International Journal of Production Research, 2013

Vol. 51, No. 18, 55655575, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.789145

Investigating the role of business processes and knowledge management systems on

performance: A multi-case study approach
Qing Cao*, Mark A. Thompson and Jason Triche
Texas Tech University, Rawls College of Business, Lubbock, United States
(Received 5 February 2012; nal version received 20 March 2013)
In the ever-changing and competitive market place, organisations continuously need to improve their competitive advantage. One method to accomplish this is to form collaborative networks. Both knowledge management (KM) and KM
systems play a pivotal role in the success of collaborative networks since information sharing and knowledge assets are
so critical to the network. There has been a vast amount of research on KM systems but very little is known about how
it affects individual and organisational performance. Drawing on the tasktechnology t theory in this study, we explore
the t or alignment between business process (task) and KM systems (technology) and its impact on KM systems utilisation based on multiple case studies. Subsequently, we investigate the impacts of both the tasktechnology t and KM
systems utilisation on individual and business performance. This paper contributes to the collaborative network/KM literature in several ways. First, it extends the tasktechnology t theory to an important context of collaborative network/
KM. Second, it replaces task with business process, which has the potential to help explain KM systems success on
business performance. Third, the paper explores the positive impact of tasktechnology t on KM system utilisation and
business performance. Fourth and nally, the study provides insight into the future development of KM systems and
how to better align them with managerial purposes.
Keywords: knowledge management; collaborative network; tasktechnology t; knowledge management systems;
business process; business performance

1. Introduction
Complex business activities in organisations may lead to the formation of a collaborative network to minimise the
impacts of market uctuation and dynamic operational behaviour by effective inter-organisational collaboration and
coordination (Jagdev and Thoben 2001). Both knowledge management (KM) and KM systems play a pivotal role in the
success of a collaborative network since information sharing and knowledge assets are two main pillars of the network.
Knowledge is a powerful resource in helping organisations as well as individuals preserve their identity, culture, best
practices, and core competencies. Managing this knowledge has become an important topic to both industry and academics. The topic of KM has been around for two decades, while the practice of KM is still evolving and changing for
both practitioners and researchers alike. The importance and inuence of KM is evident by the plethora of research articles dedicated to the topic (see Alavi and Leidner 2001; Schultze and Leidner 2002; Tanriverdi 2005; Gunasekaran and
Ngai 2007; Nachiappan, Gunasekaran, and Jawahar 2007; Wang, Klein, and Jiang 2007). KM systems, on the other
hand, are the information technology used by an organisation to capture, represent, and apply knowledge to itself and
its collaborative network (Dhaliwal and Benbasat 1996). In other words, KM systems are viable tools for achieving
effective knowledge management.
Substantial investments have been made to KM system technologies and in 2007 KM software was a $73 billion
market (AMR Research 2007). Despite the high expenditures in KM, some researchers note the failure rate of KM projects at around 50% (Peyman, Jafari, and Fathian 2005). KM approaches fail when they do not integrate human
resources, processes, and technology regardless of how much money companies spend. The most common error in KM
implementation is failing to coordinate efforts between information technology and human resources (Ambrosio 2000).
The KM effort should not be a technology issue or a people issue, but instead should be a joint effort.
Although there is a general consensus of the organisational settings in which KM systems can be applied, very little
is known about how to enhance business processes or how to measure KM systems impacts on business performance
(Kulkarni, Ravindran, and Freeze 2007). Such knowledge is crucial, however, for a realistic determination of the
*Corresponding author. Email: qing.cao@ttu.edu
2013 Taylor & Francis

