A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Developmentand Empirical Validation

A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical Validation
Author(s): Uday R. Kulkarni, Sury Ravindran and Ronald Freeze

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Winter, 2006/2007), pp.
309-347
Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398863 .
Accessed: 11/07/2012 05:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Management Information Systems.
http://www.jstor.org
A KnowledgeManagementSuccess
Model: TheoreticalDevelopmentand
EmpiricalValidation
UDAY R. KULKARNI,SURY RAVINDRAN,AND RONALD FREEZE
Uday R. KULKARNI is an AssociateProfessor of Information Systemsat theW.P.

CareySchoolofBusiness,ArizonaStateUniversity. He receivedhisB.S. inElectrical
EngineeringfromtheIndianInstitute ofTechnology, Bombay,India,hisMBA from
theIndianInstitute of Management, Calcutta,India,and hisPh.D. in Management
InformationSystemsfromtheUniversity ofWisconsin, Milwaukee.Priortohisdoc-
hewas employedforfiveyearsincorporate
toralstudies, planningandcontrolareas.
His current
research interestsincludetheuse ofrelationalviewsfordecisionsupport
and applicationof artificialintelligence
techniques to manufacturing problems.He
has publishedarticlesin IEEE Transactions on Knowledgeand Data Engineering,
DecisionSciencesJournal, JournalofManagement InformationSystems, Decision
SupportSystems, andEuropeanJournalofOperations Research.
Sury Ravindran is anAssistant ofInformation

Professor SystemsattheW.P.Carey
School of Business,ArizonaStateUniversity. He receivedhis M.S. in Operations
Management fromtheIndianInstitute ofManagement, Calcutta,India,his B.Tech,
inChemicalEngineering fromtheIndianInstituteofTechnology,Madras,India,and
his Ph.D. in BusinessAdministration-Information Systems from theUniversity of
TexasatAustin.He haspublishedarticlesinManagement Science,JournalofMan-
agement Information Systems,Communications oftheACM,andIEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Priorto enteringacademia,he workedforfirms
suchas PriceWaterhouse IndiaandTexasInstruments India.His researchinterests
includeinnovative practicesand trendsin theIT industry,and value of IT invest-
ments.Currently, he is workingon researchprojectsintheareaofknowledgeman-
agement.
Ronald Freeze is a visiting ofInformation

Professor
Assistant SystemsattheW.P.
CareySchoolofBusiness,ArizonaStateUniversity.He receivedhisPh.D. in Infor-
mationSystemsat ArizonaStateUniversity.His broadresearcharea is knowledge
management. His researchhasbeen intheJournalofKnowledge
published Manage-
mentas wellas AMCIS, ICIS, andHICSS conferenceproceedings.
Abstract: We examinea knowledgemanagement (KM) successmodelthatincor-

poratesthequalityofavailableknowledgeandKM systems builtto shareandreuse
knowledge suchas determinantsofusers'perception ofusefulnessandusersatisfac-
tionwithan organization'sKM practices.Perceivedusefulness andusersatisfaction,
in turn,affectknowledge use,whichin ourmodelis a measureofhowwellknowl-
edgesharing and reuseactivities byan organization.
areinternalized Ourmodelin-
cludesorganizationalsupportstructureas a contributing
factortothesuccessofKM
JournalofManagement Winter2006-7,Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 309-347.

Systems/
Information
2007 M.E. Sharpe,Inc.
0742-1222/2007 $9.50 + 0.00.
1222230311
DOI 10.2753/MIS0742-
3 10 KULKARNI, RAVINDRAN, AND FREEZE
systemimplementation. Data collectedfrom150 knowledge workers froma variety

oforganizations confirmed 10 of 13 hypothesized
relationships.
Notably,theorgani-
zationalsupport ofleadership
factors commitment, supervisorandcoworker support,
as well as incentives, or indirectly
directly supportedsharedknowledgequalityand
knowledge use. In linewiththeproposedmodel,thestudylendssupport totheargu-
mentthat,in additionto KM systemsquality,firmsmustpay carefulattention to
championing andgoal setting as well as designingadequaterewardsystems forthe
ultimate successoftheseefforts. Thisis oneofthefirststudiesthatencompasses both
thesupply(knowledgecontribution) anddemand(knowledgereuse)sidesofKM in
thesamemodel.It providesmorethananecdotalevidenceoffactors thatdetermine
successfulKM systemimplementations. Unlikeearlierstudiesthatonlydeal with
knowledge-sharing incentivesor qualityof sharedknowledge, we presentand em-
piricallyvalidatean integrated modelthatincludesknowledgesharingand knowl-
edgequalityandtheirlinksto thedesiredoutcome - namely, knowledge reuse.
Key words and phrases: information

systemssuccess,knowledgemanagement,
knowledgemanagement success,knowledge
management systems, knowledgequal-
systemquality,usersatisfaction.
reuse,knowledgesharing,
ity,knowledge
Knowledge management(KM) is evolving intoa strategically important areafor

mostorganizations. Broadly, KM can be viewed as the processby whichorganiza-
tionsleverageandextractvaluefromtheirintellectual orknowledgeassets.Knowl-
edge has been describedas information combinedwithexperience,context,
interpretation,andreflection [19]. Knowledgeis embeddedandflowsthrough mul-
tipleentities
within a firm,including individualswith domain expertise,specificbest-
knownmethods, or lessonslearnedfromsimilarexperiences, documents, routines,
systems, andmethods.
Managingthisdiversesetof assetssuccessfully, so thatvalue is deliveredto the
firmas wellas theindividuals (knowledge workers) whouse theseassets,is an enor-
moustask.The knowledge-based perspective ofthe firm[17,64, 78] postulates that
knowledgeassetsproducelong-term benefitssuch as competitive advantageand
sustainabilityin thefaceofa fluctuating economicclimate.The long-term natureof
returnsmakesitextremely difficult
tomeasurethesuccessofKM initiatives interms
ofbusinessbenefits, whicharepresumed toreflect
theeffectiveness ofa KM strategy.
As a result,thereis a lackofadequatetheoretical modelingandempiricalexamina-
tionoffactors leadingto KM success.Therefore, in thispaper,we developandem-
piricallytesta theoreticalmodelofKM success,partofwhichis derivedfromprior
information systems(IS) research. We choseto partially base ourmodelon theIS
successmodelsof DeLone and McLean (D&M) [23, 24] and Seddon[76, 77] be-
cause theyhavea history ofsuccessfulapplication andempirical testing.
We havedesignedourstudyas a cross-sectional studyofKM practiceanditssuc-
cess.Therearetwosignificant departures we havemadefromtheD&M andSeddon
IS successmodels.The firstdeparture is thatwe havelookedat KM systemimple-
A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SUCCESS MODEL 3 11
mentation-related endeavors(also looselyreferred to as KM initiatives or efforts in

theliterature) ofa firmandnotKM systems inisolation.KM initiatives (accordingto
theensembleviewof theinformation technology [IT] artifact describedlater)in-
clude,in addition tothe KM the of
system, development organizational arrangements,
policies,processes,andincentives toenabletheeffective management anduse ofthe
technology or KM system.In thisstudy, we look at themanagement and organiza-
tionalfactors, including leadership, supervisor, and work groupsupport, andtheuse
ofincentives toencourage knowledge and
sharing reuse.Theseconddeparture is that
insteadof studying a singlesystemin a particular organization, we resortto a more
generalized, broader studyacrossdifferent organizations. (Strictly
speaking, theD&M
modelis notrestricted tothesuccessofa singlesystem, butthatis thewaymostprior
researchers haveusedthatmodel.)In thisway,we haveusedtheD&M andSeddon
modelsas guidingframeworks. We therefore havebuiltourownjustification and
support for our proposedempirical model. Thus the D&M and Seddon models are
usedtojustifysomeof thefactorsin ourmodel.We use othertheoretical bases for
someoftheother(organizational) factors includedinthemodel.
We recognizethatITs playan important roleinthefirm'sabilityto applyexisting
knowledge effectively and to create new knowledge [3].Advancedtechnologies (e.g.,
secureintranets, browsers withdashboards andportals, intelligentsearchtechniques,
semanticmodelingof knowledgeontologies,contextual taxonomies)maybe suc-
cessfully deployed in KM to
systems manage intra- and interfirm knowledge.KM,
is a
however, intrinsicallymultidisciplinary on
conceptdrawing organizational learn-
ing,organizational behavior, organizational strategy, sociology, andso on [5]. Hence,
we includeorganizational factors thatcan affect thesuccessofIT inourresearch.
KM systems areineffective iftheyarenotused.As pointedoutbythechiefinfor-
mationofficer (CIO) of grocerydistributor and retailerGiantEagle,theprevailing
competitive cultureamongmanagers inthisorganization actedas a barrier toknowl-
edge sharingand use of theKM systems, and thiswas an issue thathad to be ad-
dressedbyshowing themthebenefits ofusingthesystem[68].In a similarvein,other
evaluations[19, 72] of KM practicesin a numberof firmshaveshownthatlack of
attention to socialandculturalaspectsmaybe impairing theeffectiveness ofpurely
technological implementations. It is clear that the IT component (which is theKM
system) of the KM initiatives undertaken by a firm must be complemented bya setof
organizational mechanisms thatencourageandpromote thesharing/reuse oforgani-
zationalknowledge.
Inthisview,termed as theensemble viewoftechnology artifacts[51], anIT artifact1
may be a central element, but it is only one element in a "package"thatalso includes
thecomponents required toapplythattechnical artifact tosomesocioeconomic activ-
ity.KlingandScacchi[51] further developthisensembleviewtoincludethecommit-
ments,additional resourcessuchas training, skilledstaff, and supportservices,and
of
thedevelopment organizational arrangements, policies,and incentives to enable
theeffective management anduse ofnewtechnologies.
Insteadoftakinga narrow toolviewoftheIT artifact, we createa modelthattakes
theensembleviewof theartifact, and includesomekeyorganizational factorsthat
312 KULKARNI, RAVINDRAN, AND FREEZE
complement thetechnology - thatis, theknowledgemanagement system(KMS).

One criticalaspectof KM initiatives undertakenby a firmis containedin thework
flowsandprocessesthatencompasstheprocesscapability aspectoftheoverallman-
of
agement knowledge withinan Our
organization. model focuseson theusefulness
of systems(KM systems)froma user'sviewpoint and, insteadofa separateprocess
capabilityconstruct,itincludesscale itemson workflowintheknowledge use con-
struct describedlater.Moreover,itis augmentedbymanagement andorganizational
support factors.
In ourmodel,a KM system(whichcorresponds tothetoolviewoftheIT artifact)
is a component.Wepresent anempirically testablemodelthatproposesthata combi-
nationof existingknowledgeassets,KM systems, factors
and organizational/social
affect thesuccessofKM systemimplementation.
KM SuccessModel
We start witha discussion of how priorresearch intheareaofIS canbe built
upontofitthecontextofKM. OurKM successmodelusesideasandconstructs from
fromIS successtoKM success
theIS successmodelsdescribedbelow.Transitioning
requiresthe and
consideration inclusionof organizational
appropriate drawn
factors
fromorganizational
behavior,economics,and otherareasofresearch.
IS SuccessModel
DeLone andMcLean [23] compileda taxonomy of six IS successcategories (Infor-
mationQuality,SystemQuality,IS Use, User Satisfaction, IndividualImpact,and
Organizational Impact)froma comprehensive reviewof different IS successmea-
suresandproposeda modelincluding"temporal and causal" interdependenciesbe-
tweenthesecategories.IS researchers havevalidatedthemeasuresandempirically
testedtheassociations among them [45, 71, 77,79, 80]. D&M [24] maderefinements
totheiroriginalmodelbasedan evaluation oftherichresearchstreamthatemanated
fromtheirinitialmodel.
One significantrefinement ofD&M's modelis presented in Seddon[76]. Seddon
argued that D&M combined process and variance models of IS successdepending
onthreedistinct meanings thatcan be attributedto theIS Use measure. Onemeaning
of IS Use, a variablethatproxiesforthebenefits fromuseygivesriseto a variance
modelthatlinksinformation qualityand systemqualityto IS successdefinedin
termsofbenefits fromIS Use. It is thismeaningthatis mostrelevant toourcontext,
as we elaboratelater.Based on thismeaning, Seddonrespecified D&M's modelus-
ingperceptual measuresof netbenefits of an IS, namely, PerceivedUsefulnessand
UserSatisfaction, as surrogatesforIS success(fora diagrammatic representationof
themodel,see [76]). Rai et al. [71] testedmajoraspectsof Seddon'smodelin the
contextofa semi-volitionaluniversity student IS andfoundevidenceforsupporting
therelationships.
The variablesof interest to ourcurrentresearchfromSeddon'smodelareIS Use,

PerceivedUsefulness, User Satisfaction,Information Quality,and SystemQuality.
According to Seddon,Perceived Usefulness(which replacestheD&M IS Use vari-
able) is "thedegreeto which a personbelieves a
that particularsystemhasenhanced
his or herjob (or his or herorganization's) performance" [76, p. 246]. The other
variablesareconsistent withD&M's model;Information Qualitymeasuressemantic
success,SystemQualitymeasurestechnicalsuccess,andUserSatisfaction measures
effectiveness success[24]. Information and are
Quality SystemQuality independent
variables.The argument forincluding bothoftheseas determinants ofIS successis
thatevena high-quality can
system produce useless if
results theneeded information
is wrongor inadequate. Additional evidenceto supportusing these two as indepen-
dentvariablesis available[27, 46]. Finally,IS Use is definedby Seddon [76] as
resulting fromexpectation ofnetbenefits fromusingan IS- implying thatIS Use is
a consequenceofIS successandnotan intrinsic characteristic
ofIS success;there-
fore,itis separatedfromtherestofthemodel.
fromIS Successto KM Success

