contexts as a moderator
(integration mechanism) without consideration of
environmental contexts, suggesting that internal knowledge
sources are positively associated with successful technology
commercialization.
! This studys results indicate that formal and informal
integration mechanisms moderate the impact of internal and
external capability sources on technology commercialization.
However, it sampled only U.S. manufacturing companies,
causing a lack of generalizability.
401

Table 1 (Continued )
Author(s)
Study dimensions
Theoretical
proach
ap-
This study focused on both knowledge type and origin in organizations

This study
! System-oriented
! KBV
! Human-oriented
! Contingency view
! External sourcing
reflecting
environmental fit
! Internal sourcing
and internal fit
Research
methodology
Main findings and contributions
! 141 firm-level
data from
multiple raters
in organizations
! This study classifies KM strategy, based on both knowledge

type and origin, into external codification, internal codification,
external personalization, and internal personalization
strategies.
! A contingency perspective advances our understanding of the
impact of KM strategies on KMP by representing both
environmental fit and internal fit.
! This studys results suggest that KM strategies should be
chosen and developed according to external and internal
contexts, i.e., environmental knowledge intensity and
organizational IS maturity.
Table 2
Two-dimensional classification of knowledge management strategies.
KM Strategy type
External codification
strategy
KM strategic dimensions
Motivation
Knowledge type
Knowledge origin
! Codifying organizational
knowledge through formal
information systems
! Accessing external knowledge

across inter-organizations
Internal codification strategy ! Codifying organizational

knowledge through formal
information systems
External personalization
strategy
! Personalizing knowledge
through informal human
networks
Internal personalization
strategy
! Personalizing knowledge
through informal human
networks
Results
! To build up external KM system ! Reduces the time and effort to

for mutual collaborations
develop valuable knowledge
! Eliminates redundancy in an
organizations knowledge
! Developing internal knowledge ! To elevate user satisfaction by ! Standardizes and generalizes
within an organization
upgrading an organizations KM existing knowledge
systems
! Elevates users convenience
and satisfaction
! Accessing external knowledge ! To expand an organizational
! Raises employees level of
across inter-organizations
network to outside knowledge
knowledge
! Gets closer to customers
sources
! Wins more trust from
customers
! Increases customer satisfaction
! Developing internal knowledge ! To establish an organizational ! Forms an open organizational
within an organization
culture for KM
culture
! Speeds up exchanges of
knowledge among internal
experts
! Overcomes timespace
limitations
that firms should consider both dimensions in launching KM

strategies for improving KMP, thereby deriving four KM strategies:
external codification, internal codification, external personalization,
and internal personalization. These strategies have unique features,
as summarized in Table 2.
3. The contingency approach to knowledge management
strategy
A contingency approach shows fit relationships among
multiple factors and their resulting influence on relevant criteria
not only by identifying ideal configurations that generate optimal
outcomes but also by indicating deviations from such fit
configurations that cause low performance [15]. The contingency
approach has been taken by prior studies [13,15,16] to reveal such
fit or misfit among multiple factors. However, research on
strategystructureperformance relationship has severely criticized the contingency theory because of its lack of clarity and
failure to specify the form of interaction between factors of
interest [26]. In addition, the contingency perspective is limited
by its difficulty in exhaustively defining, measuring, and testing
full contingencies without the omitted variable bias among
potential contingencies [17] because the fit among factors
depends on the contingencies that are considered. In this sense,
our contingency approach addresses such theoretical and
empirical issues via the TOE-based identification of multiple
contingencies [13], which are exhaustively (both internally and

externally) relevant to KM in organizations [27].
Based on the contingency approach, this study suggests that
successful KM requires a firm to employ mixed strategies in its
given situations [5,6]. A few recent studies have analyzed the
effects of KM strategies within various organizational contexts,
but their contingency perspectives have focused only on either
environmental factors [e.g., 6,18] or internal contexts [e.g., 5,19].
Those studies failure to simultaneously consider external and
internal contingencies has resulted in inconclusive findings and
inappropriate practical guidelines that prevent organizations
from developing KM strategies suitable for their situations [27].
To overcome that limitation, this study proposes an advanced
contingency model that reflects both the environmental and
internal fits of the best KM strategy, based on the TOE framework
[12], which identifies multiple factors related to organizational
innovations. Following Sambamurthy and Zmud [13], we are
specifically interested in the multiple contingencies of environmental knowledge intensity and organizational IS maturity as key
external and internal contexts [22]. As shown in Table 3, KBV posits
that environmental knowledge intensity is a key external context
because organizational knowledge is the most significant resource
for strategic advantage [22]. A knowledge-oriented economy
characterizes the business environment as an industrial trend
toward greater dependence on organizational knowledge [28].
Knowledge-oriented logic implies that firms are exposed to
402
Table 3
Review of key extant studies on external and internal contexts in strategic knowledge management.
1. Environmental knowledge intensity as external context
Author(s)
Theory/Method
Constructs of interest
External context
Internal context
Findings and implications
Alvesson [36]
! KBV
! Theoretical
study
! Knowledge-intensive
characteristics
! Personnel loyalty
! Knowledge
intensiveness
! N/A
Liao et al. [28]
! KBV
! Empirical
study
! Knowledge sharing
! Absorptive capability
! Strategic advantage
industries
! Innovation
capability
Nonaka and
Takeuchi [22]
! KBV
! Theoretical
study
! KM processes
! Knowledge creation
! Knowledge density
! N/A
Todtling and Trippl [29]

Todtling et al. [30]
! KBV
! Empirical
study
! Innovation process
! Innovation
sectors
! N/A
! This study classifies knowledge-intensive

and non-knowledge-intensive firms according
to knowledge intensity, thus explaining
behaviors of employees regarding
organizational loyalty and relationships with
clients.
! This study finds that firms manage and
organize their professional personnel
differently according to knowledge intensity.
! This study analyzes the relationship of
knowledge sharing with absorptive capacity
and innovation capability.
! This study finds that the extent of
organizational knowledge required to
preserve a firms valuable heritage, learn new
techniques, solve problems, create core
competences, and initiate new situations
differs according to specific businesses and
tasks.
! This study defines knowledge-intensive
firms, which are exposed to an environment
that is a high-density field in which
members cooperate with each other
frequently and intensively in metaphysical
and analogical ways.
! The more mature the market, the stronger
the intensity of its firms dependency on
qualitative types of information/knowledge.
! These studies classify knowledge-oriented
environments into analytic and synthetic
knowledge bases by industrial features.
! Considering knowledge-oriented
environments, these studies assume that
innovation processes, mechanisms of
knowledge exchange, and respective linkages
in analytic base sectors are different from
those in synthetic knowledge base sectors.
Common interpretations of these studies:

! Regarding the external context, this review indicates that prior KM studies have focused on only knowledge-intensive firms and excluded traditional firms that exist in
the current knowledge-oriented era even though the studies have formed an obvious consensus on a significant difference in environmental requirements between
knowledge-intensive and traditional firms.
! The result of the exclusion of traditional firms is that these studies implications of the best KM strategy choice are restricted to only knowledge-intensive firms in which
environmental knowledge intensity is high.
! Although the existing KBV cannot differentiate the external context of firms from the general strategy literature, KM strategy studies should be based on the contingency
perspective, considering the knowledge-oriented external context and thus appropriating the contingency KBV.
! For the contingency KBV, we suggest that environmental knowledge intensity is a key alternative that well reflects the knowledge-oriented environmental context.
2. Organizational IS maturity as internal context
Author(s)
Theory/Method
External context
Internal context
Bhatt and Grover [34]
! RBV
! Empirical study
! Organizational learning
intensity
! Strategic advantage
! N/A
! IT capabilities
de Burca et al. [33]
! Contingency
! Empirical study
! Best practices
! Service/business
performance
! Services
sector
! IT sophistication
Drucker [31]
! KBV
! Theoretical study
! Information-oriented
firms characteristics and
requirements
environment
! IS in a firm
! A firms structure
! This study is motivated by a controversy

about whether IT can provide different
organizational capabilities to individual firms.
! This study finds that the relationship
between IT infrastructure quality and
competitive advantage is not significant, thus
implying that the quality might not directly
influence firm performance.
! This study considers IT sophistication (IT
maturity) as a key organizational context and
denies its direct effect on firm performance,
thus suggesting instead that it has contingent
effects.
! According to this study, a firms IT maturity
determines its capacities to acquire and apply
organizational knowledge.
! This study defines information-oriented
organizations, which are restructured with
high IS maturity for KM processes.
! In addition to high IS quality, this study
indicates the main characteristics and
requirements of information-oriented firms.
403

Table 3 (Continued )
2. Organizational IS maturity as internal context
Author(s)
Theory/Method
External context
Internal context
Raymond [35]
! Contingency
! Empirical study
! Organizational contexts
! IS success
! N/A
! IS sophistication
! This study suggests that IS maturity

(organizational maturity and IS
sophistication) is an important internal
context in firms.
! This study finds that IS success is somewhat
correlated to organizational maturity,
whereas the correlation is not significant
when IS sophistication is controlled.
Common interpretations of these studies:

! Prior KBV studies have considered mature organizational IS not as an organizational context but as an organizational capability, which explains KMs success in firms.
! This review shows a controversy related to the strategic role of IS, which enables or inhibits the management of organizational knowledge according to the KM strategic
goal, thus threatening a universalistic expectation that higher organizational IS maturity in firms translates to greater success of KM.
! Thus, we suggest a contingency approach in which organizational IS maturity is considered not as a key explainer of KMP, but rather as a key internal context of firms in
analyzing the impact of KM strategy.
analytic or synthetic knowledge bases in their environments

[29,30]. By contrast, the RBV emphasizes IS as a set of key internal
resources for sustainable competitive advantage [31]. The IS
literature suggests that each firm has different endowments of IS
resources at its discretionary disposal to identify, assemble,
deploy, and use technologies because IS resource barriers cause
a firm to achieve a certain level of IS maturity by exploiting its
idiosyncratic set of technologies [32]. Accordingly, a firm establishes its IS resources to a greater (or lesser) degree than its
competitors because it depends more (or less) on IS resources
[33,34]. In this sense, the best KM strategy is contingent on IS
maturity decided as a discretionary matter by a firms dependency
on IS assets and resources [35].
This study investigates the contingent effects of different KM
strategies on KMP by simultaneously considering (1) environmental knowledge intensity, or the extent to which a firm relies on
knowledge inherent in its activities and outputs for a competitive
market advantage [6,36], and (2) organizational IS maturity, or the
degree of IS effectiveness in supporting organizational decisions
and the contribution of IS to a firms desired outcomes [37,38]. The
TOE framework suggests that changes in organizations are caused
by a confluence of multiple sources [12]. Thus, this study
integrates a firms strategic choices (i.e., organizational decisions
about KM strategies), evolutionary forces from outside a firm (i.e.,
environmental knowledge intensity), and IS competence-oriented forces within a firm (i.e., organizational IS maturity) in a single
research model. In the sections that follow, these representations
of knowledge intensity and IS maturity are explained in detail.
3.1. Environmental knowledge intensity
Environmental knowledge intensity reflects knowledge-oriented requirements from external circumstances in which a firm
manages and organizes its tasks and businesses differently [36],
thereby forming external, context-driven propensities related to
KM strategy [6]. Environmental knowledge intensity has been
considered as an important key context because the extent of
organizational knowledge required to preserve a firms valuable
heritage, learn new techniques, solve problems, create core
competences, and identify new business opportunities differs
according to industry-specific businesses and tasks [28]. A firms
innovation is influenced by its knowledge-oriented environment
[39]. Thus, a firm must confront different innovation logics to be
superior to its competitors.
In this sense, a widely accepted assumption is that the
innovation that firms require depends on their environmental
necessities with respect to key knowledge sources, codified and

tacit knowledge functions, and types of knowledge links [40],
which distinguish between analytic and synthetic knowledge
bases for successful businesses [29]. A low knowledge-intensive
environment composed of a synthetic knowledge base, which is
dominant in some industries in which competition is based on the
logic of incremental innovations (e.g., food products and beverages), is principally characterized by the application or novel
combination of existing knowledge, a relatively low R&D level, and
a strong orientation toward solving specific problems articulated
by customers [30]. By contrast, firms in a high knowledge-intensive
environment compete against each other according to a different
logic, that is, an analytic knowledge base, which requires those
firms to realize radical innovations through effective interplay
between their codified and tacit knowledge in other industries
(e.g., pharmaceuticals and electrical machinery and apparatuses)
[30]. Thus, this study characterizes the knowledge-oriented
dynamic environment as having high knowledge intensity (i.e.,
analytic knowledge bases) and the knowledge-oriented stagnant
environment as having low knowledge intensity (i.e., synthetic
knowledge bases).
3.2. Organizational IS maturity
Organizational IS maturity has been addressed in different
terms, including IS success [41], IS maturity [42], IS effectiveness
[43], and IS evaluation [44]. This comprehensive concept embraces
the internal development of information resources, the proper
integration of computer-based systems, and the ability of users to
utilize organizational systems. Based on the RBV, organizational
capability implies that firms create new knowledge internally and
leverage their existing knowledge, thereby achieving favorable
positions in their external contexts [45]. In this sense, IS maturity is
crucial to improving a firms ability to use its prior knowledge. IS
maturity also helps firms to recognize the value of new
information, assimilate it, and apply it to create new knowledge.
Therefore, IS maturity affects not only a firms ability to design
knowledge types and origins that meet its internal needs [37] but
also the quality of key functions that channel and utilize
knowledge both within and outside of the firm [38]. IS maturity
is a decisive factor in determining how a firm leverages its
knowledge effectively; thus, a firms KM strategy choice should
adequately align with its IS maturity to form an internal fit for
successful KM [41].
However, firms do not necessarily need high IS maturity to be
successful [7]. On the one hand, high organizational IS maturity
404
provides high-quality, reliable, and fast KM systems by encouraging organizational workers to rely on codified knowledge in a
reuse economy, in which investing once in a knowledge asset
and recursively using it are required. On the other hand, low
organizational IS maturity generates competitive advantages by
reducing unnecessary investments in KM systems and facilitating
conversations and exchanges of tacit knowledge. Regardless of the
level of organizational IS maturity, individual expertise channels
can provide a firm with creative, analytically rigorous advice about
and highly customized solutions to its unique tasks, thereby
yielding substantial profits with competitive advantages. Our
consideration of IS maturity as a key internal context reflects the
contingent relationship between a firms KM strategy choices and
its IS resource endowments. That is, successful KM is only partially
dependent on IS maturity, which indicates IS-oriented resources
and capabilities [41]. This implies that a firms best KM strategy for
KMP improvement depends on its IS maturity level.
4. Contingency hypothesis development
Our contingency perspective on the best choice of KM strategy
theoretically relies on the TOE framework, which explains the
successful adoption of KM systems and practices in organizations
[12]. Simultaneously dealing with knowledge intensity from firms
environments and achieving an appropriate level of IS maturity is
important for firms to be competitive in KM. Both contexts must be
considered in developing a contingency model to suggest the best
KM strategies across internally and externally different situations.
The research model proposed in this study is represented with
contingent expectations for each of the four KM strategies with
different levels of environmental knowledge intensity and
organizational IS maturity, as depicted in Fig. 1.
4.1. High knowledge intensity and high IS maturity: Cell 1
External codification strategy refers to a firms attempt to
access specialized and standardized external codified learning
sources, such as technical reports, trade journals, patents, and
other sources [25]. This strategy provides opportunities for a firm
to improve its competitiveness by benchmarking other successful
firms and conveying stories about best practices to its employees
[46]. Such standardized codified knowledge is usually less
sensitive to space than is tacit knowledge that is embedded in a
person. Thus, a firm can easily adopt external codified knowledge
and assimilate it into other activities and processes to create new
knowledge.
An organization with high knowledge intensity relies heavily on
external knowledge sources [30]. Such an organization is more
likely to continuously monitor other firms to identify and imitate

superior solutions and to combine them with its own knowledge
[47]. The strategy also facilitates the creation and sharing of
valuable organizational knowledge, thereby making the firm more
innovative. Therefore, accessing external knowledge might have
important functions in enhancing knowledge creation and sharing
and achieving organizational innovation at a fast pace. In addition,
a system-oriented approach focuses on codifying and storing
knowledge via IS orientation [48,49]. A firm with high IS maturity
accumulates the specific knowledge of its experts and transfers
such codified knowledge to other firm members through such
technologies as video conferencing, groupware, intranet chatting
technology, virtual reality systems, and online communities for
efficient and timely communication [50]. Therefore, firms with
high IS maturity effectively codify organizational knowledge
through the use of IS-oriented tools and channels. We suggest
that external codification is the most suitable strategy for firms
with high organizational IS maturity and high environmental
knowledge intensity.
H1. When a firms organizational IS maturity and environmental
knowledge intensity are both high, the external codification strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KMP.
4.2. Low knowledge intensity and high IS maturity: Cell 2
Internal codification strategy refers to a firms effort to manage
knowledge residing in its internal IS or documents (e.g., when a
manufacturing firm sources knowledge from its enterprise
knowledge portal for the convenience of internal users and shares
valuable content with internal users). This strategy improves a
firms ability to access, update, and utilize standardized internal
codified knowledge. Because internal computerized knowledge
provides ease of access and comprehension [51], this strategy
facilitates knowledge sharing [19] and enables a firm to achieve
economics of reuse and to decrease search costs by reconfiguring
internal computerized knowledge to fit new situations [52],
thereby improving KMP.
An organization with low knowledge intensity is characterized
by synthetic knowledge bases, not analytic ones [29,53]. Environmental requirements for synthetic knowledge bases primarily
include the application of existing knowledge, the importance of
problem-related knowledge derived from inductive processes, and
a strong orientation toward solving specific but routine problems.
Learning to acquire practical skills is also crucial for firms with low
knowledge intensity, resulting in incremental innovations, not
radical ones. Given the key features of synthetic knowledge bases,
firms should focus on developing their internal knowledge with
high IS maturity. Therefore, we suggest that internal codification is
the most suitable strategy for improving KMP, in situations
involving firms that have high organizational IS maturity and low
environmental intensity.
H2. When a firms organizational IS maturity is high and its
environmental knowledge intensity is low, the internal codification strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KMP.
4.3. High knowledge intensity and low IS maturity: Cell 3
Fig. 1. The contingency model of knowledge management strategies.
External personalization strategy refers to a firms orientation

toward the use of external personal learning (e.g., a consulting
firms request for internal consultants to attend various seminars,
conferences, and workshops). For example, users share their
innovative ideas with outsiders to solve their own and shared
problems in an open-source software development environment.
This situation provides an opportunity for firms to co-create
products with the participation of external customers [54].