5566

Q. Cao et al.

opportunities and requirements presented by KM systems. We endeavour to ll the void from both managerial and
academic perspectives in the KM systems arena.
This paper contributes to the collaborative network/KM literature in several ways. First, it draws on the tasktechnology t theory (Goodhue and Thompson 1995) to explore the alignment between business process (task) and KM
systems (technology) and its impact on KM system utilisation. Subsequently, we investigate the impacts of both the
tasktechnology t and KM system utilisation on individual and business performance via multiple case studies. By
extending the tasktechnology t theory to an important context of collaborative networks/KM, we replace task with
business process to help explain KM systems success on business performance. Thus, the study builds contingency
theory in collaborative networks/KM by moving beyond the question of mere tool usage (KM systems) to the match
between KM tool and business process. As such it presents a viable framework for practitioners to effectively implement
KM systems. Finally, the study provides insight into the future development of KM systems on how to better align them
with managerial purposes. The development of more appropriate and useful KM tools would seem to be a critical
enabler of improved business performance.
The paper proceeds as follows. In the next section, we review the literature on collaborative networks, KM, and KM
systems. In the theoretical background section, we propose a theoretical approach that is appropriate for the study of
KM systems, namely, the tasktechnology t framework. Then, we explain our research model based on this framework,
develop propositions, and describe our case studies and analytical procedures for the study. Finally, our results section
presents support for each of our propositions. The lessons learned section highlights the contributions that we make by
providing a framework for research into the collaborative networks/KM systems arena and discusses possible limitations
to our study along with several avenues for future research.
2. Literature review
In the ever-changing and competitive market place, organisations continuously need to improve their competitive
advantage. One method to accomplish this is to form collaborative networks both within the organisation and along an
organisations supply chain. A collaborative network is constituted by a variety of entities (e.g., organisations and people) that are largely autonomous, geographically distributed, and heterogeneous in terms of their: operating environment,
culture, social capital, and goals. (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 2005, 439). The study of collaborative networks
is relatively new and it draws on multiple disciplines covering computer science, economics, management, operations
management, and information systems. The formation, operation, and success of collaborative networks depend on a
common base among its members, such as common goals, common IT infrastructures and supporting services, real-time
information sharing, common standards, and common views of business processes (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh
2003, 2005). Since real-time information sharing and the needed baseline of business processes are crucial in collaborative networks, both KM and subsequently KM systems play a vital role in achieving an effective collaborative network.
Effective KM systems are critical to the success of a collaborative network.
There are a number of different denitions of KM and KM systems and these concepts are difcult to dene (Earl 2001).
According to Schultze and Leidner (2002, 218) KM is dened as the generation, representation, storage, transfer, transformation, application, embedding, and protecting of organisational knowledge. A more concise denition of KM is to identify
and leverage the collective knowledge in an organisation to help the organisation compete (Alavi and Leidner 2001).
The practice of KM in itself is broad and covers many topics including business processes, business practices,
concepts, frameworks, methodologies, tools, and architecture. For example, the methodologies and frameworks include
knowledge creation (Nonaka and von Krogh 2009), knowledge assets (Wiig 1997; Wilkins, van Wegen, and De Hoog
1997), intellectual capital (Liebowitz and Wright 1999), strategy management (Drew 1999; Hendriks and Vriens 1999),
systems thinking (Rubenstein-Montano et al. 2001), articial intelligence (Liebowitz 2001), and knowledge inertia (Liao
2002). Likewise, KM is also used across all different industries including oil and gas (Preece et al. 2001), manufacturing
(Paiva, Roth, and Fensterseifer 2002), government (Liebowitz 1999), agriculture (Kristjanson et al. 2009), high-tech rms
(Collins and Smith 2006), and health care (Bose 2003). In fact, a recent survey of 342 managers on whether or not they
are knowledgeable about their companys usage of knowledge management and collaborative technologies indicated that
47% of companies have formal knowledge management initiatives or are planning them (Currier 2010). Given the
breadth of different methodologies, frameworks and industries that utilise KM, research topics are vast and numerous.
However, KM systems, much like KM, are also difcult to dene and there are a number of different denitions.
One denition of KM systems is that it captures, represents, and applies expert knowledge to an organisation (adopted
from Dhaliwal and Benbasat 1996). Basically KM systems refer to a class of information systems that manage
organisational knowledge (Alavi and Leidner 2001). As mentioned before, KM systems are employed across multiple
industries, in multiple ways, by a majority of companies in todays ever competitive marketplace.

International Journal of Production Research

5567

The current KM system literature can be grouped into four knowledge management processes: (1) knowledge
creation, (2) storage/retrieval, (3) transfer, and (4) application/use (Alavi and Leidner 2001). Our research focus is to
study and analyse the application and use of KM systems on utilisation and individual and organisational business performance. We draw on the tasktechnology t theory (Goodhue and Thompson 1995) and extend it to the collaborative
network/KM systems domain. To the best of our knowledge, this is the rst attempt to measure collaborative network/
KM systems using tasktechnology t. We employ a multiple-case study approach using three different organisations in
three different industries.
3. Theoretical background
3.1 Tasktechnology t
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) propose a model where tasks (dened as actions carried out by individuals in turning
inputs into outputs) and technology (dened as tools used by individuals in carrying out these tasks) predict a construct
called the tasktechnology t. The tasktechnology t is dened as the degree to which technology assists in performing
the respective tasks. This construct, combined with whether an individual utilises the technology, determines the impact
on an individuals performance. Utilisation of the technology may be either voluntary or mandatory for the individual.
Tasktechnology t theories are contingency theories that argue that the use of technology may result in different
outcomes depending on the task that it is used for (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). This theory proposes that if a
technology is utilised and it is a good t with the task it supports, then the technology will have a positive impact on
individual performance. While this model has been extended by Zigurs and Buckland (1998) to test the effect of
different types of tasks and technology on group performance, the theory has also been applied to several other areas of
information system research over the last 15 years. For example, the theory has been used to study how virtual teams
can match communication technologies to different types of interpersonal interactions (Maruping and Agarwal 2004) as
well as to study the effects, adoption, and impacts of mobile commerce (Gebauer and Shaw 2004; Lee, Cheng, and
Cheng 2007). Other ways the theory has been studied is in the use of simulation training for the military (Cane,
McCarthy, and Halawi 2010), the use of the web as an information source for international travel (DAmbra and Wilson
2004), the ease and use of user interfaces (Mathieson and Keil 1998), and the study of information technology in managerial decision making (Ferratt and Vlahos 1998).
3.2 Proposition development
We extend the tasktechnology t framework by Goodhue and Thompson (1995), where business process represents
tasks and KM systems represent technology. As such, t is dened as the degree to which KM systems assist an individual or organisation in performing their business process. The business processKM systems t construct combined
with whether an individual utilises a KM system determines the impact on an individual or organisations performance.
Our research model is described in Figure 1.
KM systems represent the technology aspect for our model. As dened by Goodhue and Thompson (1995), technology comprises tools used by individuals in carrying out their tasks. We posit that a KM system is a tool that manages
organisational knowledge and is used by individuals and organisations to perform and facilitate tasks. As such, a KM
system facilitates several elements of a collaborative network, that is, the ability to integrate data for various users and
to search for content (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh 2005).