Transitioning
We striveto retainas manyas possiblemajorelementsof theIS successmodel.In
transforming themodelto theKM context, someoftheIS-specificmeaningsof its
components needto evolve.One needsto recognizethatthereare twoconceptual
differencesinmakingthetransition: one is themovefrominformation toknowledge
andtheotheris froma singleinformation system toKM system implementation. Both
ofthesedifferences leadtochangesinthecharacterization oftheconstructs involved,
as wellas therelationships betweenthemin a successmodel.
In makingthechangefrominformation to knowledge, IS researchers haverecog-
nizedthatknowledge is a multidimensional construct withmorecomplexcharacteris-
ticsthanthoseof information. One perspective definesknowledge as an objectto be
stored,manipulated, andso on;another extends thisconceptbyemphasizing organiza-
tionofknowledge tofacilitate access; and a third goes further byviewingknowledge
as a processofsimultaneously knowing andacting,as in"applying expertise" [15,61,
83]. A different perspective of knowledgepostulates thatknowledgedoes notexist
without theknower; itis "shapedbyone'sinitialstockofknowledge andtheinflowof
new stimuli"[29, p. 267]. Further along this direction, knowledgeis definedas an
"understanding gainedthrough or
experience study; the sum orrangeofwhathasbeen
perceived,discovered, andlearned"[75,p. 619]. Notethatthesediffering perspectives
viewknowledge the
along explicit-tacit dimensions of Nonaka [63].
The IS successmodelmeasuresthesuccessof a singleIS. The antecedents and
outcomesare in thecontextof a system. this
We extend narrowcontext a settingto
wherea firm augments theKM system implementation withmanagement andorgani-
zationalsupport factors (in linewiththeensembleviewoftheIT artifact). Deploying
a KM system is a partofanoverallKM initiative. Itmayinvolvestructural/procedural
changesin an organization to facilitateknowledge sharing anduse. It maybe geared
towardupgrading theknowledgecontentitself(documenting insightsgainedfrom
MeasuresofOrganizational
Support
Leadership Incentive Coworker Supervisor
H11 i '
X. / H12 >Th8 /h9
H13 'H10 / Ny /
Knowledge H1 Perceived
ContentQuality ^ 0 p Usefulnessof S
"*
S. KnowledgeSharing 'u6
. .X
My/
KMSystem
Qualjtv
/ H^ User " H7
-
N^
Knowledge
Use
1
Satisfaction I
I I H5 I I I- *|
Measures of General Perceptual
Knowledge Content Measures of Net
and KMS Quality Benefitsof IS Use
1. KM SuccessModel
Figure
priorsuccessesandfailures, purchasing external research reports, andso on). It may

also includedeploying a repositoryofknowledge documents withsophisticated search
mechanisms andan intuitive taxonomy (a KM system). A KM success model needs to
covertheeffectof all of thesedifferent types of activities. It differsfrom the KM
systemsuccessmodel[47], whichproposesa specialization of D&M's IS success
-
modeltoa specifictypeofIS thatis,a KM system. OurKM successmodelis shown
inFigure1 anda summary ofconstructs appearing themodelandtheirdefinitions
in
areprovided inTable 1. A morecomprehensive viewofKM mustincludethespecific
processesrequired to acquire,convert/store, retrieve,andapplyknowledge (as inthe
KnowledgeProcessCapability construct ofGoldetal. [34]).
Ourfirst setofsevenhypotheses areadaptedfromtheIS successmodelandinvolve
theantecedents of PerceivedUsefulnessof KnowledgeSharing,UserSatisfaction,
andKnowledgeUse.
Weusethetermknowledge sharingtomeanbothcontributing toandusingavailable
knowledge. Perceived Usefulness of KnowledgeSharing is an appropriate andpracti-
cal intermediate measureof successin thecontextof knowledgeand is similarto
Seddon'sperceived usefulness measure. Thedifference is thatintheIS successmodel,
PerceivedUsefulnessis an indicator tiedto a particularsystem. In ourmodel,Per-
ceivedUsefulness of KnowledgeSharingis an overallmeasureofusefulness ofKM
nottiedtoa singlesystem.
initiatives, to the of
We attempt capture quality knowledge
in a construct calledKnowledgeContentQuality.This is thequalityof information
residing intheelectronic andincludesthequalityofdocuments,
repositories, reports,
lessonslearned,and so forth, in structured and unstructured formats. Analogousto
Information QualityintheIS successmodel,theKnowledge Content Qualitymeasure
in ourmodelis designedto be a muchbroaderconstruct capturing therichnessand
Definitions
Table 1. Construct
Construct Definition
Explicitknowledge Degree to which a knowledge workerbelieves he or she

use has incorporatedprocedures forthe capture and use of
knowledge of various types intodecision-making activities,
routineand otherwise.
Perceived usefulness Subjective evaluation of the extentto which the person
of knowledge sharing believes thatcontributing to and using available and
knowledge-sharingcapabilities existingwithinthe
organization improvehis or her job performance,
effectiveness,ease of doing the job, and so on.
productivity,
User satisfaction Subjective evaluation of the various outcomes due to the
knowledge sharing/retrieval capabilities existingwithinthe
organization,includingease of gettingthe information/
knowledge needed, satisfactionwiththe access to
knowledge, adequacy of the information/knowledge to
meet one's needs.
Knowledge content Quality of knowledge of various kinds, includingits
quality relevance, accuracy, timeliness, applicability,
comprehensibility, presentationformats,extentof insight,
availabilityof expertise and advice, and so on.
KM system Any system that automates the input,storage, transfer,and
retrievalof knowledge. These may include contextual
taxonomy forknowledge (meta knowledge), systems for
capturingvarious types of knowledge fromuseful lessons
learned, systems forclassifyingknowledge documents,
systems forlocating the relevantexperts, technology to
facilitatesharing of expertise (groupware, video-
conferencing,and so on), repositories forstructuredas well
as unstructuredinformation, and so on.
KM system quality Quality of KM systems described above. Includes
accessibility (fromanywhere/anytime),ease of use for
to meet the needs,
retrievalas well as input,outputflexibility
search capability,documentation,and so on.
Organizational support Supervisor and coworkersupport is a subjective measure of
Supervisor the extentof encouragement provided to and experienced
Coworker by a knowledge workerin sharing/usingsolutions to
Leadership work-relatedproblems, openness of communication,
Incentive opportunityforface-to-face and electronic meetings to
share/use knowledge, and so on.
Leadership is a subjective measure of commitmentto KM by
the top levels of management, exhibitedvia understanding
of the role of KM in business, strategy,and goals set with
respect to KM.
Incentiverefersto formalappraisal and recognitionof efforts
by knowledge workersforfurthering knowledge sharing and
reuse.
diversityofknowledge as compared toinformation inthenext

andis explainedfurther
section.Ifthequalityofknowledge is high,thena knowledge
content workeris more
to
likely perceive that KM contribute
initiatives to enhancedjob performance,hence
thebeliefthatKnowledgeContentQualityleadsto PerceivedUsefulness of Knowl-
edgeSharing.
Hypothesis1: HigherlevelofKnowledgeContentQualityleads to higherlevel
ofPerceivedUsefulnessofKnowledgeSharing.
ManyKM initiatives relyon IT as an important enabler.A KM systemis an IT-
based systemto supportandenhancetheorganizational processof knowledge cap-
and an
ture,storage/retrieval, application[3]. Although overemphasis on IT at the
expenseof organizational factorsmay lead to failure [19], KM systems playa
do
supporting rolein thesuccessof KM in organizations. KM SystemQualityin our
modelis a measureof howwell theKM systemssupportand enhanceKM-related
In contrast
activities. to somepriorstudiesthathaveoperationalized IS Qualitybya
simplified of
measurecalledEase Use (and measured itbyasking, "Is thesystem easy
touse?"and"Is ituser-friendly?") [27,71],ourmeasureofKM SystemQualitycap-
turesmultiple dimensions ofthequalityofa KM system. IftheuseofKM systems is
volitional(the most likelyscenario), thePerceived Usefulness ofKnowledgeSharing
is likelytodependon thequalityofknowledge content availabletoknowledge work-
ers as well as thequalityof a KM system.Knowledgeworkersmayfindvaluein
sharingand usingknowledge(PerceivedUsefulnessof KnowledgeSharing)ifthe
qualityofknowledge(KnowledgeContentQuality)is adequateandtheKM system
reducestheextraeffort required to share(findorcontribute) anduse knowledge.
2: HigherlevelofKM SystemQualityleads to higherlevelofPer-

Hypothesis
ceivedUsefulness
ofKnowledgeSharing.
In linewiththeIS successmodel,we proposethatKnowledgeContent Quality,KM
SystemQuality, andPerceivedUsefulness ofKnowledgeSharingtogether determine
which,like its equivalentin theIS success
thelevel of overallUser Satisfaction,
model[25,27,71],is a subjectivemeasureofthevariousoutcomesoftheknowledge
sharing, andknowledge
retrieval, reusecapabilities
existingwithinthefirm as a result
oftheKM initiatives undertaken.
Hypothesis ofKnowledgeSharingleads
3: HigherlevelofPerceivedUsefulness
tohigherlevelofUserSatisfaction.
4: HigherlevelofKnowledgeContentQualityleads tohigherlevel
Hypothesis
ofUserSatisfaction.
Hypothesis5: HigherlevelofKM SystemQualityleads to higherlevelof User

Satisfaction.
namedKnowledgeUse
Similarto Seddon'sIS Use measure,we definea construct
fromKM success).Althoughresearchers
(resulting havesuccessfullymeasuredIS
Use in termsof frequencyof use,timeof use, numberof accesses,usagepatterns,
systemdependency, and so on, noneof theseare directly applicableto Knowledge

Use. It is moreappropriate to measureKnowledgeUse in termsofinternalization of
workflowsandworkpractices thatemphasizethecapture, sharing, anduse oforgani-
zationalknowledge. Forinstance, do theknowledge workers leveragetheinstitutional
knowledge baseofthefirmtomakedecisions?Do theyfollowa debriefing processat
theendofa projecttodocument lessonslearned? ThisviewofKnowledgeUse,which
emphasizesembedding knowledge-sharing activitiesin thedesignofknowledge-in-
tensive processes,is embraced byorganizations thatare successful inthisregard[59].
JoachimDring,president of Siemen'sInformation andCommunication Networks,
hadhisstarsalespeoplemapthecomplexsolutions-selling and
process identify broad
categories of business and technical knowledge relevant toeach stageof theprocessin
ordertoconsciously makeknowledgesharing a routine practice[56].
It is interestingto notethedifference betweenD&M [23, 24] and Seddon[76] in
thetreatment ofIS Use. The D&M modelincludesa causalpathfromUserSatisfac-
tionto SystemDependence(same as IS Use), as well as one fromSystemDepen-
denceto PerceivedUsefulness.Seddon[76] includesonlyone causal relationship
leadingfromUserSatisfaction to IS Use; themodeldoes notproposethatPerceived
Usefulness causesIS Use or viceversa.In linewithSeddon'sIS successmodel,we
proposethatUserSatisfaction causesKnowledgeUse. Further, we arguethata rela-
tionship betweenusefulness anduse is entirely possiblein theKM context. Accord-
ing to Davis [21],in thecontext of user acceptanceof IT, Perceived Usefulness relates
toimproving job performance. We believethis
also applies to the KM context.There-
fore,theextentto whichsharedknowledgeis deemedessentialfora knowledge
worker's job performance mayreflectitsPerceivedUsefulness.If so, a knowledge
worker willparticipate inKM initiatives toenhancehisorherjob performance. This
suggestsadding a causal path from PerceivedUsefulness of KnowledgeSharingto
KnowledgeUse. Thus,
Hypothesis ofKnowledgeSharingleads
6: HigherlevelofPerceivedUsefulness
tohigherlevelofKnowledgeUse.
Hypothesis leads to higherlevelofKnowl-

7: Higherlevelof UserSatisfaction
edge Use.
Factors
Organizational
Thereis noargument thatIT is an importantenablerofKM efforts.KM systems and
electronicnetworksallowknowledge workerstoshare,store,andretrieve
documents
andotherknowledgeobjectsthatmaybe usedin theirwork.However,KM success
requiresa completesolution;merelyproviding an IT-basedKM systemwithaccess
to knowledgerepositories does notguarantee thatknowledgeworkerswill use the
systemto retrievetheknowledgecontainedtherein or sharetheirknowledgewith
othersbymakingitavailableintherepository. Carefulattentionmustbe paidto the
knowledge attitude
sharing among coworkersandsupervisors,incentives
forcontrib-
utingand usingknowledge, as well as theneed for leadershipand
organizational
direction tofacilitate theKM efforts [26].2The KM research literature (e.g.,[20,54])

recognizes a variety ofenablingfactors relatingtoorganizational culture andclimate,
whichmanifests itselfin thebehaviorofthepeoplein a firm.It is peoplewhoareat
thecenterofKM initiatives. Managingthemandembedding a cultureofknowledge
sharingandreusein theirmindsis perhapsthemostimportant factor(e.g., [58]) in
thisrespect.
In linewiththisview,a newfeature of ourmodelis ourrecognition thatbenefits
accruing from KM efforts on
depend organizational factors. Prior research offers anec-
dotalevidenceandsomeempirical support forthepremise thatbenefits ofknowledge
sharing andusearemorelikelyinthepresence ofa positive knowledge-sharing culture.
Businessesandconsultants involved in KM projectimplementations consistently em-
the of
phasize importance organizational factors in the success of such efforts [3]. A
relevant questionhereis, "Do certainorganizational culturesfosterknowledge cre-
ation?"A primary effectiveness determinant of KM systemsis thenatureof the
organization's culture [2].Performance oftheknowledge worker is influenced byman-
agement andorganization, IT,andworkplace design[20].Leadership and
style organi-
zationalculture, alongwithcommitment andtrust, havebeendescribed as factors that
affect thewillingness andopennessofthepeopleintacitknowledge sharing [53].
InthewordsofPeterEngstrom, VicePresident forCorporate Knowledge Creation at
ScienceApplications International Corporation, a research andengineering company
thathelpsorganizations involved withKM, "Youhavetosystematically embedknowl-
edgesharing intotheculture as opposedtooverlaying itontop.Youcan'tboltitonand
forcepeopletouseit"[68].Themanaging at
partner Knowledge Transformation Part-
ners,a KM consultancy firmbasedinNewYorkCityechoedthisview:"Thebiggest
misconception thatIT leadersmakeis thatknowledge management is abouttechnol-
ogy. . . . Usuallypeoplebegin a KM projectby focusing on the technology needs,
whether they want a database or a portal. But the is
key people and process"[48].
ManyKM projectsarespecifically aimedatdeveloping a knowledge-intensive culture
byencouraging andaggregating behaviors suchas knowledge sharing opposedto
(as
hoarding) [20]. "Perhaps the most significanthurdle to effective KM is organizational
culture," observedGoldet al. [34,p. 189] in a studythatidentified a construct called
culturalinfrastructure to measureorganizational supportforKM and foundthatit
contributed significantly toorganizational effectiveness (a successmeasure)viaa two-
stage structural model. To defineand investigatethe influence oforganizational factors
onKM success,we lookatresearch studiesthatdefineculture andhowcultural factors
influence organizational performance.
Organizational cultureis a complexconstruct encompassing structures used by
to
employees perform tasks It
[8]. includes,among other aspects, behavior of and
attitude towardcoworkers andsupervisors, as wellas incentives andrewardsforde-
siredperformance norms[42]. Culturehas been definedas embeddedvaluesand
preferences aboutwhata firmshouldstriveto attainand howit shoulddo so [81].
Such valuesaretypically shapedby seniormanagement in an organization. Culture
represents practices andgroundrulesbrought aboutbysocialinteractions inan orga-
nizational context, suchas interactions amongcoworkers andsupervisors. Theserules
can havea majoreffect on knowledge creation, sharing, anduse byinfluencing em-