Suppliers can also improve their competitive advantage by
expanding their firms knowledge base [25].
External personalization strategy yields higher KMP because
direct contact with people outside of a firm opens that firm to
different viewpoints and expands its knowledge base [25]. As
discussed above, the externalization of organizational knowledge
is appropriate for a firm with high knowledge intensity. For a firm
with low IS maturity, creating and sharing organizational
knowledge through knowledge personalization is more effective
than knowledge codification. Human-oriented networks enable
organizational members to identify and share knowledge via
interpersonal interactions with external sources and professional
groups, along with knowledge transfer via communications with
external experts [48]. Next, individuals personalize knowledge by
sharing it with coworkers through personal contacts. A firm in
which intellectuals share knowledge through human-oriented
networks can establish knowledge dialogs with external experts
rather than knowledge objects from databases [7]. Personalized
knowledge, which is not yet or cannot be codified, can be
transferred through brainstorming sessions and one-on-one
conversations, even in organizations with low IS maturity. Thus,
external personalization might be the best strategy for a firm with
low organizational IS maturity and high environmental knowledge
intensity to encourage its members to personalize knowledge via
human-based external networks.
H3. When a firms organizational IS maturity is low and its
environmental knowledge intensity is high, the external personalization strategy is the most effective way to improve that
firms KMP.
4.4. Low knowledge intensity and low IS maturity: Cell 4
Internal personalization strategy refers to a firms ability to
access, acquire, and leverage knowledge from its internal
personnel. Examples include valuable experience, know-how,
and internal expert networks that a firm sources from communities of practice (COPs) in which collective, joint sense-making and
collaborative problem-solving form strong interpersonal ties
among members and encourage direct reciprocity within a
community with common interests [55]. Unique knowledge, such
as the skills and experiences of internal personnel, provides a firm
with a competitive advantage [19]. Knowledge resulting from this
combination cannot be quickly amassed because this knowledge
has firm-specific and tacit characteristics, creating difficulty in
imitating and copying this knowledge [22].
Internal personalization strategy helps firms to increase their
performance by focusing on an internal and person-oriented
approach, in that they not only do they develop their own core
competencies and appropriate benefits, but also they effectively
and efficiently control and understand tacit knowledge in the KM
process [10]. The characteristics of synthetic knowledge bases
suggested in H2 indicate that a firm with low knowledge intensity
is more likely to cultivate and utilize its internal knowledge to
improve KMP. Moreover, as discussed in H3, a firm with low IS
maturity can be expected to improve its KMP by relying on humanoriented networks. By internally personalizing knowledge, a firm
attempts to informally acquire and share its valuable internal
knowledge [20] through one-on-one mentoring, face-to-face help
by internal experts, and informal dialogs for knowledge sharing
within organizational boundaries [49]. Therefore, internal personalization is proposed as the best strategy for firms with low
environmental knowledge intensity and low organizational IS
maturity.
405
H4. When a firms organizational IS maturity and environmental

knowledge intensity are both low, the internal personalization
strategy is the firms most effective way to improve that firms
KMP.
5. Research methodology
5.1. Sample and procedure
Data for empirical examination were obtained through a survey
conducted in Korea. For the representativeness of the study sample
and the generalizability of the results, we first referred to the ninth
edition of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification [56] to
select an initial sample of 154 firms whose industrial composition
was proportional to that in Korea. In this sampling phase, we
ensured that the selected firms had implemented KM initiatives
because it would have been impossible to examine the contextual
relationships between KM strategies and KMP by sampling firms
that had never attempted KM and thus would have had had no
records of KMP. We communicated with the managers in charge of
KM at the 154 selected firms. We explained the purpose of this
study and the contents of the questionnaires, and then asked the
managers to select 510 employees with backgrounds that would
make them eligible to answer the survey questions. We asked the
managers to choose multiple respondents because KM strategies
and KMP are firm-level phenomena that are better assessed by
multiple raters across different ranks, functions, ages, gender,
organizational tenures, and years in the focal industries [57]. We
then visited the headquarters of the selected firms, personally
distributed 738 survey questionnaires, and collected data on site.
To ensure confidentiality and minimize socially desirable
responses, enclosed with each questionnaire was a joint researcher-company cover letter stating that respondents should correspond only with researchers when returning the survey, that the
employees firms would not have access to individual ratings, and
that aggregated results without firm identification would be
reported.
Of the 738 survey questionnaires collected from the 154 firms,
we filtered out 78 responses from 13 firms, which either contained
unreasonable numbers of missing values for key study variables or
failed to meet the adequate level of index for interrater reliability
within the firm, rwg(j) [58], yielding a total of 660 survey sets from
141 firms for hypothesis testing (raters per firm: M = 4.68,
SD = 1.09, min = 2, max = 10). KM strategies and KMP are firmwide decisions, practices, and outcomes. Thus, the unit of analysis
for examining the KM strategy-KMP relationship in specific
contexts was placed at the firm level. In addition, multiple
individual ratings on a study variable in each firm were aggregated
to obtain an average score to represent firm-level properties.
Details on the size and age of the 141 firms and demographic
information for the 660 respondents are presented in Table 4.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences in
study variables based on the number of raters in each firm across
respondents rank, age, gender, organizational tenure, and years in
the industry. All of the final data were pooled for analysis.
5.2. Measurement
An initial version of the survey instrument was vetted through a
series of personal interviews with five academic experts in KM. As
a pilot test, the survey instrument was then administered to 56
graduate students in Master of Business Administration programs
at two top-tier universities in Korea. The respondents had at
least three years of KM-related work experience. The multiphase development of the instrument resulted in a number of
406
Table 4
Profile of companies and respondents.
(a) Number of employees
(b) Firm age
Range
Frequency
Fewer than 50
51100
101500
5011000
10015000
500110,000
10,001 and above
Total
Percent
19
7
25
15
48
10
17
13.5
5.0
17.7
10.6
34.0
7.1
12.1
141
100.0
Year
Frequency
Less than 10
1120
2130
3140
4150
51100
101 and above
Total
Percent
19
22
20
25
25
24
6
13.5
15.6
14.2
17.7
17.7
17.0
4.3
141
100.0
(c) Demographics of individual respondents (n = 660)

Measure
Items
Freq.
Percent
Measure
Items
Freq.
Percent
Gender
Male
477
72.3
Gender
Female
183
27.7
Position
Staff members
Assistant managers
General managers and above
Others: Experts/researchers
270
244
113
33
40.9
37.0
17.1
5.0
Age
2130
3140
4150
51 and above
283
296
71
10
42.9
44.8
10.8
1.5
Years in the industry
Fewer than 5
610
1115
1620
21 and above
320
175
92
52
21
48.5
26.5
13.9
7.9
3.2
Organizational tenure
Fewer than 5
610
1115
1620
21 and above
430
142
46
30
12
65.2
21.5
7.0
4.5
1.8
refinements, along with restructuring. The process helped to

establish the measures initial face and internal validity, which
confirmed the suitability of the questionnaire for studying realworld phenomena [59]. The Korean version of all of the measures
that were adapted from prior studies was created by following
Brislins [60] translation-back-translation procedure. Unless
otherwise indicated, each measure was assessed on a seven-point
response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). The structure of all of the measures that were used in this
study is shown in Appendix.
5.2.1. Knowledge management strategies
Given the absence of an established measure for the four types
of KM strategies, we developed single-item measures for KM
strategies by combining two KM dimensions: knowledge type [7]
and knowledge origin [9]. For example, sample items state My
company relies on a KM strategy that aims at both codifying
organizational knowledge through systems and accessing external
sources for knowledge for external codification and My company
relies on a KM strategy that aims at both personalizing
organizational knowledge through human networks and developing knowledge from internal sources for internal personalization.
Klein and Rai [61] have identified conditions under which
single-item measures are acceptable in the IS research domain: (a)
when the concentration of respondents must be maintained by
shortening the length of the survey, (b) when additional questions
cause unnecessary redundancies, and (c) when constructs are
considered as unambiguous and narrowly focused. During the
survey administration phase, respondents in each firm were
required to attend an explanation and Q&A session before
answering the survey. We provided in-depth explanations and
examples of how organizational knowledge is accumulated
through systems or personal networks (knowledge type) and
how it is internally or externally regulated (knowledge origin). This
explanation was followed by a Q&A session to further ensure that
the respondents had an accurate understanding of KM strategies.
This procedure also helped respondents to focus on the survey by
enhancing their precise understanding of its subject and preventing boredom resulting from inter-item redundancy. In addition, in
the survey we presented the four single-item measures in parallel

to help respondents differentiate among KM strategies and to
determine the relative dominance of certain KM strategies
over others in a firm [62]. Thus, respondents from each firm
indicated the extent to which their firms use each of the four KM
strategies. Using single-item measures for the four types of
KM strategies seemed acceptable when considering the questionnaires procedures and design. Moreover, as detailed below,
empirical evidence for the reliability of single-item measures was
estimated.
We used various within-firm interrater reliability indices,
namely, rwg(j), h2, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs:
ICC(1) and ICC(2)), for three reasons. First, because single-item
measures were used to assess KM strategies, we could not estimate
within-rater, internal consistency reliability coefficients, such as
Cronbachs alpha. Instead, we used interrater reliability indices for
the single-item measures to determine whether multiple
responses to a single-item measure within a firm were consistent
and reliable. Nunnally [59, p. 191] states that measurement
reliability represents the extent to which the instrument for a
construct is intended to be repeatable and stable and to generate
the same results over different conditions (e.g., either across
different raters or with multiple items or both). Thus, using
interrater reliability indices for single-item measures is appropriate to ensure the reliability of measures in this context. Second, we
estimated the within-firm interrater reliability indices to support
the aggregation of multiple ratings of a KM strategy and its
performance within a firm for producing their firm-level average
scores and testing their relationships at the firm level. Third, we
estimated all interrater reliability indices based on the recommendation of Klein and Kozlowski [57] because each index has its
own strengths and weaknesses and there is no single best index.
rwg(j) is an index of within-unit interrater agreement [58]. Thus,
the rwg(j) index was calculated separately for each unit. An average
rwg(j) value across units is typically reported [57]. The criterion for
rwg(j) for supporting within-unit agreement is above 0.70 [58].
Because within-unit agreement does not necessarily represent
between-units variance, other indices comparing within- and
between-variance, such as h2, ICC(1), and ICC(2), with F-test