Business process

Business
process-KM
system Fit

KM
systems
Utilisation

Figure 1. Research framework.

Individual and
organisational
performance

5568

Q. Cao et al.

A business process is an activity or set of activities that will accomplish a specic organisational goal. Business
processes are dened as any activity or group of activities that takes one or more inputs, transforms them, and provides
one or more outputs for its customers (Krajewski, Ritzman, and Malahortra 2010). In the tasktechnology t model,
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) dene tasks as actions carried out by individuals in turning inputs into outputs. We
claim that a business process contains one or more tasks as dened by Goodhue and Thompson (1995). As such, in our
research model, we substitute business process in place of task.
In Figure 1, business process consists of three characteristics: non-routineness, interdependence, and job title. A
business process is non-routine if there are a large number of exceptions and search is not logical or analytical (Perrow
1967; Thompson 1967; Goodhue 1995; Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Therefore, a non-routine business process is
one where individuals deal with ill-dened business problems or ad hoc business problems. In most organisations the
knowledge exists, either explicit or tacit, on how to deal with such non-routine business processes but an individual will
need a way to access that knowledge for it to be benecial. Interdependence is dened as dependence with other organisational units (Perrow 1967; Thompson 1967; Goodhue 1995; Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Some business processes
involve multiple organisational units and knowledge exists across these different units. In such cases, a KM system can
aid an individual in nding cross-organisational knowledge. The last characteristic of the business process construct is
job title, which is a pragmatic proxy to capture the differences of employee levels ranging from clerical users to highlevel managers (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Different levels of an organisation use a KM system to nd content for
different business processes. For example, a clerical employee may use a KM system to nd content for ordering supplies from a specic supplier and a high-level manager may use a KM system to nd content on how to conduct vendor
selections. While both employees are using the KM system in the same way, they are looking for different answers.
Another construct in Figure 1 is KM systems which consist of two characteristics: systems used and departments
(Goodhue and Thompson 1995). These characteristics allow us to analyse the data from the case study by grouping
departments and number of systems used. In order to measure the effect of a KM system, we need to understand how
many other systems an individual uses. For the department characteristic, we use it as a proxy measure to capture the
potentially different levels of attention paid by IS departments (Goodhue and Thompson 1995).
In our research model, we align the business process construct and the KM system construct to form the business
processKM system t. The business processKM system t is dened as the degree to which KM systems assist an
individual or organisation in performing business processes. The business processKM system t construct consists of
eight different factors adopted from Goodhue and Thompson (1995) with modications to t our case: data quality, locatability of data, authorisation, compatibility between systems, production timeliness, training and ease of use, system
reliability, and relationship with user. The rst ve factors focus on using content in facilitating business processes. For
example, data quality is measured by the detail and currency of the content (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). The content in a KM system must be kept up to date and old content must be systemically purged. The content must also be at
the right level of detail as too much detail can complicate an issue and not enough detail can obscure an issue. Locatability of content refers to the ease of determining what content is available and the ease of determining what the content means (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). From a KM system perspective, locatability is a measurement for how easy
it is to nd content in a KM system even on issues that rarely occur. Authorisation is dened as access to content that
is necessary for a participant to do his or her job (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Depending on the employee level,
content may be restricted in a KM system. External customers may have access to only a small percentage of an organisations content, clerical employees may have access to a little more content, and so forth. This measurement veries if
restricted content in a KM system is given to individuals or groups who need it in order for them to carry out their job
responsibilities. Compatibility is dened as the degree to which content from different IT systems can be consolidated
or compared without inconsistencies (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Although organisations strive to consolidate content into one KM system, as seen from our case study, content exists in multiple systems across an organisation. Compatibility veries if the content in the different systems are consistent. The fth factor that focuses on using content in
facilitating business processes, ease of use and proper training, is dened as the ease of using the KM system and
access to the proper amount of training to use the system (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Like any IT system, a KM
system must be easy to use and, if not, adequate training should be provided to use the KM system.
The next two factors, production timeliness and system reliability, focus on meeting day-to-day operations and the
last one, relationship, focuses on responding to changing business needs (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Timeliness is
dened as the degree to which the IT department meets its pre-dened production turnaround schedules (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995). A KM system is supported by either an internal IT department or by specialised vendors and these
groups set a maintenance schedule for upgrades and/or updates to the KM system. Timeliness measures how well these
groups meet their maintenance schedule, while reliability is dened as the dependability and consistency of access and
uptime of a KM system (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). As is true with any IT system, in order to use a KM system,

International Journal of Production Research

5569

the system must be up with little downtime, dependable, and free of major errors and defects. The last factor,
relationship with user, is dened as how well the IT department understands the business customers day-to-day operations, supports the business customer, and provides adequate turnaround to the business customers needs (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995). This denition also applies to a specialised vendor if they host the KM system. These eight components of the t construct are used to measure its effectiveness. Therefore our rst proposition is as follows:
Proposition 1: The business processKM system t will be affected by business process characteristics or KM system
characteristics.

