Partial Least Square analysis revealed that organization contexts (i.e. information technology, top management support, collaborative culture and organization structure) had an effect on knowledge sharing (i.e. tacit knowledge sharing) and also had an effect on KMS and innovation. In addition knowledge sharing (i.e. tacit and explicit) was also found to have a positive effect on KMS and innovation. The results are discussed in details on the basis of previous findings from the literature.
Effects of organization contexts on knowledge sharing
Information technology was found to have a positive effect of knowledge sharing (i.e. tacit and explicit knowledge sharing). The positive effect of information technology on explicit knowledge sharing is consistent with other researchers’ findings and claims that explicit knowledge can be shared through technology (Mian, Takala, & Kekale, 2008; Reychav &
Weisberg, 2009). From this result, it can be assumed that individuals with more favorable perception of information technology may demonstrate more explicit knowledge sharing behavior. Since information technology was also found to have a positive impact on tacit knowledge sharing, it can be deducted that the finding does not adhere to previous researchers’
argument which maintained that information technology is less effective for the sharing of tacit knowledge (McNeisch & Mann, 2010).
Top management support was also found to have a strong effect on tacit knowledge sharing, Thus it can be assumed that the greater the support from top management, the greater the chance for the sharing of tacit knowledge. In addition, the results indicated that support from top management had a positive effect on explicit knowledge sharing. According to Cabrera, Collins, and Salgado (2006) top management can send strong messages directly or indirectly, through modeling, rewards and recognition as signs of knowledge sharing importance. Thus, adhering to previous empirical studies and arguments, it can be concluded that top management support can have a positive effect on knowledge sharing as showed in empirical studies by (Connelly &
Kelloway, 2003; Kang, Kim, & Chang, 2008; Lin, 2007).
Organization structure had a positive effect on tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. One possible cause for the positive relationship between organization structure and knowledge sharing may be due to the fact roles and responsibilities are clearly assigned within the
118
organization. Anantatmula (2008, p.455) suggested that ‘defining each member’s role would help in creating and sharing of knowledge’.
Various authors have advocated organizations to develop a collaborative culture to nurture individuals’ knowledge sharing behavior. Lee and Choi (2003) maintained that a collaborative culture fosters exchange among individuals by reducing fear and increasing openness among members. Reid (2003) proposed that effective knowledge sharing requires a supportive organization culture. This study’s results indicate that a collaborative culture predicts knowledge sharing. This is in line with the claim from (Lee & Choi, 2003; Reid, 2003) that such culture is essential for promoting knowledge sharing behavior. In addition, Islam et al. (2007) and Yang (2007) studies also reported a significant relationship between collaborative culture and knowledge sharing. At last, it adheres to previous arguments and empirical studies (e.g. de Long
& Fahey, 2000; van den Brink, 2001) that organization’s capability to cultivate and reinforce collaboration will affect employees’ willingness to share knowledge. With that said, it can be expected that the greater the collaboration among employees, the greater the sharing of tacit and explicit knowledge. It can be concluded that in such organization culture employees are even more willing to share their explicit knowledge with their colleagues.
Effects of organization contexts on KMS
Information technology was found to have a positive and significant effect on KMS. This result is consistent with previous findings from Chen (2009) study that reported a positive relationship between information technology and KMS. This finding also supports the arguments that information technology is a key enabler of KM success (Bhatt, 2001; du Plessis, 2007) and contradicts prior arguments from investigators that sustained KM initiatives could be successful without using information technology tools (McDermott, 1999; McDermott & O’Dell, 2001).
The positive effect of information technology on KMS also confirms claims that organizations must have access to an integrated information technology infrastructure in order to ensure KMS success. Furthermore, this result stresses the need for organizations to effectively deployed information technology capabilities for KMS success.
119
The results for this study shows that top management support had a positive and significant effect on KMS. This is contrary to studies conducted by (Ciborra & Patriotta, 1998; Mason &
Pauleen, 2003). However, the findings provide support for Al-Busaidi and Olfman (2005) and Al-Busaidi et al. (2010) which showed that management support was positively associated with KMS success. In addition, it also confirms previous findings and arguments of (Debowski, 2006;
du Plessis, 2007; Jennex & Olfman, 2005; Wong & Aspinall, 2005) which underlined management support as a sine qua non condition for KM success. Finally, given that this study alike previous studies conducted on information systems found that top management is a key success factor, it can be concluded that support from top management goes hand in glove with the success of any system.
This study’s finding indicated that collaborative culture had a positive and significant effect on KMS success. As pointed by several authors, to be successful KMS need to be supported by a collaborative culture (Debowski, 2006; Du Plessis, 2007; Jones & Leonard, 2009). This suggests that when employees perceived that their organization support collaboration, they may be more inclined to make contribution to the organization KMS, leading to its success. Therefore the positive effect of collaborative culture on KMS reconfirms conclusions from prior studies conducted by (Alavi, Kayworth & Leidner, 2005; Anantatmula & Kanungo, 2007; Berchina &
Ndlela, 2008/2009) that collaboration is a desirable behavior or norm among organization members for successful implementation of KM. In addition, this study provides evidence that organization culture is positively associated with the success of KM initiatives as suggested by prior studies conducted by (Moffett et al., 2003).