Table 5
Aggregation indices for study variables.
Variables
rwg
h2
ICC(1)
ICC(2)
Internal codification
IS maturity
KM performance
0.812
0.818
0.835
0.844
0.987
0.949
0.477
0.528
0.442
0.482
0.520
0.442
0.336
0.401
0.291
0.343
0.392
0.293
0.703
0.758
0.658
0.710
0.751
0.660
3.370**
4.136**
2.922**
3.440**
4.014**
2.939**
**
p < 0.01.
significance levels derived from ANOVA, were also used supplementarily [57].
h2 is an estimation of the relative amount of between-unit
versus within-unit variance across an entire sample of units. The
greater the between-unit variance relative to the within-unit
variance, the higher h2 will be. Bliese [63] notes that h2 is
influenced by unit size (the number of raters in the unit); the
smaller the unit, the higher the obtainable h2 value. ICC(1) provides
an estimate of the proportion of total variance of a measure
accounted for by unit membership. Unlike h2, this index is not
influenced by unit size [63]. A significant F-test and the suggested
acceptable range of 0.050.50 are often used to determine whether
unit-level property exists in individual responses [57]. ICC(2)
estimates the reliability of unit mean values and is a function of
ICC(1) and unit size [63]. The greater the ICC(1) or unit size, the
higher the obtained ICC(2) value. Like other reliability measures,
ICC(2) values are commonly considered to be acceptable for
aggregation if they are equal to or exceed 0.70 [57].
Table 5 shows adequate levels of interrater reliability indices for
the single-item measures of KM strategies. These indices support
the aggregation of individual ratings into firm-level average scores.
These estimates of within-firm agreement and between-firm
variance prove the reliability of the single-item measures,
indicating that respondents within a firm had similar understandings of the single-item measures and answered accordingly.
Although reliability does not guarantee the validity of these
measures, shared understandings among multiple raters and the
407
ratings within each firm were unlikely to be substantially biased

because this studys sampling and survey administration were not
based on convenience but on a rigorously planned procedure, as
described above.
5.2.2. Environmental knowledge intensity
To determine whether a sample firm exists in a knowledgeintensive external environment, we adapted the OECDs industrial
classifications [64] and categorized sample firms into environments that were either high or low in knowledge intensity. The
OECDs classifications [64] are based on R&D expenditures, and its
output data differentiates between knowledge-intensive and other
industries by focusing on the leading producers of hightechnology goods and on the activities (including services) that
are intensive users of high technology and/or have the relatively
highly skilled workforces necessary to benefit fully from technological innovations (p. 210). This industrial classification of
knowledge intensity reflects a categorization of industrial sectors
that distinguishes between analytic and synthetic knowledge
bases [29]. The OECD classification also generally accommodates
the notion that firms in knowledge-intensive industries primarily
rely on intellectual work by well-educated, qualified employees
[36].
In the OECD classification, industries are generally divided into
two categories, as presented in the left-hand side of Table 6: the
manufacturing sector and the service sector (divided into market
and non-market services). First, firms in high-technology
manufacturing industries were classified as those with high
knowledge intensity. According to the International Standard
Industrial Classification (ISIC), specific sectors corresponding to
these sample firms include pharmaceuticals, medicinal chemicals,
and botanical products (2423: the code by ISIC Revision 3), special
purpose machinery (292), electrical machinery and apparatuses
(31), radio, television and communication equipment and apparatuses (32), and aircraft and spacecraft (353). By contrast, sample
firms in low-technology manufacturing industries were classified
as those with low knowledge intensity. Specific sectors corresponding to these firms are food products and beverages (15),
textiles and apparel (17, 18), rubber and plastics products (25),
Table 6
Sector-specific classification of environmental knowledge intensity.
Industries
Environmental knowledge intensity
Manufacturing (N = 24)
!
!
!
!
!
Services (N = 117)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Organizations high in knowledge intensity (N = 62)
Organizations low in knowledge intensity (N = 79)
Pharmaceuticals, medicinal chemicals and botanical products (N = 1)

Special purpose machinery (N = 2)
Electrical machinery and apparatuses (N = 2)
Radio, television and communication equipment and apparatuses (N = 4)
Aircraft and spacecraft (N = 1)
N = 10
Telecommunications (N = 3)
Non-life insurance: reinsurance, fire insurance (N = 2)
Security-dealing activities (N = 2)
Public administration and defense; compulsory social security (N = 13)
Computer and related activities (N = 15)
Research and development (N = 1)
Other business activities
- Legal activities (N = 2)
- Accounting (N = 2)
- Market research and public opinion polling (N = 2)
- Business/management consultancy activities (N = 8)
! Education (N = 1)
! Hospital activities (N = 1)
N = 52
! Food products and beverages (N = 2)

! Textiles (N = 1)
! Apparel (N = 1)
! Rubber and plastics products (N = 2)
! Basic iron and steel (N = 2)
! Fabricated metal products, except machinery
and equipment (N = 3)
! General-purpose machinery (N = 3)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
N = 14
Construction (N = 8)
Wholesale household goods (N = 1)
Non-specialized retail trade in stores (N = 15)
Monetary intermediation (N = 14)
Life insurance (N = 6)
Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation (N = 19)
Other service activities (N = 2)
N = 65
408
basic metals and fabricated metal products (27, 28), and