The t construct combined with whether an individual utilises the KM system determines the impact on an individual
or an organisations performance. Utilisation of the technology may be voluntary or mandatory for the individual or
group. Utilisation is measured by a users perceived dependence on the KM system and nally the (perceived) individual and organisational performance impact.
Individual and organisational performance impact relates to the accomplishment of a portfolio of tasks by an individual or group (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). As demonstrated in Goodhue and Thompsons (1995) research,
performance impacts are a function of both tasktechnology t and utilisation and not just utilisation. In the spirit of this
research, we posit the t of business process and KM systems will inuence the effectiveness of collaborative networks
on individual and organisational performance. Therefore, adopting the tasktechnology t model proposed by Goodhue
and Thompson (1995), our second and third propositions are as follows:
Proposition 2: User evaluations of business processKM system t will positively inuence the utilisation of KM systems by
individuals.
Proposition 3: User evaluations of business processKM system t and utilisation will positively inuence perceived individual and organisational performance impacts respectively.

In the next section, we describe the case study methodology that we employed.
3.3 Methodology
We pursue an explanatory case study method as opposed to what is commonly referred to as an exploratory or descriptive study. Since we are investigating causal explanations rather than initial descriptions of some occurrence or an event,
we developed theoretical propositions before collecting data (Yin 2009). One advantage to our case study approach is it
allows us to understand a complex organisational phenomenon or processes within a real-world setting by identifying
how and why particular phenomena or events take place (Yin 2009). Alternatively, other methods such as surveys may
provide greater control but may also be limited in their context or ability to nd alternative explanations (Yin 2009).
We chose to conduct a multiple-site case study with the organisation as the primary unit of analysis. Since multiple
sites were selected, our ndings may be more robust than if we had chosen just a single case study (Yin 2009). As
such, we collected data from a major business communication provider, a networking infrastructure solutions provider,
and a GPS technology provider (referred to hereafter as BCP, NIS, and GPS, respectively).
BCP is a global organisation that has received numerous leadership, customer service, and communication awards.
They provide products, services, and support to a global market either directly or through partner channels. Their client
base is vast and ranges across multiple markets. At BCP, we interviewed two employees, an IT manager/solution architect and a global business owner of web and knowledge management. The two interviewees use the KM system but are
from different departments, have different job responsibilities, and are located in different parts of the country.
NIS is a global organisation that has received numerous awards including product of the year, best practice, hottest
growth, and fastest growing company, to name a few. They provide products through resellers, distributors, and original
equipment manufacturer channels. At NIS, we interviewed a senior manager of technical support in the global services
division. The interviewee uses a KM system to perform some of his duties.
The third company, GPS, is a global leader in GPS technology, products, and services. GPS has also won many best
product and innovation awards. Their clients range from multinational companies to individual consumers. At GPS, we
interviewed one employee, the outbound logistics manager.
We selected these specic organisations for several reasons. First, these three companies are competing in different
markets, with different products, services, and customers. This allows us to draw comparisons between different companies and their KM systems post-adoption and performance. Second, these three companies use a KM system to support
their business strategy. The KM system is an integral part of business operations and this allows us to study the KM

5570

Q. Cao et al.

system in routine and non-routine business processes. Lastly, these three organisations were chosen because we had
access to managers within these companies that are actual users of the KM system. The different managers allowed us
to study the KM system post-adoption across different business processes. That is, these managers are actual users of
the system as opposed to executives who do not use the system but are concerned with how the KM systems align with
their strategic goals. In addition, another advantage to using these managers is that they often represent departments or
areas where there are multiple users or analysts. As such, our interviews represent problems that are user specic but
also contain elements of multiple users. In particular, we interviewed one employee each from NIS and GPS and two
employees from BCP, where we asked general questions about job responsibilities and length of employment at their
respective organisations. We then followed up with more specic questions about KM system use, nding KM
solutions, relationships with the IT department, and handling customer problems. Interviews were conducted on a
condential basis but were recorded with the employees permission. Afterwards, we transcribed the recording and
analysed each of the interviews. Finally, we went through each transcript and sought to identify the theoretical concepts
from our propositions in the raw data.
Throughout this process, we use the denitions of the dimensions of business processKM system t from prior literature on tasktechnology t (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Using similar denitions from prior literature helps
ensure that we will be able to accurately identify the relevant information from our case studies. One question that often
arises in case studies is whether ones ndings are applicable outside of the study context. Another question with respect
to case studies has to deal with reliability. Reliability refers to the stability, accuracy, and precision of measurement. As
such, we have documented our procedures and developed a case study protocol so that this work can be replicated. To
further increase our studys reliability, we developed a case study database that includes interview recordings, transcripts,
and previous literature that was used to develop our constructs and interview questions.
In the next section, we discuss our case study ndings in the context of the propositions from our business processKM
system research framework.
4. Results and discussion
In the previous section, we described the methodology employed to examine our propositions about the business
processKM system t. This section explains how we used our propositions on business process and KM system
characteristics as well as business processKM system t to seek evidence related to these propositions. We identify
direct quotations from our interviews that align with our propositions. The case studies are presented in line with the
different dimensions of our propositions.
Proposition 1 is related to how business processKM system t is affected by both business process characteristics
and KM system characteristics. Business process characteristics have been broken down into three dimensions (Goodhue
and Thompson 1995): non-routineness, interdependence, and job title. For example, our informants from BCP, NIS, and
GPS discussed several issues with respect to non-routineness within the business process. In the case of BCP, one example of a non-routine issue that arose was customer service having to support a business customer that was on a unique
technology platform that was not supported by BCP. There were support documents in the KM system for other
technology platforms, but not for this specic business customer. This caused the customer service agent at BCP to
spend additional time in assisting the business customer. As a result, the alignment between business process and their
KM system was affected by this business process characteristic.
To no surprise, all three organisations provided examples that demonstrated non-routineness in their business
processes. With respect to questions on the frequency of dealing with customer problems that involve more than one
business function (i.e., interdependence dimensions), in most cases the occurrence of these problems was relatively low.
BCP indicated that were of an interdependent nature occurred about 20% of the time, whereas the other cases occurred
less than 10% of the time. Along with business process characteristics, KM system characteristics are expected to affect
the business processKM system t. The technology characteristics can be broken out into two dimensions: system used
and department. Our informants indicated the types of systems used and by what departments. For example, BCP
mostly uses email and the web but is involved in KM implementation. NIS also uses multiple systems including
networking, a knowledge base tool, and call tracking. Likewise, GPS uses various collaboration tools such as email,
calendaring, and an Oracle CRM system, to name a few. As such, we conclude that our informants are aware of the
systems used and the respective department(s).
The business processKM system t consists of eight dimensions following previous research on tasktechnology t
(Goodhue and Thompson 1995). These dimensions are data quality, locatability, authorisation, compatibility, ease/training, timeliness, reliability, and relationship. As previously mentioned, the rst ve dimensions focus on using content in