ployees'perceptions ofwhatis acceptableandusefulto theirfirm[73].
Theeffect ofcultureon knowledge creationanduse is manifested inbehaviorsand
For
perceptions. instance, values that cause to
employees regard their colleaguesas
partners arelikelytoresultinbehaviorthatcreatesusefulknowledge thatcanbe used
by them [22]. Success of KM initiatives maydepend on the prevailing normsthat
employees associate with sharing and use of knowledge. If the general belief is that
knowledgesharingand use of sharedknowledgedecreasepowerand increaseper-
sonalrisk,thedesiredperception oftheutility ofknowledge sharing anduse maynot
be forthcoming [22]. Beliefsaboutpotentialusefulnessof sharedknowledgeand
reuseofknowledge contributions fromoutsidesourcesarisefrominteractions among
coworkers. Thesebeliefscan oftenbe reinforced bytheirsupervisors.
In thecontext ofemployeesina firmlearning touse IT,Gallivanetal. [32] empha-
sizedthata comprehensive andrealistic viewmustconsidernotjusttheindividual but
also theworkgroupandorganizational-level influences. Two work groups from dif-
ferent firms thatwereexpectedtouse IT intheirjobs appliedthetechnology incon-
trastingways: one groupencouraged the use of IT while the other avoided usingIT.
Theunderlying causewasfoundtobe thatthesocialsettings weredifferent inthetwo
groupsandfirms. Applyingthissamereasoningto KM efforts (wherean organiza-
tionwishesto promotea cultureof usingKM systemsputin place),we arguethat
knowledge workers sharetheirbeliefsandintentions tobehavein specificwaysand
are influenced the and
by guidance insights offered bytheircoworkers, supervisors,
andseniormanagement; thus,theseinfluences areexpectedtostrongly determine the
and
sharing usage of knowledge residing in KM systems. In addition to these, there
are factorssuchas extrinsic rewards[12] as well as reciprocity, trust,cooperation,
and pro-sharing norms[49, 52, 82] that are expected to affect the successof KM
initiatives in an organization. Reciprocity, trust, cooperation, andpro-sharing norms
arepeople-related factors, and we arguethattheyare subsumedin theindividual-,
group-, andorganization-level factors involving coworker, supervisor, andleadership
support forKM initiatives thatwe includein ourmodel.
Thus,ourmodeloperationalizes organizational support (forKM initiatives andef-
forts) via four separate dimensions - Supervisor, Coworker, Leadership, Incen-
and
tive.Supervisor and Coworker refer to the attitudes toward knowledgesharingand
use withinan employee'sworkteam,consisting ofcoworkers andimmediate super-
visors.Leadershipencapsulates theroleandcommitment oftopmanagement in set-
ting KM strategy, goals, and so on, while Incentive measures the level of a firm's
incentives and rewards to encourageknowledgesharing and reuse.
To further understand howorganizational factors influence KM success,we lookto
socialexchangeandstructuration theories fromthesocialsciencesandagencytheory
frommicroeconomics. Social exchangetheory [11] informs us abouttheinfluence of
attitudes ofanemployee'sworkteamonhisor perception her of usefulness of knowl-
edge sharing. Withina workplace, thereare exchangesthatoccurbetweenan indi-
vidualandhisorhersupervisor andpeersorcoworkers. Itis possiblethatthesupervisor
are
andworkteamofan employee regarded surrogates as fortheorganization inthe
mindoftheemployee. Thus,all threeareimportant toemployees (knowledge workers

inoursetting) becausetheyshapeattitudes andperformance. Social exchangetheory
[11] suggests an
that individual's with
interactions others arecharacterized byinterde-
pendency and anchored in also, theyrequire
self-interest; which
trust, is self-gener-
atedbytheexchanges themselves inanincremental fashion.Participationinexchanges
leads to "currencies" - thatis, outcomesor benefits receivedfromtheorganization,
supervisor, orcoworkers. One formof "currency" is thisincludessatisfac-
attitudinal;
and
tion,commitment, perceptions of usefulness.The and
attitudes behaviors offered
toandtransferred betweenemployeesandsupervisors areforreasons other than pure
economicbenefit.In ourcurrent KM setting, theperceivedusefulness or valueof
knowledge sharing is an attitudethatcanbe positively reinforcedbyemployees inter-
actingwithcoworkers and immediate supervisorsin their
day-to-day work. A knowl-
edge worker'ssenseof whatis acceptableevolvesfromtheseinteractions. If every
teamviewsKM as havingpotentialvalue (perceivedusefulness), it will lead to a
reinforcement ofthesuccessofKM efforts.
Based on thereasoningdiscussedin thepreceding paragraphs,we formulate the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis leads tohigherlevelofPerceivedUse-

8: HigherlevelofCoworker
fulnessofKnowledgeSharing.
Hypothesis leadstohigherlevelofPerceivedUse-
9: HigherlevelofSupervisor
fulnessofKnowledgeSharing.
IfKM is considered tobe less aboutmanaging knowledge andmoreaboutmanag-
ingknowledge workers whose work depends on what they know andcan learnfrom
others,structuration theory[33] mayprovidean alternative approachaimedatderiv-
ingfurther insights intothisissue.In an organization withmultiple agents(knowl-
edgeworkers) havingmultiple goals(possiblydivergent objectives), is necessary
it to
shareresources(e.g., knowledge)and worktowardsome commongoals; thisre-
quiresinteraction andcoordination amongtheagents.Giddens'sthreedimensions of
structureas a basisofinteraction areSignification,Domination, andLegitimation. Of
these,Domination and Legitimation the
provide insight into how an organization's
leadershipinfluences thequalityof sharedknowledgeand itsreuse.Dominationis
therealizationof whohas theauthority. In theKM context, thepeoplein authority
can influencetheKM-relatedactions(contribution, use, and so on) of individuals
who possess therelevantsharableknowledgeand also of thosewho can possibly
benefitfromreusingavailableknowledge. Domination canmanifest itselfintheform
of strongleadership -
forKM viewingKM as havingstrategic importance, promot-
an
ing organization-wide climate of knowledgesharing, and so on. Legitimation is
knowing what is acceptableand what toexpect. In our setting,organizational leader-
shipsetsthenormsandexpectations withrespecttoknowledge exchangeandreuse.
Legitimation can occurwhenknowledgeworkers receivepositivesignalsaboutthe
and
desirability acceptability ofKM practices and itsbenefits. BecauseKM is a com-
plex issue, it follows thatthe more commitment the senior management showsto
sharingknowledgeand promoting its potentialbenefits,

themoretheknowledge
workerswilllookfavorably
on knowledge sharingandreuse.
The aboveobservations
lead us to thefollowing hypotheses:
10: HigherlevelofLeadershipleads to higherlevelofKnowledge
Hypothesis
Content
Quality.
11: HigherlevelofLeadershipleads to higherlevelofKnowledge
Hypothesis
Use.
Markus[58] makesseveralinteresting observations abouttheuseofincentives com-
binedwiththeroleof seniormanagement in promoting knowledgecontributions to
knowledge repositories as wellas knowledge reuse, as described here. One challenge
is to mitigate
"freerider"behavior, whereemployeesattempt to leveragetheknowl-
edge contributions of colleagueswithoutexerting sufficient effort of theirown to
providehigh-quality knowledge content foruse by others [49]. While explicitreward
and
systems(e.g.,promotions bonuses) can enable knowledge contributions as well
as reuse,theymaybe insufficient in theabsenceofotherdriving forces.Employees
alsoshareandreuseknowledge becauseitenhancestheir reputation amongcolleagues.
Thisrequires,however, seniormanagement to establishand supportorganizational
normsbydemonstrating theircommitment to KM efforts.
In addition,microeconomic (agency)theoryprovidessupportforuse of explicit
incentivesandrewardsto inducedesiredactions.Thistheory has beenusedin com-
pensation studiesin accounting and finance to show how incentives based on both
short- andlong-term performance measures are necessary to motivate managers[31,
38,43]. Ifknowledge creation,sharing, andreuseareoutcomesofinterest tothefirm,
similarreasoning canbe appliedbyan organization to achievegoalsintheKM con-
text.Specifically,
providing rewardsandincentives andincluding support forKM as
partofperformance assessment willpositively influence thedesiredbehavior ofknowl-
edgeworkers [12]. Ifthereis a positiveorganizational commitment intermsofoffer-
ingbothtangibleand intangible incentives and rewards, thentheeffort exertedin
and
sharing reusingknowledge likely is to be modest. Hence, we contend thatthe
organizational supportfactorof Incentiveis an antecedent of KnowledgeContent
Qualityas wellas KnowledgeUse.
Hypothesis leadstohigherlevelofKnowledgeCon-
12: HigherlevelofIncentive
tentQuality.
leadstohigherlevelofKnowledgeUse.
13: HigherlevelofIncentive
Hypothesis
Finally,forcomparison withtheIS successmodel,it is conceivablethattheKM
successmodelcouldincludelinkageswitha boxlabeled"othermeasuresofnetben-
similarto Seddon[76] and updatedD&M [24] IS success
efitsof KM initiatives,"
models,whichuse an analogoussetofconstructs called"othermeasuresofnetben-
efitsofIS Use."In thelongrun,successful KM initiativeswillresultinbetter
knowl-
edge, KM systems,and of
internalization good knowledgesharing and reusework
practices.Thismaylead to netbenefitsto individualsin theformofmeasurable im-
provements in workefficiencies,
productivity,andon-the-job effectiveness, eventu-
allyresulting inhigherprofits.As pointedoutbyearlierresearchers (e.g.,[54]) mea-
suringthatcomponent of performance to KM is nontrivial.
attributable Thereare
somestudiesthatuseperceptual outcomemeasureslikeknowledge satisfaction (e.g.,
[9]), andothersthatuse firmperformance measuressuchas return on assets(ROA)
(e.g., [10]). These latterstudiescan be questionedbecausesometimes theydo not
extract thatpartofROA thatis duetoreasonsotherthanKM.
To theorganization, KM mayresultinnetbenefits thataccrueintheformofintan-
gibleknowledgeassetsthatenhancetheorganization's sustainablecompetitive ad-
vantageand itsvalue.As pointedoutabove,suchintangible andlong-term benefits
cannotbe directly attributedto KM initiativesalone. Controllingforall theother
influences on suchlong-term is a complextaskand is deemedoutsidethe
benefits
scope of thepresentstudy.In fact,theeffectof KM perceptual outcomemeasures
(e.g.,knowledgesharing, knowledgeuse) on firmperformance (e.g.,ROA) has not
beenwell studied[18, 19],in partbecauseitis difficult to empirically establishthe
link; there is an implicitassumption that KM
desirable outcomes lead to desirable
firmperformance outcomes.
ofMeasures
Operationalization
Knowledge is a very broad concept ranging fromtacitto explicit.We believe
thatourmodelis applicableto knowledgeofbothtypes.In thefirstpartofthissec-
typesofknowledge
describethedifferent
tion,we briefly and scopeofourstudy.
the
ourmeasuresanddesigning
We thendescribethebasisforoperationalizing a survey
our
comprising knowledge-related independent -
constructs qualityof knowledge
contentcapturedand retainedwithina firmand qualityof theKM systemsin the
of organizational
We thendescribetheoperationalization
organization. factorsand
thedependent measures.Finally,we reviewthesourcesreferenced forandthepro-
cess ofinstrument
development, andtheexploratoryfactoranalysisresults.
KnowledgeTypes
Therichnessandmultidimensionality ofknowledge has ledresearchers torecognize
thatknowledgeis composedofat leasttwodistinct types, tacitand explicit,andob-
servethateveryorganization maypossess varying levels of capabilityin different
areas.Thedifferenceinemphasisondifferent typesofknowledge couldbe duetothe
industry,thetypeof business(manufacturing, service,and so on), or thebusiness
strategyoftheorganization.
Bothtypesofknowledge cannotbe managedinthesame
manner. Thepersonalizationstrategy[41] reliesextensively on theidentification
of
expertsand theareas of theirexpertise.
This strategy viewsknowledgetransfer as
occurring throughdirectcontact,suchas apprenticeship and mentoring. The most
important are expertknowledge,and theabilityof an organization
ingredients to
facilitate
thecontactand collaborationbetweenthementor and thetrainee.On the
A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SUCCESS MODEL 323
otherhand,accordingto Hansenet al. [41], thecodification strategy reliesexten-