manufacturers of general-purpose machinery (291). The above
categorization of sample firms in the manufacturing industry
(N = 24) produced 10 companies with high knowledge intensity
and 14 firms with low knowledge intensity.
Second, the OECD industrial classification also specifies the
service sectors that involve knowledge-intensive activities. These
service sectors include telecommunications (642: ISIC Revision 3
code), finance and insurance (6567), computer-related services
(72), R&D (73), and other business services (74), including such
market-oriented services as legal services, accounting, market
research, and management consultancy, along with non-marketoriented services such as education (80) and health (85). However,
the OECD classification does not identify service sectors that do not
involve knowledge-intensive activities. Furthermore, many KM
scholars [e.g., 65,66] posit that a disparity in knowledge-relevant
activities exists among firms in a particular sector of the service
industry and that not all service firms depend on know how to offer
fairly sophisticated knowledge or knowledge-based services.
To supplement these gaps, we elaborated the OECD classification of knowledge intensity in the service industry, particularly
focusing on the finance and insurance sector and other sectors
that are not specified by the OECD classification but that were
included in our sample. Specifically, service firms in business-tobusiness (B2B) relationships with a few clients, which can create a
relatively unpredictable and unstable market environment
should be considered to exist in a knowledge-intensive business
environment [65,66]. By contrast, service firms with business-tocustomer (B2C) relationships that offer large-scale services to
numerous customers primarily rely on widely applicable,
standardized and routine approaches. Thus, these firms should
be classified as being of low knowledge intensity [65,66].
Accordingly, institutes in the sector of public services to the
community as a whole (752: ISIC Revision 3 code) were
categorized as high knowledge intensity. In the sector of finance
and insurance, sample firms in security-dealing activities (6712)
and non-life insurance (6603), including reinsurance and fire
insurance, were classified as high knowledge intensity, whereas
firms in the sectors of activities auxiliary to financial intermediation (6719), other monetary intermediation (6519), and life and
automobile insurance (6601) were categorized as low knowledge
intensity. Lastly, firms in the sectors of wholesale household
goods (513), non-specialized retail sales (521), construction (45),
and other service activities (930) were classified as low
knowledge intensity because the primary operation of those
sectors does not depend on intellectual work by highly skilled and
well-educated employees [36,65]. Taken together, this elaborated
classification of sample firms in the service industry (N = 117)
yielded 52 and 65 institutes in high and low knowledge intensity
environments, respectively. Table 6 presents the results of
knowledge intensity classification and sample size in each
category.
5.2.3. Organizational IS maturity
We adapted 10 items from the criteria provided by Kumar [67]
for evaluating organizational IS implementation to tap the degree
of developing information resources, integrating computer-based
systems, and enabling users to utilize organizational systems, as
presented in Appendix. In the IS literature, organizational IS
maturity has been examined under various terms, such as
IS success [41], IS maturity [42], IS effectiveness [43], and
IS evaluation [44]. Compared to other criteria for evaluating IS
implementation, Kumars [67] instrument is unique because of its
post-implementation evaluation of IS in organizations [44]. Thus,
this instrument is consistent with our purpose, which is to
measure the current state of IS maturity in an organization as the
key internal organizational context, which is neither an antecedent nor an outcome of KM strategies and KMP. The results of our
factor analyses show that the 10 items from Kumars [67] criteria
are not cross-loaded on the measures of KMP. A sample item reads,
The IS in my company provides a user-friendly interface.
Aggregation of multiple ratings on the organizational IS maturity
within a firm is supported by rwg(j) = 0.99, h2 = 0.52, ICC(1) = 0.39,
ICC(2) = 0.75, F(140, 519) = 4.01, p < 0.01, as shown in Table 5. The
internal consistency reliability estimate of Cronbachs alpha for
this measure is 0.98.
5.2.4. Knowledge management performance
Chong et al. [21] has proposed a comprehensive set of 38 items
that measures KMP and that represent the effectiveness of KM in
five areas: systematic knowledge activities, employee development, customer satisfaction, external relationships, and contribution to organizational success. Of the 38 items, we used five items
that represent each of the five dimensions but are distinct from
overall firm performance. To capture the effectiveness of KM on
these dimensions while ruling out compounding with general
organizational performance, we specified the referent as KM in
my company in the question items, as shown in Appendix. A
sample item states, KM in my company is effective in enhancing
the value of products and services. Multiple individual ratings on
KMP within a firm were aggregated based on rwg(j) = 0.95, h2 = 0.44,
ICC(1) = 0.29, ICC(2) = 0.66, F(140, 519) = 4.01, p < 0.01, as presented in Table 5. Cronbachs alpha for this measure is 0.94.
5.2.5. Control variables
Firm size and age were controlled in the analyses because of
their potential effects on KMP [38]. To measure firm size, we used
the natural logarithm of the number of employees to correct the
diminishing effect of firm size, given the wide variation in the
number of employees in the study sample [68]. We also controlled
the effect of firm age, which was estimated by the number of years
that a firm had existed. Firm age manifests a firms external
legitimacy of existence in its relationships with other firms, its
staying power, and the pervasiveness of internal routines that
influence its overall performance [19].
6. Analysis and results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of variables
included in this study are presented in Table 7. A review of the
correlations shows that KMP is significantly and positively related
to external codification (r = 0.481, p < 0.01), internal codification
(r = 0.561, p < 0.01), external personalization (r = 0.270, p < 0.01),
and internal personalization (r = 0.382, p < 0.01) strategies. We
conducted two sets of multiple regression analyses. One set tested
the effects of KM strategies on KMP without considering the
contextual effects of both environmental knowledge intensity and
organizational IS maturity. Another set tested the effects of KM
strategies on KMP contingent on the four contexts.
6.1. Hypothesis test
The first set of regression analyses revealed that all four KM
strategies explained the additional 44.1% of the total variance in
KMP as a variance accounted for by firm size and age (DR2 = 0.441,
DF (4, 134) = 27.261, p < 0.01). Specifically, except for the internal
personalization strategy (b = 0.045, ns), the external codification
(b = 0.158, p < 0.05), internal codification (b = 0.368, p < 0.01), and
external personalization (b = 0.186, p < 0.05) strategies were
significantly related to KMP.
However, these results for the main effects of KM strategies on
KMP simply represent the weighted average effects across the four
409

Table 7
Descriptive statistics and inter-correlations.
Variables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
0.494**
0.250**
0.362**
0.020
0.035
0.281**
"0.255**
0.128
6.787
2.164
Firm size
Firm age
IS maturity
Knowledge intensity
KM performance
Mean
SD
0.090
0.024
0.133
0.006
0.162
"0.233**
0.082
0.428**
0.391**
0.079
0.472**
0.073
0.481**
"0.091
0.479**
0.502**
0.105
0.561**
0.306**
0.048
"0.023
0.270**
0.136
0.045
0.382**
0.092
0.578**
36.369
24.167
4.414
0.749
4.846
0.838
4.405
0.664
4.871
0.695
0.500
0.500
"0.008
0.440
0.498
4.676
0.584
Note: IS maturity and knowledge intensity were dummy-coded: i.e., high IS maturity = 1; low IS maturity = 0; high knowledge intensity = 1; low knowledge intensity = 0.
N = 141.
**
p < 0.01.
contingency cells. For example, the significant positive relationship between external codification and KMP in Cell 1 (high in both
environmental knowledge intensity and organizational IS maturity) was most likely strong enough to compensate for the
insignificant effect of external codification on KMP in other cells,
resulting in an overall significant positive main effect. Thus,
whether a particular KM strategy is effective for a contingency cell,
for several cells, or for all cells remains unclear. Accordingly, we
conducted additional multiple regressions in which KMP was
regressed simultaneously on all four KM strategies in each cell.
These regression analyses allowed us to test whether a focal KM
strategy was significantly related to KMP in its hypothesized
context in the presence of other KM strategies.
To test the hypothesized contingency effects, we used a
median-split method to divide sample firms into high and low
organizational IS maturity groups (median = 4.63, SD = 0.81,
min = 1.60, max = 6.58). This procedure produced four distinctive
contingency cells: high environmental knowledge intensity and
high organizational IS maturity (Cell 1: N = 34), low knowledge
intensity and high IS maturity (Cell 2: N = 36), high knowledge
intensity and low IS maturity (Cell 3: N = 28), and low knowledge
intensity and low IS maturity (Cell 4: N = 43). As shown in Table 8,
in each of the four cells (except for Cell 4), the hypothesized KM
strategies had significant effects on KMP in the corresponding
context, whereas other KM strategies had no significant effect.
Specifically, the external codification strategy was significantly
related to KMP in Cell 1 (H1: b = 0.329, p < 0.05). However, other
KM strategies were not associated with KMP in this context.
Likewise, the internal codification strategy was significantly
associated with KMP in Cell 2 (H2: b = 0.621, p < 0.01). The
external personalization strategy had a significant relationship
with KMP in Cell 3 (H3: b = 0.546, p < 0.01). However, the internal
personalization strategy was not related to KMP in Cell 4 (H4:
b = 0.040, ns). In summary, except for the internal personalization
strategy in Cell 4, in which both environmental knowledge
intensity and organizational IS maturity were low, all of the other
KM strategies were significantly associated with KMP in their
hypothesized contexts, thus initially supporting H1, H2, and H3.
6.2. Robustness check
The aforementioned tests for contingency effects were based on
a relatively small sample size that ranged from 28 to 43 firms in
each context. A recommended statistical remedy for dealing with
small sample sizes is the bootstrapping method, which does not
assume sampling distribution. Although bootstrapping is by no
means a substitute for inference drawing based on parametric
assumptions, it is an appropriate way to control and check the

stability of the results [69]. We conducted the bootstrapping in
each context with the bootstrapping subsample N = 1000 and the
estimated bias-corrected and accelerated 95% lower and upper
levels of confidence intervals (CI) for regression coefficients [69].
Table 8 shows the results for the 95% lower and upper bounds of CI
regarding the regression coefficients in the original multiple
regressions. The bootstrapping analyses revealed that the CI of
significant regression coefficients in the multiple regressions did
not include any zero points. Specifically, as presented in model 2 of
Table 8, the external codification strategy was significantly related
to KMP in Cell 1 (b = 0.329, p < 0.05 in the normal theory test; 95%
CI = 0.1010.585 in the bootstrapping test). The internal codification strategy was significantly associated with KMP in Cell 2
(b = 0.621, p < 0.01; 95% CI = 0.3050.871), as shown in model 4.
The external personalization strategy had a significant relationship
with KMP in Cell 3 (b = 0.546, p < 0.01; 95% CI = 0.1100.802), as
displayed in model 6. Finally, the bootstrapping result for the
relationship of the internal personalization strategy with KMP
(95% CI = "0.334 to 0.608) confirmed the insignificant relationship
between the two in Cell 4 (b = 0.040, ns), as shown in model 8.
Additionally, we conducted Cohens power analysis [70] to
determine whether the sample size in each context was adequate
to obtain a significant effect. Given that the correlations of firm size
and age with KMP were not significant (r = 0.128 and 0.082,
respectively), we looked at the necessary sample size for multiple
regressions with four independent variables (i.e., four KM
strategies) aimed at a large effect size (i.e., f2{R2/(1 " R2)} = above
above 0.35) at power = 0.80 for alpha = .05. The necessary sample
size to meet these requirements was 38, whereas 2843 firms in
each context were included in hypothesis tests. However, it should
be noted that even in Cell 3 with N = 28 firms, the necessary sample
size for f2{0.485/(1 " 0.485)} = 0.678 at power = 0.80 for alpha = 0.05 is 23 firms, given the obtained R2 = 0.485. Taken
together, the results of our power analyses and the bootstrapping
method further support the findings of normal theory testing using
multiple regressions.
Next, we operationalized organizational IS maturity as a
dichotomous variable. A two-by-two configuration of high and
low knowledge intensity and IS maturity was created to highlight
the contingency effects concisely and to make them clearly
interpretable. However, a median-split method used to transform
a continuous variable to a dichotomous variable may cause
information loss [71]. For example, ratings slightly higher and
lower than the median value were categorized into two separate
groups. Moreover, ratings that were far from and slightly higher
than the median value were classified into another group. Given
410
Table 8
Regression results for knowledge management strategies and their effects in each context.
Variables
Cell 2 (N = 36)
Low in KI/High in ISM
Cell 1 (N = 34)
High in KIa/High in ISMb
Model 1
Model 2
**
**
BCa 95% CIc