International Journal of Production Research

5571

facilitating business processes, while the next two dimensions focus on day-to-day operations, and the last one focuses
on responding to changing business needs (Goodhue and Thompson 1995).
Data quality is measured by the relevancy and currency of the content. Our informants make a variety of statements
that indicate the importance of data or content quality with respect to business processKM system t and its perceived
performance impact. For example, all three companies experience data quality issues but for different reasons. BCP
experiences data quality issues due to the KM system tool, whereas NIS and GPS experience data quality issues because
of business process issues. This is consistent with the tasktechnology t literature with regards to non-routineness and
data quality (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). All three companies have a relatively high degree of non-routineness and
data quality issues.
While data quality focuses on the relevancy and currency of the content, locatability of content focuses on the ease
with which content is available and determining what the content means. Our informants were asked if the content was
easy to nd in their respective KM systems.
Both BCP and NIS experience locatability issues with regard to KM system content, which is also consistent with
the tasktechnology t literature (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Both BCP and NIS have high non-routineness and
low locatability. GPS also experiences locatability issues with tacit knowledge but not explicit knowledge. An example
of tacit knowledge is the shared impressions of a vendor during a vendor selection process. The vendor may look
acceptable on paper, but after conference calls and face-to-face meetings it was determined that the vendor was not
acceptable (e.g., not trustworthy). This type of tacit knowledge is hard to document but is important for the organisation
to capture. Tasktechnology t literature also shows a positive relationship between the number of systems used (a KM
system dimension) and locatability. Both informants at BCP and NIS report that they use three different systems to
perform their respective jobs and have low locatability, whereas GPS uses multiple systems with a higher degree of
locatability.
While the authorisation dimension is dened as access to content necessary to do a job, our informants at BCP and
NIS responded by saying that they had access to the necessary content they needed to do their jobs or were not aware
of not having access to the necessary content. However, the outbound logistics manager at GPS indicated he could
assess the general KM system, but he needed to apply for clearance to assess specialised KM databases.
Likewise, the compatibility dimension depends of the respective organisation. For example, we asked each informant
if all the content was in one KM system or in different systems and, if different systems, whether or not the content
between systems was consistent. For BCP and NIS, there are different systems and there may not be consistency
between the systems. This is consistent with the tasktechnology t literature with regards to non-routineness and compatibility (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Statements made by (middle-level management) informants from BCP and
NIS indicate a high degree of non-routineness and low compatibility. For GPS, there are several different KM systems
in the outbound logistics department but mostly a CRM-based KM system and a production-based KM system are used.
According to the informant, these two KM systems are very differentKM systems in my department are not fully
compatible with other KM systems in GPS.
The next dimension that focuses on using content in facilitating business processes is ease of use and proper
training. Our informants from BCP, NIS, and GPS all indicated that the KM system was easy to use and that there was
adequate training. With respect to day-to-day dimensions, we asked each informant whether they felt that the IT department met its service level agreements for the KM system (timeliness) and whether they could count on the KM system
(reliability). This appears to be consistent with the tasktechnology t literature with regards to systems used and reliability (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Both BCP and NIS experience reliability issues with the KM system, while
GPS appears to have reliability issues with the content in the KM system. The informants from BCP and NIS describe
using three different systems with low reliability, whereas GPS informants use several systems with high reliability in
terms of the KM system technology but may lack some consistency in terms of content. The nal dimension with
respect to business processKM system t is relationship with user, which focuses on being able to respond to changing
needs. Our informants were asked whether they deal with the IT group directly, whether they think the IT group understands their specic day-to-day processes, whether they take problems seriously, and whether problems get addressed in
a timely manner. In all three cases there appear to be some serious issues or concerns with respect to this dimension.
The business owners from both BCP and NIS indicate that they deal with the IT group directly, but there are some
issues with resolving problems in a timely manner. GPS indicates that IT is very responsive to xing bugs, but they are
not equipped to deal with information in the systems as they are not the domain experts of KM system content. According to tasktechnology t theory, this dimension helps align the business process with the IT department (i.e., technology). Unfortunately, we nd marginal support for this dimension.
There appears to be considerable evidence in support of proposition 1. Evidence from our case study links the
dimensions of the business process construct such as non-routineness, interdependence, and job title to the business