sivelyon theabilityof theorganization to codify - capture,store,and reuse- the
availableknowledge. The mostimportant ingredients areencapsulating knowledge
intoreusableobjects,havinga systemof classification, storage,and efficiently re-
trievingrelevant objectsattherighttimeandplace.
Forthepurposeof thisresearch, we focuson theexplicitformof knowledgeand
issuesassociatedwithitsmanagement. Thereasonsforthisaremany:One is thatthe
explicitformofknowledge is byitselfa rich,varied,andsubstantial subsetofknowl-
edgeas explainedbelow.The secondreasonis that,as pointedoutbyHansenet al.
[41],themanagement issueswithexplicitknowledge arequalitativelydifferentfrom
those oftacitknowledge. The third reason is the
that knowledge workers' perspective,
incentives,ability,and motivation in sharingtacitknowledgeare,to a largeextent,
differentfromthoseassociatedwithexplicitknowledge.Forthesereasons,we be-
lievethatthemodelof KM successmaynotbe uniformly applicableacrossthetwo
differenttypesofknowledge. In orderforthemodeltobe applicableacrossdifferent
typesof knowledge, one wouldneedto separately measuremanyof theconstructs
and studytheirpossiblevarying effects.We leave thisaspectof ourstudyto future
research.
Explicitknowledge represents knowledge thatis retainedforfuture reference. This
includestext-based reports (e.g.,project, technical, manuals(policies,op-
research),
erations,troubleshooting, and so on), or richmediaartifacts (diagrams,audio and
videoclips). This "field of information (codifiedknowledge) includestatistics,
can
maps,procedures, analyses"[60,p. 112].Efficiently organizing thisknowledgefor
easy access and targeted search is a in
goal many organizations. When creating these
documents (knowledgeobjects), the writer keeps in mind that they are for public
consumption and accordingly "broadenthecontext," perhapsbyremoving specific
referencesthatarenotrequired. Ackerman andHalverson[1] report thatitis neces-
sary to remove some contextual information, which may not be comprehensible to
thenoviceuserin a different workorfunctional area.Explicitknowledge couldgo a
stepfurther and includetherationalebehindan item,thatis, something to help a
knowledge user understand the document and the subjectthe same way the author
understood it, butin a different context [38].
QualityandKM SystemQuality
KnowledgeContent
The KnowledgeContentQualityconstruct in ourmodelrequiredtherecognition of
thetypeandqualityofknowledge available.The Information Qualitymeasureofthe
IS successmodelfocuseson precisionandrelevanceof information [71]. Whilein-
formation qualityis a multi-attribute
construct, and an important ofresearchin
area
itself(e.g.,[7, 36, 84]),ourfocusis on a morecomprehensive measureofknowledge
quality. Therefore, the of
quality knowledge contentis determined by theabilityto
the via
present knowledge appropriate presentation formats(e.g.,text,graphics,
video),
as wellas theusefulness ofthecontent to theuser.
a KM system
In addition, willhavetoindextherepository contentsusinganappro-
schemethatis consistent
priateclassification This is an at-
acrosstheorganization.
tributeof systemqualityand anotherfactorin KM success- initialscale itemsfor
KM SystemQualitywereadaptedfromtheEase of Use construct in priorsurveys
[71] becauseitservedas a surrogateforSystemQuality previousresearchon IS
in
success.Because of ourfocuson explicitknowledge, we use a broadersetof scale
items,includingwhether or nottools and systemswerein place to meetvarying
needs.Oursystemqualityscale itemsaddressedeachofthefollowing: utilizationof
multiple searchcriteria, frommultiplelocations,ability
accessibility to add relevant
documents, andadequacyofdocumentation.
Factors
Organizational
Ourinitialsetof 15 surveyquestionswas designedtomeasuretheunderlying organi-
zationalsupportforKM efforts in termsof thefourcategoriesmentioned earlier:
Supervisor, Coworker,Leadership, and Incentive.The on
questions Supervisor and
Coworker dealtwith( 1) holding
support regularmeetings tosharework-related knowl-
edge, (2) encouragementtoshare effective to
solutions work-relatedissues,and(3) sup-
for
port open communication. The scaleitems onLeadership covered ( 1) understanding
of
aboutKM attoplevels management, (2) seniorlevelparticipation direc-
in setting
tionforKM, (3) seniormanagement's demonstration of commitment to KM, and
(4) periodicreviewofeffectiveness ofKM practices. thequestionson Incen-
Finally,
tiveincludedpromoting knowledge-sharing behaviorby(1) buildingitintoappraisal
systemsand(2) rewarding teamwork.
KM SuccessMeasures
As in previousresearchstudies,PerceivedUsefulnessof KnowledgeSharingcap-
turedtheuser'sperception of theeffectof knowledgesharingon job performance,
and
productivity, job effectiveness,andaskedifknowledge sharing madeiteasierfor
theknowledge worker toaccomplishhisorherjob. We usedfivescale itemstomea-
surePerceivedUsefulness ofKnowledgeSharing.
We usedthreesurvey questionstomeasureUserSatisfaction. Ourscaleitemswere
designed to measure the knowledge workers'beliefson whether (1) theknowledge-
sharingcapabilitieswithin theirbusinessunitmade it easierfor themto obtainthe
neededknowledge, (2) theyweresatisfied withtheknowledge obtained, and(3) the
availableknowledgewas adequatein meeting theirneeds.
To measureKnowledgeUse, we developeda setof questionsto capturerespon-
dents'perceptions of thedegreeto whichknowledge-based decisionmaking(e.g.,
incorporationofdocumented explicitknowledge)andknowledge capture werepreva-
lentintheirwork.Thesequestions alsoincludedthequalityoftheclassificationscheme
forfacilitating
theease ofuse ofknowledge. and
McKinsey Company addressedthis
issuebyencouraging a self-organizing
andevolutionary classificationprocess[57].
Instrument
Development
Initialscaleitemsforseveralofourconstructs weretakenfrommultiple sources.KM
SystemQualityandKnowledgeContentQualitywereadaptedfroman Ease ofUse
andInformation Qualityconstructs [71].MeasuresforPerceivedUsefulness andUser
Satisfaction, as measures of success, weredrawn from several studies[25, 27, 71].
KnowledgeUse was adaptedfromtheGoodhueand Thompson[35] dependence
measures.Gold et al. [34] measuredan aspectoforganizational culturein theirsur-
vey instrument from whichour structure-related
organizational questionswereadapted.
All itemswereoperationalized as a five-pointLikertscale ranging from1 "strongly
disagree"to5 "strongly agree."
All scaleitemswerediscussedwitha focusgroupofeightexecutive MBA students
withan averageofeightyearsofmiddleto uppermanagerial experience, whowere
also familiar withKM andKM systems. Basedonthefeedbackobtained, someques-
tionswererephrased andsomedropped.Twoconstructs (KnowledgeContentQual-
ityandIncentive) consistedoftwoscaleitemseach- thisis notuncommon, as there
areearlierresearch studies[12,16,37,70, 82] thathave used two scaleconstructs; for
example,extrinsic rewards[ 12] is a two-itemconstruct, as is qualityofinformation
[ 16]. A pilotstudyof65 respondents fromthesamepopulation providedfurther indi-
cationoftheappropriateness ofthequestions.Ourfinalsurveyinstrument is repro-
ducedinTables2, 3, and4, whichshowthescale itemsalongwiththeresultsofthe
exploratory factoranalysisas explainedinthenextsection.
Analysis,andResults
Data Collection,
The survey described in the previous section was administered to a groupof
150 midlevelmanagersenrolledin theexecutiveMBA and part-time professional
MBA programs atone ofthelargesturbanuniversities intheUnitedStates.The par-
ticipantshadan averageofoversixyearsofmanagerial experience distributedacross
variousfunctional areas.Jobpositionsof therespondents includedengineers (e.g.,
software systems, electrical,and project),managers(e.g., project,marketing, pro-
cess, and manufacturing), analysts(market, account,and financial),and directors
(operationsandsoftware development). Scrutiny oftheir showed
job responsibilities
thattheywouldbe routinely involvedwithknowledge work.Therewas also substan-
tial cross-industry representation by way of firms,includingCharles Schwab,
Honeywell, Intel,Motorola,PinnacleWest,andTheVanguard Group.After eliminat-
ingincomplete surveys,there were 111 usableresponses. From ourscrutiny ofthe39
unusableresponses,we notethat(1) 22 of therespondents had no KM program in
theirfunction 1
and(2) theother 7 had omitted tofill
out one or anothersection ofthe
survey - forexample,theresponseson incentives weremissingor thesectionon
leadershipwas blank. Ratherthanimputing responsestothesesurveys, we decidedto
drop themfrom the sample.
- FactorLoadings
Table2. ExplicitKnowledge
Content System
Surveyquestion quality quality Use
Knowledge artifactsavailable formy work

Have useful content 0.897
Come in multipleformats(text,graphics,
video, and so on) 0.564*
Knowledge management system
There are systems/toolsavailable to me
to locate knowledge 0.71 8
The system/toolsallow search using
multiplecriteria 0.851
The system is accessible fromanywhere
by anyone 0.814
The system is easy to use or adequately
documented 0.845
The system allows me to add useful
knowledge 0.710
Knowledge use
I referto shared knowledge in mywork 0.845
In mygroup, using shared knowledge is a
part of the workflow 0.782
I findthatthe scheme forclassifying
knowledge is easy to understand and use Loads on both factors
Cronbach'salpha 0.571 0.893 0.757
Percentvariancesexplained 35.5 19.8 17.4
Notes:Omittedloadingsare< 0.34. * Retained scaleitem.
becauseitappearstobe a relevant
Cronbach's
alphadecreaseswhenanyscaleitemis deleted.
ResultsofFactorAnalysis
We conducted a preliminaryexploratoryfactoranalyseson thefirstsetof70 usable
responses to testthevalidityofthe constructs
in ourtheoreticalmodel.Thisresulted
inidentification ofseveraldistinct
factors tothedependent
relating andindependent
variableslaid outin ourmodel(see Tables2, 3, and4). In general,all itemsloaded
abovea valueof0.7 on thepredicted factorandbelowa valueof0.35 on anyother
dimension(withtheexceptionof KnowledgeContentQuality,as notedin Table2).
Also,inthecase ofKnowledgeUse,therewas oneitemthatloadedon morethanone
- thiswasdroppedfromsubsequent
factor analysis.Wenotethatoverall,Cronbach's
alpha values were exceedingthecutofflevelof 0.7 recommended
satisfactory, by
Nunnally[65],withtheexception notedinTable2. Finally,inall cases,item-to-total
correlationswereabove0.6.
The knowledge-related surveyitemsgroupedintothreedimensions representing
Knowledge Content Quality,KM SystemQuality,andKnowledgeUse as expected.
Table2 presents theresultsofthefactoranalysis.The nextpartofthesurvey, which
327
> T- Tf O
w N CVI <0
C 00 1^. 00 CD
8 cid on
.&
- LO CO CO CO ^-
2 LO 1^. ^ CO O
D CO N 00 00 O) Tf
C
^
8 CVI (D O) i-
'uJ LO "i- t- h-
O CO 00 CO CO O)
^ odo co
u
lo oo co lo
&2
; r^ N; co co -^ -d
odd 3
| dg
i J
I f bt I si i |1 I
! ! Hi H | It
i J. i
C/3
Iti lllil.lil
Hi ilililU i!l *
I
a
CL.
l lllfflt S
13
.9
a*
sllliuilfsillli !
N
'Sa
s llills,s,"lsiilis,l fi i
?
O
CO
* II lllillillllilll
X) C "LUOLU-LULULUgl- h- CO CO cD^ô"^
OOS 2 X < CL ^
Table4. Intangible - FactorLoadings

Benefits
Perceived User
Surveyquestion usefulness satisfaction
I believe the knowledge-sharingcapabilities

existingwithinmybusiness unit
Improvemyjob performance 0.857
Increase myjob productivity 0.851
Enhance myeffectivenesson the job 0.907
Make iteasier to do myjob 0.887
Are useful in myjob 0.866
I believe because of the knowledge-sharing
capabilities existingwithinmybusiness unit
I finditeasy to get the knowledge/information
I need to do myjob 0.762
I am satisfied withthe knowledge I am able
to access to do myjob 0.879
I findthatthe knowledge available to me
meets myneeds adequately 0.860
Cronbach'salpha 0.947 0.836
Percentvarianceexplained 50.0 30.3
Notes: Omittedloadingsare < 0.33. Cronbach'salpha decreasesif any scale itemis deleted.
dealtwithorganizational factors,includedquestionsregarding supervisor and co-

workersupport forknowledgesharing, as wellas seniormanagement's commitment
toKM,andincentives andrewards forknowledge sharing.Thefactor analysisgrouped
thesescale itemsintofourconstructs - Supervisor, Coworker, Leadership,and In-
centive.Table 3 presentsdetailsof thesefourdimensions. The scale itemson Per-
ceivedUsefulness ofKnowledgeSharingandUserSatisfaction groupedappropriately
intotwofactors. Detailedresultsarepresented inTable4.
Foreachofthedependent andindependent constructs,Table5 showsthatvariances
explained were higher than 70 percent. The tablealso listsminimum, maximum,
mean,andstandard deviation foreachmeasure.Thesedescriptive statisticswerecal-
culatedbysumming and averaging thesurveyresponsesassociatedwitheach con-
struct.
Wethenconducted confirmatory factor analyses(CFAs)oftheconstructs suggested
bytheexploratory analysisdescribedabove.The LISREL 8.54 andEQS programs
utilizingmaximum likelihoodwereusedin theanalysisofmultiplescale-item con-
structsandestimation offitindicesforthestructural equation model. The maximum
likelihoodprocedure was chosenbecauseofitsknowncapability ofproviding good
estimationsatrelatively smallsamplesizes(N< 250).Thenonnormed fitindex(NNFI)
andcomparative fitindex(CFI) (fortesting goodnessoffitofthelatentfactors and
thestructuralmodel) were chosen due totheirsensitivitytoboth and
simple complex
modelmisspecifications andtheirsuitability forsmallsamplesizes.NNFI andCFI
valuesgreater than0.9 indicatea good modelfit[44].
fable5. FactorAnalysis
Variance
explained Standard
Construct (percent) Mean deviation Minimum Maximum
Perceived
usefulness 82.6 3.96 0.94 1 5
User
satisfaction 75.4 3.23 0.92 1 5
Supervisor 76.3 3.51 1.02 1 5
Coworker 79.5 3.66 0.90 1 5
Leadership 77.8 2.85 1.03 1 5
Incentive 79.4 2.71 1.08 1 5
Knowledge
contentquality 70.3 3.41 0.88 1 5
Knowledge
management
systemquality 70.4 3.02 1.07 1 5
Knowledgeuse 8O5 a36 1L01 1 5
Figure2 presents resultsofanalysis(standardized factor loadingsandcorrelations)