at model 2
Lower
Intercepts
Firm age
"0.090*
(0.037)
"0.003
(0.003)
"0.106*
(0.040)
0.001
(0.003)
0.216
4.274*
2, 31
0.216
0.166
4.274*
2, 31
0.329*
(0.146)
0.138
(0.116)
"0.079
(0.135)
0.222
(0.115)
0.288
3.925*
4, 27
0.504
0.394
4.579**
6, 27
Main effects
DR2
DF
df
R2
Adjusted R2
Overall F
df
2.555
(0.874)
Model 4
Upper
BCa 95% CI
at model 4
Lower
**
Model 5
Model 6
**
**
Upper
BCa 95% CI
at model 6
Lower
0.389
4.199
4.811
(0.397)
0.827
(0.845)
"0.580
2.592
4.203
(0.229)
2.133
(0.703)
"0.201
"0.019
0.094
0.010
"0.016
(0.045)
0.001
(0.003)
"0.107
"0.008
0.027
(0.058)
0.002
(0.004)
"0.005
0.007
0.019
(0.043)
0.003
(0.005)
0.101
0.585
"0.291
0.223
"0.196
0.667
0.305
0.871
"0.475
0.425
"0.045
0.618
"0.051
0.420
"0.345
0.381
0.031
0.526
2, 33
0.031
"0.028
0.526
2, 33
"0.031
(0.133)
0.621**
(0.146)
0.288
(0.163)
"0.012
(0.162)
0.518
8.329**
4, 29
0.549**
0.456
5.883**
6, 29
0.031
0.398
2, 25
0.031
"0.047
0.398
2, 25
Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented with standard errors in parenthesis.
a
KI, Environmental Knowledge Intensity.
b
ISM, Organizational IS Maturity.
c
BCa 95% CI, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence interval from bootstrapping with N = 1000.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
Cell 4 (N = 43)
Low in KI/Low in ISM
Model 7
Model 8
**
**
Upper
BCa 95% CI
at model 8
Lower
0.520
3.364
4.351
(0.273)
2.084
(0.667)
"0.015
(0.040)
0.002
(0.004)
"0.120
0.060
"0.007
0.010
0.021
(0.045)
"0.005
(0.005)
"0.204
(0.132)
0.377
(0.181)
0.546**
(0.135)
"0.203
(0.133)
0.454
4.629**
4, 21
0.485*
0.338
3.296*
6, 21
"0.480
0.203
"0.145
0.782
0.110
0.802
"0.517
0.276
0.026
0.527
2, 40
0.026
"0.023
0.527
2, 40
Upper
0.180
3.902
"0.051
(0.041)
0.001
(0.004)
"0.130
0.022
"0.009
0.010
0.121
(0.147)
0.308
(0.167)
0.120
(0.136)
0.040
(0.172)
0.378
5.707**
4, 36
0.404**
0.304
4.063**
6, 36
"0.153
0.512
"0.069
0.587
"0.142
0.366
"0.334
0.608
Controls
Firm size
5.614
(0.253)
Model 3
Cell 3 (N = 28)
High in KI/Low in ISM
411

Table 9
Summary of testing results.
No
Hypotheses
Results
H1
When a firms organizational IS maturity and environmental knowledge intensity are both high, the external
Supported
H2
H3
H4
codification strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KM performance.
When a firms organizational IS maturity is high and its environmental knowledge intensity is low, the internal
codification strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KM performance.
When a firms organizational IS maturity is low and its environmental knowledge intensity is high, the external
personalization strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KM performance.
When a firms organizational IS maturity and environmental knowledge intensity are both low, the internal
personalization strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KM performance.
these possibilities, we conducted a series of multiple regression

analyses after dropping firms in the top and bottom 10% and
between 10% below and above the median value in frequency.
The results are almost identical to the results that include those
firms, thus indicating that this median-split method did not cause
serious information loss and spurious findings. In considering all of
the results, we find that H1, H2, and H3 are fully supported. These
findings show that, except for the internal personalization
strategy, the effectiveness of a firms KM strategies on KMP is
contingent on both environmental knowledge intensity where the
firm is embedded and its organizational IS maturity.
7. Discussion and implications
This study seeks to apply a contingency perspective to the
impacts of KM strategy on KMP. Drawing on the TOE framework,
we identify two major contextual factors (i.e., organizational IS
maturity and environmental knowledge intensity) and propose
multiple contingencies with four KM strategies (i.e., external
codification, internal codification, external personalization, and
internal personalization), based on the KBV, to hypothesize the
distinctive advantage of each strategy in a given situation. Table 9
summarizes the results of our hypothesis testing.
This study aims to answer how the effect of KM strategies on
KMP differ depending on the degree of environmental knowledge
intensity and the level of organizational IS maturity. On the one
hand, knowledge-intensive firms are much more susceptible to the
logic of knowledge economy than are traditional firms. In this
study, the KBV is supplemented by external characteristics. On the
other hand, organizational IS maturity has been commonly
recognized as a key enabler. This is because organizational
capabilities and KM-related infrastructures and processes are
dependent on it. Thus, this study theoretically extends the existing
KBV by including multiple contextual factors, such as environmental knowledge intensity and organizational IS maturity, based
on the TOE framework.
We interpret the results from the contingency perspective. First,
as hypothesized, the external codification strategy leads to the best
KMP for firms with high knowledge intensity and IS maturity,
whereas the other KM strategies do not have any effect on KMP in
the same context. Our results indicate that the expected benefit of
the external codification strategy can be realized more effectively
when organizations have both high IS maturity and high
knowledge intensity. Firms in this situation are able to identify
and absorb external codified knowledge, combine it with internal
knowledge, transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge,
and then transfer the accumulated knowledge to organization
members through system-oriented channels [48,50]. Second, our
test results offer clear evidence regarding internal codification as
the most appropriate strategy for organizations with high IS
maturity but low knowledge intensity. As noted earlier, firms in
this category generally perform routine activities and prefer
incremental innovations to radical ones [29,53]. Thus, they tend to
Supported
Supported
Not supported
develop and accumulate their internal knowledge using high

organizational IS capabilities. Third, the results support our
expectation that firms with low IS maturity and high knowledge
intensity are more successful when using the external personalization strategy. Firms with lower IS capabilities are likely to use
human-based networks as their primary knowledge sources [24].
Moreover, as these firms are working in knowledge-intensive
environments, they attempt to import knowledge from outside
sources through face-to-face interactions and transfer this
knowledge across organizations [25]. Finally, the result for the
internal personalization strategy does not support the last
hypothesis from the contingency perspective, as shown in
Table 8. One possible explanation for the insignificant effect is
that its role is an underlying strategy in realizing the effects of the
other three strategies, regardless of environmental knowledge
intensity and organizational IS maturity [7]. In other words, the
internal personalization strategy is suggested as the first initiative
to effectively implement other KM strategies, rather than as an
independent strategy. This is because emerging firms must focus
on the internal personalization strategy as they initiate and
facilitate the creation and sharing of their KM statuses, which
facilitates the development of internally codified knowledge bases
via technology or the establishment of reliable interfirm alliances
for external knowledge sources [7]. Another possibility for the
unexpected finding lies in understanding the organizational
climate in Korea, which may be explained by the concept of
stickiness. This concept refers to the difficulty involved in
transferring internal knowledge within a firm [72]. The cost of
stickiness is relatively low when organizational members share
common values and engage in similar practices, as in the case of
Korean firms that have a high collectivism orientation [73]. In fact,
employees in Korean organizations are believed to be even stickier
than those in Japanese firms [74]. Korean firms are skilled at
conducting person-based internal sourcing of knowledge without
spending a significant amount of resources. Thus, the internal
personalization strategy in the collectivistic context may not be
considered an independent KM strategy. Instead, this internal
personalization strategy may be a natural process that provides the
foundation for implementing KM strategies [23].
7.1. Implications for research
Considering the inconsistent findings of prior studies regarding
the effect of KM strategies on KMP, this study emphasizes the
importance of multiple contingencies in developing or selecting an
effective KM strategy. The support that we find for the contingency
perspective is entirely consistent with theories about strategy,
human resource management, and interorganizational relationships. Given the interdependence between dimensions of knowledge type and origin in constituting a KM strategy, the contingency
perspective is more meaningful than the universalistic perspective,
which has been adopted by prior studies on KM strategy [3,4]. Our
findings indicated that the contingency perspective clearly
412
explains the KM phenomenon with regard to KM strategies and