5572

Q. Cao et al.

processKM system t construct. Specically the dimensions of the business process demonstrate a relationship with
quality of data, compatibility, and locatability of the business processKM system t. Likewise, the dimension of
systems used, which is a proxy for the KM system construct, shows a relationship with locatability and reliability in the
business processKM system t. Therefore, a relationship exists between business process and KM system characteristics to business processKM system t, which is consistent with the tasktechnology t literature (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995). Table 1 summarises the evidence we found between business process characteristics and KM system
characteristics to business processKM system t among the three case studies.
Proposition 2 relates to whether business processKM system t can predict utilisation. We measure utilisation by
perceived dependence. Our informants were asked to what degree they are dependent on the KM system. We show a
mixed reaction to utilisation, which may have more to do with job title than the business processKM system t. The
business managers described scenarios where they (and their customers) were dependent, whereas the IT manager
showed no dependence but described how customers were dependent. From a business managers standpoint there is
evidence that business processKM system t inuences utilisation but not so from the IT managers perspective. This
may be due to the IT managers job, where he is to maintain the KM system as opposed to using the systems for dayto-day activities. Table 2 summarises the evidence we found between business processKM system t and utilisation
among the three case studies.
Proposition 3 is related to business processKM system t and utilisation to perceived individual and organisational
performance. Since we are interested in what inuence the business processKM system t has on perceived
performance, we asked our informants whether the KM system has a positive impact on effectiveness and organisational
productivity and whether it is important and valuable to them in their job. Our informants indicate that the KM system
does have a positive impact and is important to their performance as well as to the organisation. That is, along with our
ndings from the case studies and the literature, business processKM system t and utilisation will directly inuence
perceived performance and the effectiveness of collaborative networks. For example, the business owner at NIS indicated that when the KM system is working properly (e.g., in alignment with business processes), then it is quite helpful.
In addition, the logistics manager at GPS described how the KM system helps with their business process and increases

Table 1. Evidence of proposition 1 BP characteristics and KMS characteristics to BPKMS t characteristics.

BPKMS t characteristics
Fit
characteristic
Data quality
Locatability
Authorisation
Compatibility
Ease of use/
training
Timeliness
Reliability
Relationship
with user
Key quotes:

BCP

NIS

GPS

U
U

U
U

U
U

U
U
U
U
U

U
U
U

U
U
U

U
U
U

Because of the limitations of the tool,

we are not able to publish as we need
to. I would say a good percentage of
the content is stale or partly outdated. I
would say it could be as high as 20%.If
you ask the business, No. There is a
constant struggle with relevancy and I
would say it is not easy to nd [the
content] for the most part. I have
counterparts who deal with the KM
implementation who spend more than
50% of their time on it [ill-dened
customer problems].

Complexity in trying to access

your content not within the
tool. Business process issues
not technology issues.

The challenge for us is how to use

KM to catch the illusive tacit
knowledge and how to nd them
quickly when we need them. In
general we can easily nd basic CRM
content in the KM system, but not all
the tacit content. In a given day, our
department normally spends a bit more
than half of the time to deal with nonroutine issues. KM system in my
department is not fully compatible
with other KM systems in GPS. We
often rely on KM to handle nonrepetitive tasks.

Note: The checkmarks indicate evidence from the interviews of a t characteristic that was affected by either a business process characteristic or a KM
system characteristic.

International Journal of Production Research

5573

Table 2. Evidence of proposition 2 BPKMS t to utilisation.

Utilisation
Job title

BCP

NIS

GPS

IT manager
Business
owner
Outbound
logistics
manger
Key quote

No
Yes

Yes

Yes

For my job Im not dependent on it all,

but for my customers they are very
dependent.

[The] KM system is a part of

My initial reaction is very.
Everything we are doing relies on the many decision making arsenals we
use every day.
knowledge system.

Table 3. Evidence of proposition 3 BPKMS t and utilisation to individual and organisational performance impacts.
Individual and organisational performance Impacts
Job title

BCP

NIS

GPS

IT manager
Business owner
Outbound logistics manger
Key quote

Yes
Yes

Yes! It is critical to our strategy

and pivotal to our success. All of
strategy is based around
knowledge sharing culture and our
KM tool provides that.

Yes

If working properly, yes

Yes, I believe until we have a
working system we didnt
realise how much of an aid it
is.