forthetwoconstructs: PerceivedUsefulnessof KnowledgeSharingandUserSatis-
faction.Figure 3 shows similarresultsfortheconstructs representing thefourorgani-
zationalvariables Supervisor,Coworker, Leadership, and Incentives.Figure4 presents
detailsofthemeasurement model forthe three constructs KnowledgeContentQual-
ity,KM SystemQuality,and KnowledgeUse. Notethatthemodelachievedgood
overallfit.Moreover, all factorloadingsfortheconstructs aresignificantat the0.01
level.
FortheCFAs,each surveyscale itemwas allowedto load onlyontoitsassociated
latentconstruct. Convergent validityof constructs was assessedwiththreead hoc
testsrecommended byAnderson and Gerbing [4]. all standardized
First, factorload-
ingsweresignificant at a < 0.01 foreach latent variable, which indicatesgoodcon-
vergent validity.Second,variancesextracted (showninTable5) arehigherthanthe
0.5 lowerboundrecommended by Fornelland Larker[30]. Third,reliabilities pre-
sentedinTable6 also exceededtherecommended cutoff levelof0.7 (withtheexcep-
tionof KnowledgeContentQuality).We also notethatthecorrelation betweenthe
Perceived Usefulness andUserSatisfaction is 0.57,whilethecorrelation betweenthe
fourorganizational variablesrangesbetween0.47 and0.63,indicating gooddiscrimi-
nantvalidity betweentheconstructs. In thecase of thethreeknowledgeconstructs
(content quality,systemsquality,anduse),thecorrelations rangebetween0.63 and
0.76. Another testof discriminant validityprescribed byAndersonand Gerbing[4]
specifiesthat the squared correlation between a pair constructs
of shouldbe lower
than the variance extracted estimate of each construct. We appliedthistestto each
pairofconstructs andfoundthateverycombination metthiscriterion (see Table7).
0.18*** !psl |^
, , 0.91*** ^
-
0.22*** H ps2 L ' y '
0.89*** X Perceived X
- ^'^
0.16*** !ps3 U- o.92***^^( Usefulness 1
I 1 0.86*** s' '^ ^sS '
0.26*** ]ps4Y s' '
i x^s 0.85*** 0.57***I
0.27*** [ps5p /
^*~ ^^. /
0.45*** [usi |^ô.74*** User >v /
f
, , m^^l Satisfaction V
0.25*** [us2 'k-0.87***^^ V /
1 ^0.79*** ^
I
0.38*** [us3Y^
Figure2. MeasurementModelandCFA- PerceivedUsefulness andUserSatisfaction

N= 111; degreesoffreedom(df)= 19;x2= 69.5; rootmeansquareerrorofapproximation
(RMSEA) = 0.18; nonnormedfitindex(NNFI) = 0.93; comparativefitindex(CFI) = 0.95;
rootmeanresidual(SRMR) = 0.054. *** indicatessignificance
standardized at the1 percent
level.
0.53*** ) csl Lk^

1 ' 0.68*** ^ ~^^
0.29*** [cs2 U-0.85*** ^^>^ Supervisor jl
i 1 0 90*** 'V
0.19*** ]cs3 p^ ^'
0.63***'
J
0.28*** ) ccl L<^ / ''
1 ' 0.85*** / ' '
0.43*** [cc2 1+0.75*** ^^>^ Coworkers o.5O***'
jp
I 1 ^.0.89*** ' / '
0.20*** [cc3 'r~ Vs. / 1
0.47*** I Y 0.62***
0.33*** Icml
I L^
1 1/ ' * I
0.82***
i-cm2i
-^ / /
0.40*** - ^^ ] Z^^n/ -52***
^^7 Leadership /
, /
[ I+0.78*** ^^C jp
. o'90***^x^^ ^^**-^ - *^**^ ' //
i
0.19*** ) cm3 W^
1 ' ' ^^ '
0.60*** '
/
1/
i 1^/0.86*** 1/
0.26*** |cm4Y 'ff
-
0.50*** - Incentives j/
[di [+0.71*** --^(^
i 1 0.83***
0.31*** ci2 ^
Figure3. Measurement Model andCFA- Organizational

Factors
= = =
N 111; df 48; x2 74.7; RMSEA = 0.068; NNFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.98; SRMR = 0.051.
*** indicates at the1 percentlevel.
significance
0.83*** !kal L^. ^~ ^

1 1 0.56*** s^ ^>v
0.69
^}ho.72*-^^( CoSSty '
0.65*** !
I kbl L 0.76*** I'
l^v. 0.76*** '
0.56*** !kb2L ^S. ^ ^^ / '*
I ' 0.83***'. y^ ^' /
I 1 ^"^^ / '/ 0.73***
0.63*** W kb3 M-0.78***- Z^'
KMS Quality
Jr
.
0.89***s'
0 47*** J, kb4,W S' '^_ ^^' ' /I
1 s' 0.63*** /
0.70*** d~fcb5~Va72*** W
- Know|edge Use
0.73*** [cm2 4r0.69*** ~^' J
I 1 0.83***/^ ^^_ ^^
0.56*** [cm3 Y^ y^
Figure4. Measurement ModelandCFA- ExplicitKnowledge

Af= 111; df= 32; x2= 74.78; RMSEA = 0.1110; NNFI = 0.890; CFI = 0.922; SRMR =
0.063. *** indicatessignificance
at the1 percentlevel.
Table 6. ReliabilityMeasures
Constructname Reliability
Perceived usefulness 0.95

User satisfaction 0.84
Supervisor 0.84
Coworker 0.87
Leadership 0.90
Incentive 0.86
Knowledge contentquality 0.57
KM systems quality 0.89
Lessons learned 0.93
Knowledge use 0.78
ResultsofModelEstimation
Usingtheseemingly unrelated (SUR) simultaneous
regression equationestimation
procedure,we testedthevalidityoftheKM successmodel.SUR allows forthepossi-
of
bility correlatederrortermsacrossregression We
equations. also rantheestima-
tionprocedure usingLISREL 8.54 to verifytherobustnessoftheresults,whichare
discussedinthefollowing Themodelappearstobe robustbecausethese
paragraphs.3
resultsareverysimilar.
332
!s 5
o
II 25
cd
t/)
> g <O 00 r-
8i ?p
1g sN;sq q ?co
o o c>
c/3 00 CO CM G) 00 d
I^ fS 8 SI S -S
d d d d d -g
J o
O
s g m m co co in ^
S g dddddd
u
t !
in
8 s 1
|fe 88S5?8|
I Oh
3
Ncorw^qw
OOOOOOO^
t
T3
I
CO >
u i^^3 NO5t-CDCX)C'|00CO M
teed (OOr-cOCMOCVI^; e
^gn OOS
ed
>

a
0)
CO ^v
o
^
J
lOCOCNJT-COCNiqCNj^f
ddddddddd g
| 1e
1
a 8 1
t1
>, S
i= -e c -S
J ^ CO= g
S S E > g | S S S
e2
Measures ofOrganizationalSupport
Leadership Incentive Coworker Supervisor
,H12:0.2923*** ^^H8: 0.1674***y

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1
| ^^" / ^V / H9:0.3079***
H13:0.3405- H10:0.4511***I ^^ /
H11:0.27 0*** I ^ J 1 I ^^fr
H1:00486 Perceived
Knowledge
ContentQuality |'[ Jl Usefulnessof '
KnowledgeSharing 'h6-oo85b
I H3:0.4013***
^V^
*-
i 1 Xi 1
User " h?:0.2683***
7 Knowledge
Quality Satisfaction Use
Lq H5:0.3795*** j| ,
f-
Measures of GeneralPerceptual
KnowledgeContent Measures ofNet
and KMS Quality Benefitsof IS Use
5. KMSuccessModelSUREstimation
Figure Results
**and***indicate
significance and1 percent
atthe5 percent levels,
respectively.
Figure5 andTable 8 presenttheresultsof theSUR estimation procedure forthe

empirical model while 6
Figure presents the LISREL estimationprocedure results.
FortheSUR estimation, thevaluesofthedependent andindependent constructs were
computed using factor(principal component) analysis with varimax rotation.De-
tailedanalysisoftheresultsis presented below.
BothKnowledgeContentQualityandKM SystemQualityare significant andim-
portant determinants of KnowledgeUse through theirintermediate effecton User
Satisfaction withKM initiatives (H4, H5, and H7). Anecdotalevidencefromother
studiesof organizations generally tendsto echo theseresults.Elliott[28] reported
thatthoseorganizations thataresuccessfulin packagingknowledge foruse bytheir
customers andotherinternal users("casual"userswhohavetointerpret theavailable
and
knowledge place it in their context) have done so the
by making knowledge
easilyaccessible(a measureofKM SystemQuality)andbyproviding a service[58]
thatmakesuse of intermediation by highlevelhumanexpertsas in "AskErnie,"a
serviceprovidedbyErnst& Young.
Moreover, organizational variables(Supervisor, Coworker, Leadership, andIncen-
a
tive)have significant positive effect on Knowledge Use- both directly and indi-
rectly(H8-H13). Specifically, Leadershipand Incentive havea directinfluence on
Knowledge Use (HI 1 and H 13), implying thatsuccess of KM efforts through use of
availableknowledgestarts withsecuring buy-inand commitment of senior manage-
ment.Alongwiththiscommitment, organizationsneedtoputinplacea setofincen-
tivesaimedatpromoting knowledge sharingandteamwork. Ina climateofdownsizing
andattrition duetoretirements, crucialorganizational knowledge caneasilybe lostto
a firm.To prevent suchlosses,knowledge is
sharing critical,but thisis something that
doesnotoccurnaturally withemployees. According toHubertSaintOnge,Principal
ofBusinessandIT Consultancy atSaintonge Alliance,mandating knowledge sharing
334
S
+
"^ 45 ai
< | (3
I * ? i
1 I s "-
liti
I ^ I +"

^ â
Q)

8 I
"I
S
1

I* &
"co
l I f f
I
i^
i
*
fi
i *
*S 8 I
^w g g
i2 11 3 ^
(S i i.
III
.^ p
8? 5
! -
u |
f I |
1
'S
i-
c
o
co
O"
0
cvj
c
o
co
O"
0
-g

i-
w
co
c
o
co
O"
0
^r
c
o
co
O"
0
6 o o o o
o </></)(/)(/)
I O)
0
C
O)
0
CC
O)
0
CC
O)
0
DC
335
l ss
0 "i S S q
M M CO O CM O <D
e IS
.2 S
S 0 W CO 'S
J g c m co o
8 o o 'S
I
g S
rt *c3
8
NOOOOOONCNO
g S3 8 |
"? , oo,d*-'o,c'o, 2
1
ro ?a)
c o
2 ^

* 3
2- es (MCOOtO
O^Ct lOCDOCO >
^ O O *" CO '**
'3
1
S dodo
I
S S 2
<u o
| 5B I
t> cviqcoqcop o .g
?? t CD^CO go
1
3 u * 11
s
S-"S"cd cm to in ^c
P 'J3 ^J" T- CO J3 D
O.

g
I ^*
I
^
o - ^ _ _
^ I | SJI 8 1 SSS8
-s s S
3 ? IB
I SE
i 8 8.
i2
1âjos^^ S i coevi iwo
*g
pjccoco oco *
g " c'j p cvjcM y
<=>? do (o 2 S
Si!
Il -35 s
a o g
t S fi
I li s *
2 c >, ^ a
ri-
-o
- -."^
o 3OJ 3
.- <D -n
^ SS e
C
o 3
^ m
c to
W O" O) > t
.S - S WO) 5-D C -r-O^W)

H <D i: O^- Q. > m 9> IIOTîS
r Supervisor j Coworker
j
'o.l7* /
V / 0.37***
^TT^^ZTN 052***^^KnowiedgT^'
(Leaoersnipi > tentent Quality^"" - " .^^Srceived^N
-^Ûsefulnessv* ^
/ 0.22*V ' I Ns
/ '^ 0.52*** v
0.47***X A^ s
X 3" UsT^N
^hcentiveTi ^M Systei^y ^Tôwled^N
încentives' ^^Satisfection^y' 0 17*
^^^ Jj^^^^y
I 0.45*** ^/^ /
0.28*** /
Figure 6. LISREL StructuralModel EstimationResults

W= 11 1; df = 395; x2 = 826.0; RMSEA = 0.10; NNFI = 0.92; CFI = 0.92; SRMR = 0.24.
*, **, and *** indicate significanceat the 10 percent,5 percent,and 1 percentlevels,
respectively.
anduse willnotwork,butmechanisms suchas linkingKM to performance reviews,

creating a safeenvironment and
forpeopleto share, recognizing those who contrib-
utewill inducethedesiredoutcomes[68]. Grudin[39], in a studyof systemsthat
supportcollaborative work,pointedoutthatpromoting contributionsto knowledge
bases and encouraging theuse of suchsharedknowledgerequirestheopportunity
costtousersofthesystem be offsetbyappropriate incentives. Ackerman andHalverson
madea similarobservation in thecontextof theuse of organizational memory sys-
tems(bothforcontributions andusage),whichare"subjecttotheissueofincentives.
. . . notonlyis therethecostofstorageandindexing, theremaybe additional costsin
retrieval andinterpretationofinformation" [1,p. 42]. In a studyofa consulting firm
code namedAlpha,Orlikowski etal. [67] reportedthatonereasonforthelackofuse
of LotusNotesforknowledgesharingamongconsultants was lackof incentivesto
contribute. Markus[58] citeda studyconducted at Booz Allenshowingthatthemo-
tivation ofconsultantsto shareanduse sharedknowledgeis reinforced bythepres-
enceofexplicitrewardsannounced bythefirm.
Thesamearticle[58] reported another studyofenterprise resourceplanning (ERP)
systems involvingknowledge sharing andusebetweentwoimplementation teams.It
was discovered herethateventheprovision ofappropriate incentiveswasinsufficient
tofullyovercometheinertiaoftheparticipants. Thefailureswereattributed partlyto
thelackofcommitment oftheleadership toknowledge and
sharing partly totechno-
logicalandKM system weaknesses. British Petroleum introduced videoconferencing
and othertoolsto encourageknowledgesharingbetweenvirtualteamson certain
challenging fieldtasks.Whenseniormanagersfoundthatthetechnology was not
beingused,theyinvestigated and found the team members lacked understanding of
thepurposebehindtheintroduction of thetoolsand how it couldhelptheirwork.
Theyachievedsuccessonlyaftersetting up "coaches"orchampions drawnfromthe
seniorranks,who providedtherequiredlevel of leadershipfortheencourage-