their effect on KMP. Therefore, a contingency explanation is
required when the effects of strategy dimensions on outcomes are
dependent on environmental situations.
Strategic alignment between business environments and ISoriented capabilities has been considered a critical issue in the
literature on organizational strategy, particularly with respect to
strategic fit with environmental factors in the organizational
research [75,76] and strategic fit with IS resources-oriented
capabilities in the IS research [77,78]. In this study, we theoretically reply using the TOE framework to explain the alignment of
KM strategy from the contingency perspective, using key external
and internal contextual factors that bridge the missing link in
strategic KM research [79].
We further elaborate the TOE framework through theoretical
synthesis. This means that the theoretical incorporation of KBV
into the TOE framework in the current study helps to specify the
TOE contexts, thus restraining the freedom to differentiate among
organizational context factors. This integration generates a
theoretical advancement that evolves and appropriates the TOE
framework in the strategic KM research, while maintaining the
simplicity of the frameworks classification. In addition, this study
further extends the TOE framework by including a performancebased outcome from an organizational innovation, that is, KMP. In
predicting the improvement of KMP, the organizational value
created by successfully adopting KM helps to extend the
application of the TOE framework, instead of merely explaining
organizational KM adoption. We believe that this theoretical
attempt might advance our understanding of a contingency
perspective toward strategic KM alignment. Such an understanding can be achieved by predicting KMP that involves something
more complex than isolating specific KM strategy factors, such as a
more holistic configuration view, to fill the gap caused by the
missing link in the strategic KM research [79].
Previous research on organizational effectiveness has focused
on the effects of different organizational contexts, such as firm size,
industry type, firm choices, and performance [80]. The legacy of
this early approach is still apparent in recent strategy research, in
which such variables are treated as controls. Two distinct
perspectives later emerged in the intellectual tradition of strategy
research, namely, the universalistic and contingency perspectives.
The former suggests that for all firms under all circumstances,
there exists a single best approach to managing the knowledge
adopted by those firms. Accordingly, researchers have attempted
to identify best practices or those processes that positively affect
firm performance [81]. The latter suggests that neither structural
features nor firm choices directly affect performance; instead,
contextual features moderate the effectiveness of choices or work
practices [82]. Therefore, we account for multiple contingencies by
integrating environmental knowledge intensity and organizational
IS maturity, grounded on the TOE paradigm, to explain the
contingent effects of KM strategies on KMP according to different
hypothesized contexts. Therefore, this study contributes to the
contingency framework in KM literature by considering key
external and internal contexts that a firm should consider in
developing or selecting the best KM strategy.
7.2. Implications for practice
KM strategies are linked to practical implications for managers
who make decisions related to the selection of those strategies.
Their KM strategy choices represent alternate methods by which
firms can increase the value of KM in meeting corporate objectives.
This study offers contingent guidance to managers on how to best
use different KM strategies in different organizational contexts.
Our findings indicate that managers must understand the effect of
each KM strategy on KMP from the contingency perspective and

cautions firms against focusing on all four KM strategies, which
might be an exhausting approach to KM. Firms should be more
efficient and realistic in implementing KM and in selecting an
appropriate KM strategy, which can be achieved by considering
environmental knowledge intensity and organizational IS maturity. In other words, managers must simultaneously consider
knowledge type and origin with external and internal contextual
situations so as to reflect the knowledge economy in their business
environments under limited resource conditions. The findings
encourage managers to focus on a KM strategy not as a decisional
island but as a critical link to their organizations business
environments and resource barriers.
Another implication of this study is that the contingent KM
strategies identified herein provide organizations with a benchmark against which they can compare their own KM strategies.
Unlike prior KM strategy studies focusing on knowledge-intensive
industries/organizations and excluding traditional industries/
organizations, this study relies on an alternative, sector-specific
categorization of firms environmental knowledge intensity [28].
This approach provides more legitimate contingent guidelines to
both knowledge-intensive and traditional firms for their best
choice of KM strategy. In investigating the effects of KM strategies,
we also recognize organizational IS maturity, not as an explanatory
factor but as an internal contextual factor related to the contradictions of IS effectiveness in managing organizational knowledge.
These contradictions could explain why many IS-focused KM
efforts face difficulties in building effective KM environments.
Therefore, this study offers firms a meaningful lesson, which states
that the effectiveness of KM strategy in managing organizational
knowledge depends on both environmental knowledge intensity
and organizational IS maturity for the external and internal fits
[27] of KM success.
The final implication for practitioners is that the internal
personalization strategy does not have any significant impact on
KMP. This finding suggests that the internal personalization
strategy may not be directly effective as an independent strategy,
unlike the other three strategies, and that the former should be
considered as an underlying requirement to realize the expected
benefits of other KM strategies [7] across the different contexts
hypothesized in this study. For example, a firm can generate
valuable knowledge, experience, and networks of internal experts
through a KM practice of internal personalization strategy, that is,
COPs in which reciprocal members share similar interests related
to their organizational tasks, mutually interact by meeting face to
face, and directly negotiate, communicate, and coordinate with
one another [55]. This situation can enable the practical application of innovative ideas to overcome timespace limitations
through the COPs constant learning activities. Firm members can
conveniently discover appropriate knowledge that is customized
for each worker and task. Eventually, a COP culture can become a
vehicle for organizational innovations. As a result, created
knowledge and workers experiences are efficiently codified and
standardized to improve organizations KM processes. In this way,
the internal personalization strategy might facilitate knowledge
exchange among firms internal experts specializing in different
fields, thus serving as a cornerstone for the effectiveness of other
strategies. In addition, this unexpected finding might compromise
the conflicting findings of prior studies. Some studies have
suggested that firms accumulating and leveraging internal tacit
knowledge tend to outperform competitors that pursue other KM
strategies [19,20], whereas other studies argue that external
knowledge sourcing [18] or explicit knowledge creation [4,8] are
the key enablers of a competitive advantage. In this sense, our
findings suggest that managers who are eager to achieve higher
KMP by implementing effective KM strategies must shape their
knowledge type and origin to external and internal contextual

situations. Although pursuing only the internal personalization
strategy could not lead to the expected KMP, a firm could not
realize higher performance through other KM strategies without
effectively implementing the internal personalization strategy in
advance.
7.3. Limitations and future research directions
We now turn to the limitations of this study, some of which
offer opportunities for future research. First, the metrics of KM
strategy and KMP clearly require further development. Stronger
metrics may evince clearer distinctions across strategies because
the instruments suggested by earlier studies provide a starting
point for assessing strategy dimensions and the performance of KM
strategies. For example, expectations regarding the internal
personalization strategy are not supported by data, thus suggesting the need for stronger metrics to assess KMP, an alternate
theory, or the study of our proposed model within an alternate
institutional environment. As KM becomes more complex,
researchers need to develop more sophisticated metrics to assess
its success. Nonetheless, the nature of the metrics alone may not
completely account for the perceived relationships among the
dimensions of KM strategy and those between KM strategies and
their contextual situations. Different KM strategies can eventually
enhance firm performance in different ways, although appropriate
contextual factors are considered. Longitudinal research on KM
strategies and their effects on KMP can tease apart such cumulative
effects.
Second, it is possible that the strategy dimensions in this study
drawn from the KBV are inadequate in completely specifying a KM
strategy. Furthermore, in addition to the two contextual factors
identified in this study, other conditions may have contingent
effects on the relationship between KM strategies and their
performance. Further theoretical development and organizational practice can thus stimulate the exploration of such new
contingent variables. A deeper revelation of the interaction
between KM strategies and their situational factors would also be
valuable in enhancing the understandability of KM practice in
organizations.
Finally, the findings of this study are limited by its crosssectional design, in which the ratings of both independent and
dependent variables were collected from a single source. However,
the likelihood of a common source bias might be reduced in this
study because testing the hypothesized relationships at the
organizational level by aggregating individual ratings would cause
most individual-level random errors and sources of bias to cancel
each other out [83]. Nonetheless, replications and extensions of
our findings using longitudinal designs with different rating
sources are needed. These longitudinal studies could also benefit
from including financial measures of firm performance to examine
the causal relationships among KM strategies, KMP, and firm
performance. This studys results also contain regional biases
because the data were collected only in Korea. Thus, the results
require careful interpretation and replication in other industries
and countries to improve the generalizability of our findings.
8. Conclusions
With increasing attention focused on KM strategy, organizations must effectively recognize the importance of the contingency
perspective to their actions. This study expands KM strategy
research by theoretically developing an advanced multiple
contingency model that is aligned with both external and internal
contexts. At the same time, our study contributes to this research
area by providing valuable practical suggestions to managers in
413
selecting KM strategies that can be successfully applied in different

external and internal contexts. The results of this study highlight
the importance of the fact that organizations must consider
external and internal contextual factors in developing their KM
strategies so as to fully realize the benefits of KM strategies. The
results highlight distinctive KM strategies that accrue from two KM
dimensions (i.e., knowledge type and origin) and comprise two
contingent contextual situations (i.e., environmental knowledge
intensity and organizational IS maturity). KM strategy choices
represent alternate ways through which organizations increase the
value of KM in meeting corporate objectives.
Appendix. Survey questionnaire: procedures, instruments, and
structure
Survey procedures
Before answering the questionnaires, the survey participants in
each firm were required to attend an explanation and Q&A session.
The purpose was to clearly convey the meanings of the primary
terminologies used in the survey questionnaires. In addition, as
shown below, the front portion of the survey questionnaires
included detailed instructions and explanations with specific
examples, thus encouraging respondents to pay careful attention
to the questionnaires respective requirements. By doing so, we
were able to ensure that the participants were able to sufficiently
understand key points when they answered the questionnaires.
Instructions for the respondents

All of this surveys questions are oriented to company-wide
observations. Thus, in rating each question, you (respondents)
should ensure that your answers reflect your companys overall
practices and specific features. In addition, please answer the
questions only after carefully reading the relevant explanations
and simultaneously considering concrete examples that are
provided in the front portion of the relevant questionnaire.
Explanation of the concept of knowledge management strategies