Yes
Positive! KM system helps us
improve our business process and
increase productivity. It also helps
creating a knowledge sharing
culture our company is pursuing.

productivity. Likewise, at BCP, the business processKM system t and the utilisation of the system together led to
decreased call-handling time for the agents as non-routine content was easy to nd within the KM system. There
appears to be considerable evidence in support of proposition 3. Table 3 summarises the evidence we found between
business processKM system t and utilisation to individual and organisational performance.
5. Lessons learned
This study identies the t between business process and KM systems amongst ve of the eight dimensions. We do nd
inconsistent results on whether the t between business process and the KM system affects utilisation; however, it
appears the results may be dependent on job title. In addition, this research explores and discovers that both business
processKM system t and the KM system utilisation positively inuence business performance. The ultimate goal of
any organisation is to improve its performance as well as its employees performance. The business processKM system
t and KM system usage positively lead to increases in performance. That is, the knowledge stored and used in the KM
system between individuals, departments, and organisations within the value chain can play a role in increasing the performance and effectiveness of a collaborative network. This section discusses the studys implications and insights for
researchers and managers and then its limitations and future research.
5.1 Implications
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the rst to apply the tasktechnology t theory exploring the business
processKM system t and its impact on business performance in the KM research domain. From the theoretical perspective, this study underscores the importance of the t between business process and knowledge management systems
in achieving a successful collaborative network. Without exploring the impact of business processKM system t on
KM system utilisation and impacts of business processKM system t and KM system utilisation on business performance, the salient critical success factors of a KM system would not have been revealed. As a result, this study adds to
the KM system literature by demonstrating the signicance of a conceptual model derived from the tasktechnology t
theory.

5574

Q. Cao et al.

From a managerial perspective, Chief Information Ofcers (CIOs) and other business administrators can use this case
study as a framework to understand elements of the t between business process and KM systems, which will lead to
higher perceived individual and organisational performance. For example, our case study demonstrated that non-routine
business processes have a negative relationship with the data quality of the content. This is a troubling trend since nonroutine business processes should have higher quality content as employees may need more assistance in the process. As
such, administrators should spend more time and effort on increasing the data quality of content for non-routine business
processes. Another nding from our case study is the relationship between non-routine business processes and compatibility and locatability. This is another example where administrators can spend more time and effort on increasing the
compatibility of content in different systems and the ability to locate content for non-routine business processes. These
elements combined with other t elements such as reliability and ease of use/training can ultimately lead to higher perceived individual and organisational performance. Increased business performance using a KM system can lead to a more
effective collaborative network, thus improving an organisations competitive advantage.
5.2 Limitations and future research
There are some limitations of this study that warrant further discussion and need to be kept in mind when interpreting
the results. First, this study employs a multiple-case study approach on three high-tech companies in the United States.
While multiple-case studies allow for cross-case analysis (Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead 1987), caution needs to be
taken when generalising the results of this research to other industrial settings or applying the framework generated from
this study to companies in other cultural contexts. As such, one avenue of future research could increase the number of
cases, along with expanding the case study approach to either individual categories of industries or to a broader collection of industries. Second, the KM system application in the organisations we studied was limited in scope (e.g. specic
functional areas and not enterprise wide). As our participants highlighted during the interviews, the limited scope of the
KM system project prevented them from seeing the value/benets of enterprise-wide KM system applications and the
impact they have on the effectiveness of collaborative networks. A follow-up study could examine the differences in
end-users reactions to the holistic applications of KM systems.
References
Alavi, M., and D. E. Leidner. 2001. Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly 25: 107136.
Ambrosio, J., 2000. Knowledge Management Mistakes: Experts Reveal Five Pitfalls to Avoid When Starting Down the Knowledge Management Path. [Online]. (Accessed 8/29/2011) http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/46693/Knowledge_Management_Mistakes.
AMR Research. 2007. The Knowledge Management Spending Report, 20072008. http://www.gartner.com/technology/supplychain-professionals.jsp?pmillid=20768.
Benbasat, I., D. K. Goldstein, and M. Mead. 1987. The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly
11: 369386.
Bose, R. 2003. Knowledge Management-Enabled Health Care Management Systems: Capabilities, Infrastructure, and DecisionSupport. Expert Systems with Applications 24: 5971.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., and H. Afsarmanesh. 2003. Elements of a Base VE Infrastructure. Computers in Industry 51: 139163.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., and H. Afsarmanesh. 2005. Collaborative Networks: A New Scientic Discipline. Journal of Intelligent
Manufacturing 16: 439452.
Cane, S., R. McCarthy, and L. Halawi. 2010. Ready for Battle? A Phenomenological Study of Military Simulation Systems Journal
of Computer Information Systems 50: 3340.
Collins, C. J., and K. G. Smith. 2006. Knowledge Exchange and Combination: The Role Of Human Resource Practices in the
Performance of High Technology Firms. Academy of Management Journal 49: 544560.
Currier, G. 2010. Knowledge Management and Collaboration Create Knowledge Sharing. Baseline: Ziff Davis Enterprise.
DAmbra, J., and C. S. Wilson. 2004. Use of the World Wide Web for International Travel: Integrating the Construct of Uncertainty
in Information Seeking and the Task-Technology Fit (TTF) Model. Journal of the American Society for Information Science
and Technology 55: 731742.
Dhaliwal, J. S., and I. Benbasat. 1996. The Use and Effects of Knowledge-Based System Explanations: Theoretical Foundations and
a Framework for Empirical Evaluation. Information Systems Research 7: 342362.
Drew, S. 1999. Building Knowledge Management into Strategy: Making Sense of a New Perspective. Long Range Planning 32:
130136.
Earl, M. 2001. Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems 18:
215233.
Ferratt, T. W., and G. E. Vlahos. 1998. An Investigation of Task-Technology Fit for Managers in Greece and the US. European
Journal of Information Systems 7: 123136.