mentofthisproject.Ourfindings thusvalidatewhathas beensuccinctlystatedby
Brownand Duguid [14]: documenting and usingknowledgetakesmorethanIT
and KM systems.It takes"organizational work"involvingtheuse of champions
and facilitators.
As positedinH7,UserSatisfaction withKM initiatives significantlyaffects Knowl-
edge Use. To determine the for
implications practice, we note that User Satisfaction is
affectedbytheKnowledgeContentQuality,as wellas by KM SystemQuality(H4
andH5). Further, Knowledge Content Qualitysignificantly dependsonlevelsofLead-
ershipand Incentive (H10 and H 12). The inference is thatan organization, inorderto
ensurethatitsKM efforts are successful, mustworkon multiplefronts: buildinga
KM systemof"highquality," securingseniormanagement commitment andprovid-
ingan appropriate incentive structure topromote knowledge contributions andreuse,
andensuring of
highquality knowledge content that can be adapted as necessitated
bythecontext.
NotethatLeadershipandIncentive (HI 1 andH 13) exerta directas wellas indirect
effecton KnowledgeUse. This suggeststhatbuildinga sophisticated KMS maybe
neithera necessarynora sufficient condition to realizeadequatesharingof knowl-
edge in an organization. Whatis important is thattheleadershipmustidentify the
natureofknowledge andhowknowledgesharing can be embeddedwithintheexist-
ingorganizational processes,possiblywiththehelpof availableIT infrastructure.
Thisis reiteratedbya number ofresearchers intheirstudiesofexperiences ofvarious
organizations.KM consultants suchas ShirNirof KnowledgeTransformation Part-
nerspointoutthatCIOs mustevaluatetheexisting IT infrastructure foritsadequacy
forKM andwhether improvements arenecessary onlyafterorganizational issuesare
examined[48]. Executives must look at the strategic need for KM followed by a
reviewofthecurrent processesandthereadinessofthecorporate culturefortechnol-
ogy-basedchanges, in the absence of which the technology will be underutilized.
KM SystemQualityis stilla significant determinant of KnowledgeUse (via User
Satisfaction;H5 andH7). As suggested byMarkus[58],knowledge use maydepend
on how remoteand dissimilar knowledgeusersare fromknowledge"generators."
Usersfromdifferent functional areasorwithdifferences interms ofbreadth anddepth
ofknowledge may face in
difficultydefining search terms (whenusing KMS) while
a
usingeven"carefully packagedknowledge," orlocatingexperts andexpertise. Users
who do notknowtherightjargon,terminology, questionsto ask,or symptoms to
reportwill"drown in unnecessary, or
unhelpful conflicting" knowledge 1
[ p. 40]. is
, It
therefore to and
importantdevelop provide users a system with a feature-rich interface
thatwill retrieve and presentdifferent typesof knowledgein an efficient manner.
Alternatively,the system may put them in touch with experts who can provide the
neededknowledge andhelptheminterpret andapplytheavailableknowledge.
As theresultsindicate, Perceived Usefulness ofKnowledgeSharingreinforces User
Satisfaction,which,inturn, resultsin KnowledgeUse (H3 andH7). The strategy for
an organization to increasePerceivedUsefulnessof KnowledgeSharingcan be de-
velopedbylookingatitsantecedents ofSupervisor andCoworker (H8 andH9). The
implication is thatan organization mustworkto promotestrongteamwork within

employees'workgroups,wherebysupervisors and coworkers provideencourage-
mentforcontributing toas wellas usingavailableknowledge gainedandstoredinthe
formof explicitknowledge. As succinctly statedby GordonLarson,ChiefKnowl-
edgeOfficer ofCNA,a Chicago-based insurance firm, "whatmakesemployees share
and use sharedknowledge... is thecommunication betweensupervisors and em-
ployees (to the that
effect these activities) can be beneficial and can help thejob
on
performance"; success stories are published in an internal newsletter calledInside
Scoop [74].
Notethattheeffect ofKnowledge Content QualityonPerceived Usefulness ofKnowl-
edgeSharing(HI) and the direct effect of Perceived Usefulness of KnowledgeShar-
on
ing Knowledge (H6) Use were not statistically A
significant.possibleexplanation
maybe thatKM efforts in manyorganizations arestillin a nascentstage.Therefore,
themereexistenceofreusableknowledge maybe adequateforsomeemployeeswho
arewillingtoexamineandadaptsuchsharedknowledge fortheirownworksituations
andthusperceivethe usefulness of knowledge sharing. However, suchlimited percep-
tionofusefulness ofsharing maynotbe enoughtoalso drivetheinternalization ofthe
of
practice knowledge use in the organization. There may be other explanations for
thisapparent For
paradox. example, ithas been noted thatthe task of searching through
a knowledge base usinga KMS is oftenentrusted bysenioremployeesto thosewho
arejuniorandmaybe lessexperienced [66].Itis difficult forsuchemployees toaccu-
ratelyjudge the content quality even thoughthey know the task and the context in
whichtheknowledge searchis beingdone[13].Thus,content be
qualitymay silently
factored outofperceptions ofusefulness. Otherpossibilities are(1) theabundance of
knowledgecontentin theavailableknowledgebase makesit easy to locatethere-
quiredknowledge objects[ 18] and(2) thevariety ofknowledge objectsmakesiteasier
to use all contentwhichappearsto be contextually useful[40]. As a logicalconse-
quence,knowledge useis unaffected byperceived usefulness, withtheresult thatknowl-
edge workers buildknowledge use into their work practices as a natural act. It is
possible that knowledge workers use high-quality content in an inappropriate setting
or low-quality content in an appropriate setting; therefore, knowledge is beingused
regardless ofitsperceived usefulness [69].
Equallyparadoxically, we also observe thatKM SystemQualitydoes notsignifi-
cantly affect Perceived Usefulness (H2). This is a departure fromempirical studiesof
IS successmodels.Perhaps,evenifthe"system"is no morethana repository that
allowsstorageandretrieval ofknowledgedocuments anddoes notcontainsophisti-
catedfeaturessuchas classification intovariouscategories, index-based search,or
remoteaccess,themereexistence ofanykindof"system" is a sufficientmotivator for
itsuse.Ata laterpointintime,withtheadditionandimplementation ofuser-friendly
interfaces andotherfeatures, systemqualitymayindeedinfluence userperceptions.
Alternatively, thepeoplewhoactuallyusethesystem tosearchforandretrieve knowl-
edge content be
may technologically "savvy,"whichmakesthemobliviousto the
"goodness,"thatis, thereliability anduser-friendliness ofthesystem, orperhapsits
"deficiencies," suchas a dearthof advancedindexingor inability to use phonetic
wordtranslations.Theymaybe able to findwork-aroundsto compensateforsuch

overload,"wherethesystemfailsto filter
inadequacies.In thecase of"information
outcontentthatmaynotbe useful,theusersmaybe able to morethanoffsetthe
extratimetheyneed to manuallysiftthroughthecontentby accomplishing their
decisiontasksmuchmoreefficiently thantheywouldhavewithouttheaid of the
system.
Another possibilityis based on theiterative natureof theprocessof
or multistep
locatingand retrieving knowledgedocuments usinga KM system.The firstresults
arepartly bythecapabilities
filtered ofthesystemandfurther refined
bytheusersof
thesystembased on theirevaluationof quality[69]. In theabsenceof a credible
ratingscheme,evaluation ofqualitybecomesnontrivial. Eveniftheratingschemeis
notperfect,usersmaybe inclinedtoacceptthesystem withits"flaws"andtheknowl-
edge contentin spiteof indifferentquality This
levels. further
explainsthenoneffect
ofthesefactors on perceived usefulness andin turnon knowledge use.
Conclusion
We developed and tested a KM success model derivedfromtheIS success
modelofDeLone andMcLean [23,24] andSeddon[76].Ourmodelwas enriched by
researchin thearea of KM byAlavi and Leidner[3], Davenportand Prusak[19],
Davenport et al. [20], andothers.Thusfar,theemphasisin KM-related IS research
hasbeenonimproving KM applicationsandsystems andtheirimplementation across
corporateintranets - thatis,the focushas been on technology.Although ampleanec-
dotalevidenceexists, KM researchhas paid limitedattentionto creatinga formal
empiricalmodelwithorganizational factorsthatcan complement thetechnology.
One objectiveof thisstudyis to incorporate bothknowledgecontributions (in the
formofsharedknowledge and
quality) knowledge use as outcomesof KM initiatives
undertaken bya firmina modelinvolving theirantecedents- comprising bothtech-
nologyandorganizational factors.
Contributions
An important elementofourstudyis theidentification oftheorganizationaldimen-
sionandmeasuresthatenableknowledgesharingandreuse,a stepbeyondthecul-
factorsof earlierresearch(e.g., [34]). Anothercontribution
turalinfrastructure of
thisstudyis the of
integration approaches from social,organizational,andeconomic
toshowthattheyconverge
theories toprovideconsistent directionsforKM research.
The development of ourmodel'sconstructs is based on theoriesdrawnfromthese
diversedisciplines;we showhow insightsfromsocial exchangeand structuration
theoriescan be reconciledwiththosefrommicroeconomic (agency)theoryin the
contextofKM.
Mostpriorresearchin KM focuseson the"supply"sideofknowledge, whichin-
volvesresources andeffortsneededto stimulate knowledge creation
and storage;for
example,creatingknowledgerepositories, expertiseyellowpages,and so on. Our

modelincludesboththesupplyanddemandsidesof KM. Analogousto theIS Use
measureof theIS Success model,ourKnowledgeUse construct includesreuseof
knowledge. We believethat
the ultimate realizationofknowledgesharing andreuse
can occurwhenknowledge-related activitiesare embeddedin organizational
pro-
cesses in whichknowledgeworkersparticipate. Hence,our KnowledgeUse con-
struct
measures towhichtheseactivities
theextent intoworkpractices.
areincorporated
Ourmodelenablesthemeasurement oftheresultsof KM efforts in the
as reflected
levelsofknowledgecontent quality,KM systemquality,andknowledgeuse,in the
broadareaofexplicitknowledge.
Implications
Ourfindings tofurther
contribute theunderstanding ofthewayin whichKM efforts
shouldbe implemented in organizations. The statisticalresultsconfirm anecdotal
evidencethatorganizational factorsinvolving people(namely,leadershipcommit-
mentandsupervisor andcoworker support forreinforcing KM initiatives) areas im-
portantas the that
technology supports these KM Without
initiatives. these "people"
factors,whatmayhappenis thateventhemostenthusiastic knowledge worker may
eventually dismissthepotential benefits of KM ifhe or shedoes notsee otherswith
thesamelevelofenthusiasm.
Ourresultsclearlyindicatethatthecommitment exhibited bytheseniorleadership
affectsqualityofsharedknowledge as wellas theextentofknowledge use. Someof
theKM practitioner comments we encountered were"thereasonsomegroupsinour
unitaremoresuccessful thanothersinknowledge sharingandreuseis theirfocuson
customerratherthanproduct, people viewed as assets not costs,and emphasison
opennessnotsecrecy." We interpret theseremarks tomeanthatthepracticeofdefin-
ing desirable behaviorand enticing staffinto exhibiting thatbehaviormaylead to
conformance butnotto commitment. Therefore, seniormanagement shouldtakeon
theroleofexemplarandnotthatofa merecoach.In fact,ourresultscloselymirror
theseviewsandsuggestconcrete stepsfirms cantakeinthisregard. Someofthesteps
as expressedby thesesame seniormanagerswere(1) havesenior-level KM advo-
cates;(2) KM
associate with unit,group, and individual goals and objectives; (3) cul-
tivatecommunities ofpracticeandinterest; and(4) use feedbackto improveKM.
One waybywhichtheorganizational leadership can demonstrate commitment to
KM is byhavingtopmanagement assumethevisibleroleofknowledge champions.
The knowledgechampionsshouldspearheadthetasksofcrafting a KM strategy for
thefirm, goals,andemphasizing
setting thepotential benefits of KM. Otherimpor-
tantactionsincludeinstituting policies and procedures forrewards, recognition, and
incentives, andpromoting internalization ofknowledgesharingandreusepractices.
In firmswhereKM responsibility is decentralized and distributed amongbusiness
units,thereshouldbe consistency intheactionsofmultiple champions. Thechampi-
ons mustenlistparticipation of supervisors in theinitiatives in orderto shapeem-
ployeeattitudes towardknowledgesharing. As KM initiatives mature, theirvalueto

employeesis likelyto increase.
Moreover, incentives andrewards(eveniftheyare nonmonetary) are a necessary
condition behind KM success. Organizations must take note that incentives and re-
wardsare requiredbothto stimulate sharingof knowledge(in theformof "high-
quality" content) and use of the shared knowledge. In thisregard,viewsmostoften
expressed bymanagers included "turn on the faucet . . . moveupfrommerewordsof
encouragement toactuallyrewarding employees forsharing," and"byrewarding both
givingandtaking, createa global,notlocal viewoftheorganization." The Siemens
case study[56] elaborating thesuccessful implementation oftheirShareNetKM sys-
temis a prominent example of this approach. Once again,thespecificstepsan orga-
nizationcan takeare( 1) rewardknowledgesharingandreuseand (2) bringhuman
resourcesintothepictureto ensurethattraining, awards,and compensation reflect
KM goals.Further research intothekindsofincentives thatarerelatively moreorless
effective is neededto expandthisresearch.It is entirely possiblethatifknowledge
content is eitherunavailablebecauseof lackof sharingor failsto meeta base level,
knowledgeworkersmayrapidlylose interest in KM as a whole.Needlessto say,
the
ensuring quality any of KM system(in terms of itsfeatures, user-friendliness,
indexingandclassification scheme,and so forth)is of paramount importance - the
initialdesignstageis wherethesystemmustbe structured to buildin therequisite
features becausea bad designcan effectively destroy the KM initiatives ofa firm.
Atthelocallevel,attitudes and actions of supervisors and coworkers influence how
knowledgesharingis perceivedbyemployees.Organizations mayfindthatithelps
theirknowledge-sharing efforts to arrangeperiodicmeetingsbetweenand among
workgroups.At thesemeetings, feedbackcan be providedand successstoriesof
knowledge sharingandreusecan be exchanged.Thismayhelpto instillthedesired
"knowledge culture"amongtheindividuals.
The qualityofknowledge as wellas thatofthesystems thatfacilitate itsdiffusion
determines the users'satisfaction level,ultimately leading to its sustained use. In a
sales-solutions knowledge-sharing initiativeina largetelecommunications firm, field
sales personscall on productexpertsforsales support. A new KM initiative in the
firmcapturestheknowledge exchangedin electronic dialogs(e-mails,chats,andso
on) andretains theextracted knowledge in a sales knowledge base (SKB). Incentives
areoffered forbothgoodquestionsandanswersas ratedbytheemployees, andfilters
basedon employeeratings ofknowledge populate the SKB. In the initialstages,the
firmexpectstheSKB knowledgecomponents to be used regardlessof therating
levels;possiblybecauseofthe"newness"oftheinitiative, theperceived usefulness is
high.Management foresees thatas theratings-based incentive system stabilizes, how-
ever,employeeswillbecomemorediscerning between"high"and"low" qualityof
knowledge. In a similarvein,ouranalysisshowsthatknowledge content qualitydoes
notsignificantly affectperceived usefulness. Weshouldinterpret thisresultverycare-
fully,however. Perhaps as an organization matures in its KM pursuits andthesize of
itsknowledge base increases, itshouldinvestin improving thequalityofknowledge
content andtherelevanceoftheretrieved knowledge.
Of equal importance is theinsight thatcan be drawnfromthenonsignificant find-