The purpose of Knowledge Management (KM) strategies is to
activate (1) knowledge accumulation (codified type versus personalized type) and (2) knowledge regulation (external origin versus
internal origin) in an organization so as to acquire and maintain
competitive advantages for sustainable organizational growth.
There are four types of KM strategy based on knowledge
accumulation and regulation. They are separately but simultaneously implemented to varying extents in your company. As
shown above, an individual KM strategy consists of two
components, each based on two different dimensions (Dimension
1: knowledge type; Dimension 2: knowledge origin). Each KM
strategy type is determined by the composite components of two
dimensions: based on Dimension 1, a component of KM strategy
can be a system-oriented (Component 1-1) and person-oriented
(Component 1-2) method of accumulating organizational knowledge; based on Dimension 2, another component of KM strategy
can be one of external sourcing (Component 2-1) and internal
sourcing (Component 2-2) to regulate knowledge in organizations.
As explained above, the four paired groups of specific examples
include the two strategic components of KM strategies. On one
hand, the first two paired groups of specific examples explain how
a firm accumulates knowledge in a system-oriented manner
(Example A, Example B, and Example C) or a person-oriented
manner (Example D, Example E, and Example F). The two ways of
414
Dimension
Component
Specific examples
Dimension 1: Knowledge type

in organizations
Component 1-1: Codifying organizational

knowledge through systems (systemoriented)
Component 1-2: Personalizing
organizational knowledge through
personal networks (person-oriented)
Example A: Accumulating knowledge in systematized materials and documented forms

Example B: Accumulating knowledge using organizational computer-aided systems
Example C: Accumulating knowledge through an internal portal and official intranet
Example D: Accumulating knowledge from dialogic communications of interpersonal
relationships
Example E: Accumulating knowledge through mentoring supervisors who are
experienced in related fields
Example F: Accumulating knowledge through collective participation in a community of
practice
Dimension 2: Knowledge origin

in organizations
Component 2-1: Accessing external sources Example G: Sourcing knowledge through strategic alliances, benchmarking, outsourcing,
(inter-firm) for organizational knowledge consulting services, and external professional conferences
Example H: Sourcing knowledge from esteemed journals and newspapers, external
technical reports, and publications of external consultative bodies
Example I: Sourcing knowledge using feedback from suppliers, customers, and competing
and cooperating firms
Example J: Sourcing knowledge from internal experts, predecessors, and pedestal workers
Component 2-2: Developing internal
sources (intra-firm) for organizational
Example K: Sourcing knowledge through intra-firm training and development programs,
knowledge
along with internal R&D projects
Example L: Sourcing knowledge from company bulletins, internal conferences and
seminars, and internal technical reports
accumulating knowledge in organizations (system-oriented versus

person-oriented) refer to one strategic component of an individual
KM strategy that is dominant in firms. On the other hand, the final
two paired groups of specific examples explain how a firm
regulates knowledge origin through external sourcing (Example G,
Example H, and Example I) or internal sourcing (Example J,
Example K, and Example L). These two methods of regulating
knowledge origin in organizations (external sourcing versus
internal sourcing) comprise another strategic component of an
individual KM strategy that is dominant in firms. Thus, you should
be reminded about the two dimensions of KM strategy by the
specific examples of components when answering the following
questions about the four different types of KM strategy.
7. The IS in my company is fully utilized.

8. The IS in my company provides a user-friendly interface.
9. The IS in my company uses high-quality programs.
10. The IS in my company fits the organization well.
! Knowledge management (KM) performance
1. KM in my company is helpful in solving organizational
problems.
2. KM in my company is useful in improving communication.
3. KM in my company contributes to the development of
employee abilities.
4. KM in my company is effective in enhancing the value of
products and services.
5. KM in my company is efficient in satisfying customers.
The structure of the survey questionnaire

! Knowledge management (KM) strategy
1. My company relies on KM strategy that aims at both codifying
organizational knowledge through systems (Component 1-1)
and accessing external sources for knowledge (Component 21).
2. My company relies on KM strategy that aims at both codifying
organizational knowledge through systems (Component 1-1)
and developing knowledge from internal sources (Component
2-2).
3. My company relies on KM strategy that aims at both
personalizing organizational knowledge through human networks (Component 1-2) and accessing external sources for
knowledge (Component 2-1).
4. My company relies on KM strategy that aims at both
personalizing organizational knowledge through human networks (Component 1-2) and developing knowledge from
internal sources (Component 2-2).
! Organizational IS maturity
1. The IS in my company improves the timeliness of information.
2. The IS in my company is considered satisfactory by users.
3. The IS in my company is helpful in ensuring project schedule
compliance.
4. The information provided by the IS in my company is
adequate.
5. The information provided by the IS in my company can be
reused.
6. The IS in my company uses high-quality hardware.
References
[1] P.H. Gray, D.B. Meister, Knowledge sourcing effectiveness, Management Science
50, 2004, pp. 821834.
[2] R.M. Grant, Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management
Journal 17, 1996, pp. 109122.
[3] B. Choi, H. Lee, An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on
corporate performance, Information and Management 40, 2003, pp. 403417.
[4] S. Nevo, M.R. Wade, W.D. Cook, An examination of the trade-off between internal
and external IT capabilities, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 16, 2007, pp.
523.
[5] B. Cassiman, R. Veugelers, In search of complementarity in innovation strategy:
internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition, Management Science 52, 2006,
pp. 6882.
[6] E. Revilla, I.M. Prieto, B.R. Prado, Knowledge strategy: its relationship to environmental dynamism and complexity in product development, Knowledge and
Process Management 17, 2010, pp. 3647.
[7] M.T. Hansen, N. Nohria, T. Tierney, Whats your strategy for knowledge management? Harvard Business Review 77, 1999, pp. 106116.
[8] A. Leiponen, Managing knowledge for innovation: the case of business-to-business services, Journal of Product Innovation Management 23, 2006, pp. 238258.
[9] T. Menon, J. Pfeffer, Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: explaining the
preference for outsiders, Management Science 49, 2003, pp. 497513.
[10] V.L. Mitchell, Knowledge integration and information technology project performance, MIS Quarterly 30, 2006, pp. 919939.
[11] B. Choi, J.-N. Lee, Complementarities and substitutabilities among knowledge
sourcing strategies and their impact on firm performance, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13, 2012, pp. 498545.
[12] L.G. Tornatzky, M. Fleischer, The Processes of Technological Innovation, D.C.
Heath & Company, Lexington, MA, 1990.
[13] V. Sambamurthy, R.W. Zmud, Arrangements for information technology governance: a theory of multiple contingencies, MIS Quarterly 23, 1999, pp. 261290.
[14] O.A. El Sawy, A. Malhotra, Y. Park, P.A. Pavlou, Research commentary: seeking the
configurations of digital ecodynamics: it takes three to tango, Information
Systems Research 21, 2010, pp. 835848.
[15] H.P. Andres, R.W. Zmud, A contingency approach to software project coordination, Journal of Management Information Systems 18, 2002, pp. 4170.

Understanding The Effect of Knowledge Management Strategies On Knowledge Management Performance A Contingency Perspective

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Understanding The Effect of Knowledge Management Strategies On Knowledge Management Performance A Contingency Perspective

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Information & Management

Understanding the effect of knowledge management strategies on

The universalistic perspective research on employing a unidimensional knowledge management (KM)

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

their failure to investigate interactions between different strategic

combined functions of knowledge type and origin, despite their

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

Studies focused on knowledge type in organizations

Main findings and contributions

! This study defines system- and human-oriented along with

Revilla et al. [6]

Studies focused on knowledge origin in organizations

Nevo et al. [4]

Zahra and Nielsen [19]

! This study considers only knowledge origin without

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

This study focused on both knowledge type and origin in organizations

Main findings and contributions

! This study classifies KM strategy, based on both knowledge

! Accessing external knowledge

Internal codification strategy ! Codifying organizational

! To build up external KM system ! Reduces the time and effort to

that firms should consider both dimensions in launching KM

contingencies [13], which are exhaustively (both internally and

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

Findings and implications

Liao et al. [28]

Todtling and Trippl [29]

! This study classifies knowledge-intensive

Common interpretations of these studies:

Findings and implications

Bhatt and Grover [34]

de Burca et al. [33]

! This study is motivated by a controversy

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

Findings and implications

! This study suggests that IS maturity

Common interpretations of these studies:

analytic or synthetic knowledge bases in their environments

necessities with respect to key knowledge sources, codified and

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

likely to continuously monitor other firms to identify and imitate

Fig. 1. The contingency model of knowledge management strategies.

External personalization strategy refers to a firms orientation

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

products with the participation of external customers [54].

H4. When a firms organizational IS maturity and environmental

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

(b) Firm age

(c) Demographics of individual respondents (n = 660)

Years in the industry

refinements, along with restructuring. The process helped to

the survey we presented the four single-item measures in parallel

T.H. Kim et al. / Information & Management 51 (2014) 398416

ratings within each firm were unlikely to be substantially biased

Environmental knowledge intensity

Organizations high in knowledge intensity (N = 62)

Organizations low in knowledge intensity (N = 79)

Pharmaceuticals, medicinal chemicals and botanical products (N = 1)

! Food products and beverages (N = 2)