International Journal of Production Research

5575

Gebauer, J., and M. J. Shaw. 2004. Success Factors and Impacts of Mobile Business Applications: Results from a Mobile E-Procurement Study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8: 1941.
Goodhue, D. L. 1995. Understanding User Evaluations of Information Systems. Management Science 41: 18271844.
Goodhue, D. L., and R. L. Thompson. 1995. Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS Quarterly 19: 213236.
Gunasekaran, A., and E. W. T. Ngai. 2007. Knowledge Management in 21st Century Manufacturing. International Journal of Production Research 45: 23912418.
Hendriks, P. H. J., and D. J. Vriens. 1999. Knowledge-Based Systems and Knowledge Management: Friends or Foes? Information
& Management 35: 113125.
Jagdev, H. S., and K. D. Thoben. 2001. Anatomy of Enterprise Collaborations. Production Planning & Control 12: 437451.
Krajewski, L., L. Ritzman, and M. Malahortra. 2010. Operations Management: Processes & Supply Chains. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Kristjanson, P., R. S. Reid, N. Dickson, W. C. Clark, D. Romney, R. Puskur, S. MacMillan, and D. Grace. 2009. Linking International Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for Sustainable Development. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 106: 50475052.
Kulkarni, U. R., S. Ravindran, and R. Freeze. 2007. A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Development and
Empirical Validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 23: 309.
Lee, C.-C., H. K. Cheng, and H.-H. Cheng. 2007. An Empirical Study of Mobile Commerce in Insurance Industry: TaskTechnology
Fit and Individual Differences. Decision Support Systems 43: 95110.
Liao, S.-H. 2002. Problem Solving and Knowledge Inertia. Expert Systems with Applications 22: 2131.
Liebowitz, J. 1999. Knowledge Management Handbook. Boca Raton, CA: CRC Press.
Liebowitz, J. 2001. Knowledge Management and Its Link to Articial Intelligence. Expert Systems with Applications 20: 16.
Liebowitz, J., and K. Wright. 1999. Does Measuring Knowledge Make Cents? Expert Systems with Applications 17: 99103.
Maruping, L. M., and R. Agarwal. 2004. Managing Team Interpersonal Processes through Technology: A Task-Technology Fit Perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 975990.
Mathieson, K., and M. Keil. 1998. Beyond the Interface: Ease of Use and Task/Technology Fit. Information & Management 34:
221230.
Nachiappan, S. P., A. Gunasekaran, and N. Jawahar. 2007. Knowledge Management System for Operating Parameters in Two-Echelon VMI Supply Chains. International Journal of Production Research 45: 24792505.
Nonaka, I., and G. Von Krogh. 2009. PerspectiveTacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in
Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory. Organization Science 20: 635652.
Paiva, E. L., A. V. Roth, and J. E. Fensterseifer. 2002. Focusing Information in Manufacturing: A Knowledge Management Perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems 102: 381389.
Perrow, C. 1967. A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Organizations. American Sociological Review 32: 194208.
Peyman, A., M. Jafari, and M. Fathian. 2005. Exploring Failure Factors of Implementing Knowledge Management in Organizations.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. Available online at http://www.tlainc.com/articl85.htm
Preece, A., A. Flett, D. Sleeman, D. Curry, N. Meany, and P. Perry. 2001. Better Knowledge Management through Knowledge Engineering. IEEE Intelligent Systems 16: 3643.
Rubenstein-Montano, B., J. Liebowitz, J. Buchwalter, D. McCaw, B. Newman, and K. Rebeck. 2001. A Systems Thinking Framework for Knowledge Management. Decision Support Systems 31: 516.
Schultze, U., and D. E. Leidner. 2002. Studying Knowledge Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions. MIS Quarterly 26: 213242.
Tanriverdi, H. 2005. Information Technology Relatedness, Knowledge Management Capability, and Performance of Multibusiness
Firms. MIS Quarterly 29: 311334.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wang, E., G. Klein, and J. J. Jiang. 2007. IT Support in Manufacturing Firms for a Knowledge Management Dynamic Capability
Link to Performance. International Journal of Production Research 45: 24192434.
Wiig, K. M. 1997. Knowledge Management: Where Did It Come from and Where Will It Go? Expert Systems with Applications
13: 114.
Wilkins, J., B. Van Wegen, and R. De Hoog. 1997. Understanding and Valuing Knowledge Assets: Overview and Method. Expert
Systems with Applications 13: 5572.
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zigurs, I., and B. K. Buckland. 1998. A Theory of Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems Effectiveness. MIS Quarterly
22: 313334.

Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.