ingsofourstudy. As we speculatedearlier, a knowledge ratingschemethatprovides
incentivesforcredible(believable)ratingsmaybe requiredto attract moreusersto
theKM system.Refining and improving thedesignof thesystemby incorporating
"better"
filters
andclassification, as wellas providing
trainingtoinexperiencedusers,
mayalso enlargetheuserbase.Thus,a "critical"massmaybe attained morequickly
makingtheKM efforts a viableand sustainable long-termresourceforcompetitive
advantage. These insightsprovide avenues for future
research thatwill enrichthe
bodyofknowledge in thisarea.
Limitations
andFutureResearch
One limitation of thisstudyis thatit consideredonlyexplicitknowledge. To study
differences acrossindustries or businesstypes,it maybe necessaryto distinguish
betweenexplicitandtacitknowledge andmeasureKnowledgeContent Quality,KM
and
SystemQuality, Knowledge Use levels in thesedifferent of
types knowledge. For
example, one can argue that
success in thehigh-tech industry may be more dependent
on thequalityof its technicalexpertise(a formof tacitknowledge),whereasthe
transportation industry mayrelymoreon operational knowledgeavailablethrough
lessonslearned(a formofexplicitknowledge). Similarly, maybe observed
variations
in businessesof different -
types manufacturing versus In
service. a semiconductor
manufacturing plantthatuses highlysophisticated machinery, we maysee thatles-
sonslearnedarecapturedanddocumented bywayof "bestknownmethods," which
becomecrucialinreducing downtime inordertoattainthetarget yields.On theother
hand,service-oriented businesses,suchas resortsandcasinosthatdeal witha large
number ofcustomers, needtocreateandreusemodelsofcustomer profilestoexcelin
theirbusiness.Harrah'sCasinos,a servicebusinessin thegamingindustry, forex-
ample, builds data-mining models and tests theireffectiveness field
through experi-
ments;thebestmodelsarestoredandreused[55].Thisis anexampleoftheir emphasis
on effective use ofexplicitknowledge. Suchextensions mayallowformorespecific
recommendations.
Ourmodelstudiesknowledge sharing andusefroma knowledge worker's perspec-
tiveas an indication of successof a KM initiative. In thisview,theknowledge pro-
cesses aretreated at a highlevelofabstraction. A moredetailedapproachis totreat
knowledge processesata muchmoregranular levelas someoftheotherresearchers
(e.g.,[34]) havedone,forexample,bytreating thenatureofidentification andvetting
processes, andbyanalyzing workflowstepsthatfacilitate captureofidentifiedknowl-
as
edge separate constructs.Future research can include these variables
to understand
theantecedents ofKM success.
Thereis nodoubtthatobtaining objectivemeasuresofactualperformance improve-
mentsdirectly attributable to KM initiatives wouldhavestrengthened thestudy.In
theabsenceofsuchmeasures, itis perhapsbetter togatherusers'perceptions thatact
as proxiesforperformance. Moreover, in a cross-sectional studysuch as ours,when
one is studying thegeneralized effect ofmultipleKM initiatives acrossa number of
theunitsofmeasureforbusinessbenefits
organizations, can be problematic. Differ-
entbusinesseswouldbe invariably usingtheirownmetrics forbusinessperformance
(e.g.,cycletime,backorders, bidswon,customer satisfaction).
Aggregation ofsuch
is if not
diversemeasures difficult, impossible, in a cross-sectionalstudy.Future re-
searchcan be aimedat an in-depth studyofone KM initiative in a particularsetting,
whichcouldbe further enhancedbylongitudinally measuringthe business benefits.
The natureofourempirical modelallowsmultiple avenuesforfurther researchas
outlinedhere.Another
partially issue worthy of empiricalexamination and one we
arecurrentlyexamining is thatofcomplementarities betweenKM factors andorgani-
zationalfactors.Intuitively, it is feasiblethata higherlevelof knowledgequality
combinedwitha higherlevel of KM SystemQualityor Incentivemay lead to
supermodular benefits [62]. Similarly, complementarities can also existbetweenca-
in
pabilities different knowledge areas.Verifying complementarity through super-
modularbenefits is nontrivial andrequiresrigorousstatistical methods[6]. Another
worthwhile direction is toexaminetheaforementioned beliefsaboutdifferences gov-
ernedbythecharacteristics oftheparticular industry orbusiness.A largernumber of
from
respondents multiple industrieswill be needed forsuchanalysis.Resulting find-
ingscan makemorespecificrecommendations allowingbusinessesto investmore
prudently inresourceswhileplanningKM initiatives.
Accordingto someKM practitioners, forKM to be effective, one mustnotbegin
andendwithimproving howwellworkgetsdone.It shouldalso improvewhatgets
done.Further, an organization shouldreexamine theprocessesfordiscovering and
creatingnew knowledgeas well as refining existingknowledge.In otherwords,
businessprocessesprovidethecriticalconnecting factorsthatbridgeKM andbusi-
nessresultsorperformance. Thus, KM effortsmust includeidentificationofknowl-
edge-intensive workprocessesand workflowsthatare deemedimportant forthe
typeof business,and theIT and systemssupportneededto facilitateknowledge
sharing.Such infrastructural changescan eventuallyaid in transforming knowl-
edge-intensive business processes. These qualitativeinsightsprovide rich avenues
forfuture research.
Acknowledgments: Theauthors totheeditorandtheanonymous

aregrateful fortheir
reviewers
andsuggestions,
insights whichhavesubstantially strengthenedthispaper.Thisresearchwas
supportedby a grantfromtheSmallGrantProgramat ArizonaStateUniversity, W.P.Carey
order.
twoauthorsare listedin alphabetical
Schoolof Business.The first
Notes
is seenbysomeas conforming
1. AnIT artifact tothe"tool"viewoftechnology described
by Kling:kkA computing resource[that]is bestconceptualized pieceofequip-
as a particular
ment, ortechnique
application whichprovidesspecifiableinformationprocessingcapabilities"
[50,p. 308].
2. Wereiteratethatthereis a processcomponent toKM, representingtheprocessesembed-
ded in an organizationforcapture,sharing, and retrieval
of knowledge, and thisis partially
captured in ourKnowledge Use construct.
3. The valueofcoefficients
fromtheLISREL procedure maydiffer fromtheSUR
slightly
estimationcoefficients also,thelevelsofsignificance
thereis no difference;
but,qualitatively,
arevirtuallythesame.
References
1. Ackerman, M.S.,andHalverson, C. Considering anorganization's memory. InS. Poltrock
andJ.Grudin(eds.),Proceedings ofthe1998ACM Conference on Computer Supported Coop-
erativeWork. NewYork:ACM Press,1998,pp. 39-48.
2. Adams,G.L., and Lamont,B.T. Knowledgemanagement systemsanddeveloping sus-
tainablecompetitive advantage. JournalofKnowledge Management, 7, 2 (2003), 142-154.
3. Alavi,M., and Leidner,D. Knowledgemanagement and knowledgemanagement sys-
tems:Conceptual foundations andresearch issues.MIS Quarterly,25, 1(March2001), 117-136.
4. Anderson, J.C.,andGerbing, D.W. Structural equationmodelingin practice:A review
andrecommended two-step approach.Psychology Bulletin,103,3 (1988),41 1-423.
5. Argote,L.; McEvily,B.; and Reagans,R. Managingknowledgein organizations: An
integrativeframework andreviewofemerging themes. Management Science,49,4 (April2003),
571-582.
6. Athey,S., andStern,S. Anempirical framework fortestingtheoriesaboutcomplementarity
in organizational design.Working Paper,Department of Economics,Massachusetts Institute
ofTechnology, Cambridge,1998.
7. Barua,A.; Kriebel,C.H.; andMukhopadhyay, T. MIS andinformation economics:Aug-
menting richdescriptions withanalytical rigorininformation systems design.In J.I.DeGross,
J.Henderson, andB. Konsynski (eds.),Proceedings oftheTenth International Conference on
Information Systems. NewYork:ACM Press,1989,pp. 327-339.
8. Bates,K.A.; Amondson, S.D.; Schroeder, R.G.; andMorris,W.T.The crucialinterrela-
tionship betweenmanufacturing strategy andorganizational culture.Management Science,41,
10(1995), 1565-1580.
9. Becerra-Fernandez, I., and Sabherwal,R. Organizational knowledgemanagement: A
contingency perspective.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 18, 1 (Summer2001),
23-55.
10.Bierly,P.,andChakrabarti, A. Genericknowledge management strategies inthepharma-
ceuticalindustry. Management
Strategic Journal,17, 10 (Winter1996) 123-135.
11. Blau,P.M.Exchangeand Powerin Social Life.NewYork:JohnWiley,1964.
12. Bock,G.W.; Zmud,R.W.; Kim,Y.G.; and Lee, J.N.Behavioralintention formation in
knowledgesharing:Examiningtheroleof extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces,
andorganizational climate.MIS Quarterly, 29, 1 (March2005), 87-1 11.
13. Brajnik,G.; Mizzaro,S.; Tasso,C; andVenuti,F. Strategic helpin userinterfaces for
knowledge retrieval.JournaloftheAmericanSociety forKnowledge Scienceand Technology,
53, 5 (2002), 343-358.
14.Brown,J.S.,andDuguid,P. Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40,
3(1998), 90-111.
15. Carlsson,S.A.; El Sawy,O.A.; Driksson,I.; andRaven,A. Gainingcompetitive advan-
tagethrough sharedknowledge creation:Searchofa newdesigntheory forstrategic informa-
tionsystems.In J.Dias Coelho,W. Konig,H. Krcmar,R. O'Callaghan,and M. Saaksjarvi
(eds.),Proceedings oftheFourthEuropeanConference on Information Systems. Lisbon:USA
Publishing, 1996,pp. 1067-1076.
16. Chang,J.C.J.,and King,W.R. Measuringtheperformance of information systems: A
functional scorecard.Journalof ManagementInformation Systems, 22, 1 (Summer2005)
85-115.
17. Cole, R.E. Specialissueon knowledge andthefirm - Introduction. California Manage-
mentReview,40, 3 (Spring1998), 15-21.
18. Davenport, T.H.,andBeck,J.TheAttention Economy:Understanding theNewCurrency
ofBusiness.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress,2001.
19.Davenport, T.H.,andPrusak,L. Working Knowledge. Boston:HarvardBusinessSchool
Press,1998.
20. Davenport, T.H.;Thomas,R.J.;andCantrell, S. Themysterious artandscienceofknowl-

edge-worker performance. Sloan Management Review, 44, 1 (Fall 2002), 23-30.
21. Davis,F.D. Perceivedusefulness, perceived ease ofuse anduseracceptanceofinforma-
tiontechnology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 3 (1989), 318-340.
22. De Long,D.W.,andFahey,L. Diagnosingculturalbarriers to knowledge management.
AcademyofManagement Executive,14,4 (2000), 113-127.
23. DeLone,W.H.,andMcLean,E.R. Information systems success:Thequestforthedepen-
dentvariable.Information Systems Research,3, 1 (1992), 60-95.
24. DeLone,W.H.,andMcLean,E.R. The DeLone andMcLeanmodelofinformation sys-
temssuccess:A ten-year update.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 19, 4 (Spring
2003), 9-30.
25. Devaraj,S.; Fan,M.; andKohli,R. Antecedents ofB2C channelsatisfaction andprefer-
ence:Validating e-commerce metrics. Information Systems Research,13,3 (September 2002),
316-333.
26. Dixon,N.M. Common Knowledge:How CompaniesThrivebySharingWhatTheyKnow.
Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress,2000.
27. Doll,W.J., and Ibrkzadeh, u. 1hemeasurement orend-user computing satisfaction. Mo
Quarterly, 12, 2 (June 1988), 259-274.
28. Elliott,S. Br0derbund buildsstrong"case" forinternal, externalknowledgesharing.
Knowledge Management inPractice,FourthQuarter. American Productivity andQualityCen-
ter,Houston,TX, 1998.
29. Fahey,L., andPrusak,L. Theelevendeadliestsinsofknowledge management. Califor-
nia Management Review,40, 3 (Spring1998),265-270.
30. Fornell,C, and Larcker,D.F. Evaluatingstructural equationmodelswithobservable
variablesandmeasurement error.JournalofMarketing Research,18, 1 (1981), 39-50.
31. Freeman,S. Wage trendsas performance displaysproduction potential: A modeland
applicationto academicearlyretirement. Bell Journalof Economics,8, 2 (Autumn1997),
419-433.
32. Gallivan,M.J.;Spitler,V.K.; and Koufaris,M. Does information technology training
reallymatter? A socialinformation processing analysisofcoworkers' influence on IT usagein
theworkplace. JournalofManagement Information Systems, 22, 1 (Summer2005), 153-192.
33. Giddens,A. TheConstitution ofSociety:OutlineoftheTheory ofStructuration. Berke-
ley:University ofCalifornia Press,1984.
34. Gold,A.H.; Malhotra, A.; andSegars,A.H. Knowledgemanagement: An organizational
capabilities perspective.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 18, 1 (Summer2001),
185-214.
35. Goodhue,D.L., andThompson, R.L. Task-technology fitand individual performance.
MIS Quarterly, 19,2 (June1995),213-236.
36. Gorry, G.A.,andScottMorton, M.S. A framework forMIS. SloanManagement Review,
13, 1 (Fall 1971),55-70.
37. Gosain,S.; Malhotra, A.; and El-Sawy,O.A. Coordinating forflexibility in e-business
supplychains.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 21, 3 (Winter 2004-2005),7-45.
38. Gruber, T.R., and Russell,D.M. Generative designrationale:Beyondtherecordand
replayparadigm.In T.P. Moranand J.M.Carroll(eds.), DesignRationale:Concepts,Tech-
niques,and Use. Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum,1996,pp. 323-349.
39. Grudin, J.WhyCSCW applications tail:Problemsinthedesignandevaluation ot orga-
nizationalinterfaces. In I. Greif(ed.), Proceedingsof the 1988 Conference on Computer-
Supported CooperativeWork.NewYork:ACM Press,1988,pp. 85-93.
40. Hansen,M.T.,andHaas, M. Competing forattention inknowledge markets: Electronic
document dissemination ina management consulting company. Administrative ScienceQuar-
ter/v,46, 1 (March2001), 1-28.
41. Hansen,M.T.; Nohria,N.; andTierney, T. What'syourstrategy formanagingknowl-
edge?HarvardBusinessReview,77,2 (March-April1999),106-112.
42. Hotstede, U.; Neuijen,B.; Uhayv,u.U.; ana saners,u. Measuringorganizational cul-
tures:A qualitative andquantitative studyacrosstwenty cases.Administrative ScienceQuar-
terly,35, 2 (June1990),286-316.
43. Holmstrom, B. Moralhazardandobservability. BellJournal ofEconomics,10, 1 (Spring

1979),74-91.
44. Hu, L.T., and Bentler, P.M. Fitindicesin covariancestructure modeling:Sensitivity to
underparameterized modelmisspecification. Psychological Methods,3, 4 (December1998),
424-453.
45. Igbaria,M.; Zinatelli,N.; Cragg,P.;andCavaye,A.L.M. Personalcomputing acceptance
factorsin smallfirms:A structural equationmodel.MIS Quarterly, 21, 3 (September1997),
97Q-^rVv
46. Ives,B.; Olson,M.H.; andBaroudi,J.J.The measurement of userinformation satisfac-
tion.Communications oftheACM,26, 10 (1983), 785-793.
47. Jennex,M.E., and Olfman,L. A knowledgemanagement systemsuccessmodel:An
extension ofDeLone andMcLean's IS successmodel.In D. GallettaandJ.Ross (eds.),Pro-
ceedingsof theNinthAmericasConference on Information Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press,2003,pp. 2529-2539.
48. Kaplan,S. KM therightway.CIO Magazine(July15,2002) (availableatwww.cio.com/
archive/07 1502/right.html).
49. Kankanhalh, A.; Tan,B.C.-Y.; and Wei, K.-K. Contributing knowledgeto electronic
knowledgerepositories: An empiricalinvestigation. MIS Quarterly, 29, 1 (March2005),
113-143.
50. Kling,R. Definingtileboundariesof computing acrosscomplexorganizations In R.J.
BolandJr.and R. Hirschheim (eds.), CriticalIssues in Information Systems Research.New
York:JohnWiley& Sons, 1987,pp. 307-362.
51. Kling,R., andScacchi,W.The webofcomputing: Computer technology as socialorga-
nization.Advancesin Computers, 21, 1 (1982), 1-90.
52. Ko, D.-G.; Kirsch,L.J.;and King,W.R.Antecedents of knowledgetransfer fromcon-
sultantsto clientsin enterprise systemimplementations. MIS Quarterly,29, 1 (March2005),
144-170.
53. Koskinen, K.U. Evaluation oftacitknowledge utilizationinworkunits.Journal ofKnowl-
edgeManagement, 7, 5 (2003), 67-81.
54. Lee, H., and Choi,B. Knowledgemanagement enablers,processesandorganizational
performance: An integrativeviewandempiricalexamination. JournalofManagement Infor-
mationSystems, 20, 1 (Summer2003), 179-228.
55. LovemanG. Diamondsin thedatamine.HarvardBusinessReview,81, 5 (May 2003),
109-113.
56. MacCormack, A.; Volpel,S.; andHerman,K. Siemen'sShareNet:Buildinga knowledge
network. HarvardBusinessSchoolCase No. 9-603-036,Boston,November 2002.
57. Manville,B. A complexadaptiveapproachtoKM: Reflections on thecase ofMcKinsey
& Company, Inc. Knowledge Management Review,8, 3 (May-June1999),26-31.
58. Markus,M.L. Towarda theory ofknowledge reuse:Typesofknowledge reusesituations
andfactorsin reusesuccess.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 18, 1 (2001),57-
93.
59. Massey,A.P.; Montoya- Weiss,M.M.; and O'Driscoll,T.M. Performance-centered de-
signof knowledge-intensive processes.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 18, 4
(Spring2002), 37-58.
60. McDermott, R. Whyinformation technology inspiredbutcannotdeliverknowledge
management. CaliforniaManagement Review,41,4 (Summer1999), 103-110.
61. McQueen,R. Fourviewsof knowledgeand knowledgemanagement. In J.Ross (ed.),
Proceedingsof theFourthAmericasConference on Information Systems.Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press,1998, pp. 609-6 11.
62. Milgrom,P., and Roberts,J.The economicsof modernmanufacturing: Technology,
strategyandorganization. AmericanEconomicReview,80, 3 (June1990),511-528.
63. Nonaka,1.A dynamictheoryof organizational knowledgecreation.Organization ci-
ence,5, 1 (February1994), 14-37.
64. Nonaka,I., andTakeuchi,H. TheKnowledge-Creating Company:HowJapaneseCom-
paniesCreatetheDynamicsofInnovation. NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,1995.
65. Nunnally, J.C.Psychometric Theory. NewYork:McGraw-Hill,1967.
66. Orlikowski, W.J.Usingtechnology andconstituting structures: A practicelensforstudy-

ingtechnology in organizations. Organization Science,77,4 (2000), 404-428.
67. Orlikowski, W.J.;Yates,J.;and Okamura,K. Shapingelectroniccommunication: The
metastructuring oftechnology inthecontext ofuse.Organization Science,6,4 (1995),423-444.
68. Paul,L.G. Whythreeheadsarebetterthanone (howto createa know-it-all company).
CIO Magazine(December1,2003) (availableat www.cio.com/archive/120103/km.html).
69. Poston,R.S., andSpeier,C. Effective use ofknowledge management systems: A process
modelofcontent ratings andcredibilityindicators. MIS Quarterly, 29, 2 (June2005),221-244.
70. Premkumar, G.; Ramamurthy, K.; and Saunders,C.S. Information processingviewof
organizations: An exploratory examination offitinthecontext ofinterorganizational relation-
ships.JournalofManagement Information Systems, 22, 1 (Summer2005),257-294.
71. Rai,A.; Lang,S.S.; andWelker,R.B. Assessingthevalidityof IS successmodels:An
empiricaltestand theoretical analysis.Information SystemsResearch,13, 1 (March2002),
50-69.
72. Ruggles,R. The stateof thenotion:Knowledgemanagement in practice.California
Management Review, 40, 3 (Spring 1998), 80-86.
73. Sackmann, S.A. CulturalKnowledgeinOrganizations. Newbury Park,CA: Sage, 1991.
74. Santosus,M. Underwriting knowledge. CIO Magazine(September 1,2002) (availableat
www.cio.com/archive/090102/underwriting.html).
75. Schubert, P.; Lincke,D.; andSchmid,B. A globalknowledge mediumas a virtualcom-
munity: TheNetAcademy concept.In J.Ross (ed.),Proceedings oftheFourth AmericasCon-
ference on Information Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,1998,pp. 618-620.
76. Seddon,P.B. A respecification and extension of theDeLone and McLean modelof IS
success.Information Systems Research,8, 3 (September1997),240-253.
77. Seddon,P.B.,andKiew,M.-Y.A partialtestanddevelopment ottheDeLoneandMcLean
modelofIS success.In J.I.DeGross,S. Huff, andM. Munro(eds.),Proceedings oftheTwelfth
International Conference on Information Systems. NewYork:ACM Press,1994,pp. 99-1 10.
78. Spender,J.C.Makingknowledgethebasis of a dynamictheoryof thefirm.Strategic
Management Journal,17 (SpecialIssue 1996),45-62.
79. Taylor,S., and load, r.A. Understanding information technology usage- A testorcom-
peting models. Information Systems Research, 6, 2 (June 1995), 144-176.
80. Torkzadeh, G., and Doll, W.J.The development of a toolformeasuring theperceived
impact of information technology on work. Omega - TheInternational Journal ofManage-
mentScience.27. 3 (June1999.327-339.
8 1. Trice,H.M.,andBeyer, J.M.TheCulture ofWork Organizations. Englewood, NJ:Prentice
Hall, 1993.
82. Wasko,M.M., andFaraj,S. WhyshouldI share?Examiningsocial capitaland knowl-
edgecontribution inelectronic networks ofpractice. MIS Quarterly, 29, 1 (March2005),35-57.
83. Zack, M.H. Managingcodifiedknowledge. Sloan Management Review,40, 4 (1999),
45-58.
84. Zmud,R.W.Anempirical investigationofthedimensionality oftheconceptofinforma-
tion.DecisionSciences,9, 2 (April1978), 187-195.
The followingStatement of Ownership, Management, and Circulationis provided in accordance withthe requirements
contained in 39 USC 3685. Journalof Management informationSystems (Publication no.0742-1222) appears quarterly
and the annual subscription price is $869.00. It is owned, managed, and published by M.E. Sharpe, Inc., which is
located at 80 Business Park Drive,Armonk,Westchester County,NY 10504-1 71 5. The Publisher is M.E. Sharpe, at the
same address. The Editoris VladimirZwass, c/o M.E. Sharpe, Inc. 80 Business Park Drive, Armonk,NY, 10504. During
the preceding twelve months the average number of copies printedforeach issue was 1 ,125; the average paid circula-
tion (by mail subscription) was 805; the average free distribution,61 ; the average number of copies distributed,866.
Corresponding figuresforthe issue published nearest to the filingdate: total number of copies printed,1 ,100; total paid
circulation(by mail subscription), 719; totalfree distribution,60; total distribution,839. Filed by Vincent Fuentes, Senior
Vice President.

A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Developmentand Empirical Validation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

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

A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Developmentand Empirical Validation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Development and Empirical Validation

Author(s): Uday R. Kulkarni, Sury Ravindran and Ronald Freeze

Uday R. KULKARNI is an AssociateProfessor of Information Systemsat theW.P.

Sury Ravindran is anAssistant ofInformation

Ronald Freeze is a visiting ofInformation

Abstract: We examinea knowledgemanagement (KM) successmodelthatincor-

JournalofManagement Winter2006-7,Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 309-347.

systemimplementation. Data collectedfrom150 knowledge workers froma variety

Key words and phrases: information

Knowledge management(KM) is evolving intoa strategically important areafor

mentation-related endeavors(also looselyreferred to as KM initiatives or efforts in

complement thetechnology - thatis, theknowledgemanagement system(KMS).

The variablesof interest to ourcurrentresearchfromSeddon'smodelareIS Use,

fromIS Successto KM Success

Leadership Incentive Coworker Supervisor

priorsuccessesandfailures, purchasing external research reports, andso on). It may

Explicitknowledge Degree to which a knowledge workerbelieves he or she

diversityofknowledge as compared toinformation inthenext

2: HigherlevelofKM SystemQualityleads to higherlevelofPer-

Hypothesis5: HigherlevelofKM SystemQualityleads to higherlevelof User

systemdependency, and so on, noneof theseare directly applicableto Knowledge

Hypothesis leads to higherlevelofKnowl-

direction tofacilitate theKM efforts [26].2The KM research literature (e.g.,[20,54])

can havea majoreffect on knowledge creation, sharing, anduse byinfluencing em-

mindoftheemployee. Thus,all threeareimportant toemployees (knowledge workers

Hypothesis leads tohigherlevelofPerceivedUse-

sharingknowledgeand promoting its potentialbenefits,

otherhand,accordingto Hansenet al. [41], thecodification strategy reliesexten-

Knowledge artifactsavailable formy work

Table4. Intangible - FactorLoadings

I believe the knowledge-sharingcapabilities

dealtwithorganizational factors,includedquestionsregarding supervisor and co-

Figure2 presents resultsofanalysis(standardized factor loadingsandcorrelations)

Figure2. MeasurementModelandCFA- PerceivedUsefulness andUserSatisfaction

0.53*** ) csl Lk^

Figure3. Measurement Model andCFA- Organizational

0.83*** !kal L^. ^~ ^

Figure4. Measurement ModelandCFA- ExplicitKnowledge

Perceived usefulness 0.95

Leadership Incentive Coworker Supervisor

,H12:0.2923*** ^^H8: 0.1674***y

Figure5 andTable 8 presenttheresultsof theSUR estimation procedure forthe

.S - S WO) 5-D C -r-O^W)

Figure 6. LISREL StructuralModel EstimationResults

anduse willnotwork,butmechanisms suchas linkingKM to performance reviews,

seniorranks,who providedtherequiredlevel of leadershipfortheencourage-

implication is thatan organization mustworkto promotestrongteamwork within

wordtranslations.Theymaybe able to findwork-aroundsto compensateforsuch

example,creatingknowledgerepositories, expertiseyellowpages,and so on. Our

ployeeattitudes towardknowledgesharing. As KM initiatives mature, theirvalueto

Of equal importance is theinsight thatcan be drawnfromthenonsignificant find-

Acknowledgments: Theauthors totheeditorandtheanonymous

20. Davenport, T.H.;Thomas,R.J.;andCantrell, S. Themysterious artandscienceofknowl-

43. Holmstrom, B. Moralhazardandobservability. BellJournal ofEconomics,10, 1 (Spring

66. Orlikowski, W.J.Usingtechnology andconstituting structures: A practicelensforstudy-

Вам также может понравиться

,H12:0.2923* ^^H8: 0.1674*y