The findings also indicated that organization structure had a positive and significant impact on KMS success. This supports the arguments made by (Claver-Cortés et al., 2007; Bechina &
Ndlela, 2008/2009) that organization structure is essential for the successful implementation of KM. From these findings, it can be concluded that the key factors of a successful KMS are not locked simply in its design and the effectiveness of the knowledge service. The overall findings reinforced the arguments and empirical evidence that (information technology, management support, organization culture and structure) are critical factors for KM success (Anantatmula, 2008; du plessis, 2007). However, they contradicted Whietfield (2008) research which did not
120
report significant causal relationships between organizational factors (i.e. information technology, top management support, organization culture, organization structure) and KMS.
One important implication for the overall results is that although information technology is found to be an important enabler for KMS success, managers should be careful in placing too much emphasis on technology at the expense of social/ cultural dimensional aspects of KMS.
With that said acquiring sophisticated information technology or simply making it available within the organization should not be the answer for making KMS successful given that these initiatives have failed as a result of lack of knowledge sharing.
Effects of organization contexts on innovation
Information technology had also a positive and significant effect on innovation. This finding adheres with Rhodes et al. (2008) study which indicated that information technology and innovation are positively associated. In addition, this finding is also relevant to research conducted by Martins and Terablanche (2003) which noted information technology as one of the important support mechanisms that should be present in the culture of an organization in order to foster an environment that will promote innovation.
Collaborative culture had also a positive and significant effect on innovation. Thus an organization culture where norms promote collaboration may more likely facilitate interactions among individuals that will stimulate creative ideas that lead to innovation. Thus it can be assumed that the greater the collaboration among individuals the greater the chance for innovation. This result contradicts Jaskyte and Dressler (2005)’s study results which hypothesized that organizations cultural values leading to higher working in collaboration with others, the less innovative the organization may be. However, it is consistent with research conducted by McLean (2005) which stated that collaboration as an essential cultural factor in fostering innovation. The positive influence of collaborative culture on innovation also adheres to the study findings of Hurley and Hult (1998) which reported a positive association between collaborative culture and innovation.
Consistent with the expectations generated from the studies conducted by Page (1993) and Beatty et al. (2001) which indicated that top management is crucial as in almost all innovative
121
endeavors in the organization. This study found that top management support was found to be a significant driver of innovation. The finding also provided support for Read (2000)’s study which highlighted management support as the most important determinant of innovation. Given that the positive link between top management support and innovation was confirmed, it can be concluded that the greater the support from top management, the greater the chance for innovation.
Organization had a positive effect on innovation. The positive influence of organization structure on innovation could be due to the fact that work rules spell out ways to handle work tasks as showed in the descriptive analysis results. That’s mean if the organization tasks rules emphasize on the need for employees to be innovative in their job (as it is likely the case for Taiwan ICDF) therefore it is very likely that they may be a key factor for organization innovation success.
Finally, these findings provide empirical evidence that organizational factors are essential to the success of innovation. Furthermore, the results of this study is also in accordance with Job and Sanghamitra (2007) case study which indicated seven key determinants of innovation among which information technology, management support, organization culture and structure were found to be essential to innovation.
Effects of Knowledge sharing on KMS and Innovation
According to the findings, tacit knowledge sharing and explicit knowledge sharing had a positive and significant impact on KMS. It can also be concluded that both types of knowledge sharing are essential to the system’s success. The positive effect of explicit knowledge sharing on KMS adhered to Al Bushaidi et al. (2010) argument which suggested that ‘without the codified knowledge, KMS cannot operate’. On the basis of this finding, it can thus be claimed that encouraging individuals to share tacit and explicit knowledge on KMS is crucial to its success.
The ability to share knowledge among organizations members is argued to be a key lever for organization innovation (Kim & Lee, 2006; Lin, 2007). This study’s results indicated that both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing have a positive and significant impact on innovation
122
and as such stressed the importance of having both knowledge effectively distributed throughout the organization. These results are compatible with Rhodes et al. (2008) study which also found that both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge had a positive impact on innovation as they suggested that either adopting a personalization or a codification strategy should lead to innovation.
Much of the KM literature have been conveying in the greater value of the tacit knowledge over explicit knowledge for innovation For example, Seidler-de Alwis and Hartmann (2008) and Taminiau et al. (2009) have argued that it is tacit rather than explicit knowledge, which will typically be of more value to innovation. This argument was sustained given that according to their respective beta weight the sharing of tacit knowledge (β=.882) compared to that of explicit knowledge (β=.854) was found to have a stronger influence on innovation.
This finding also supports the claim of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) that achieving a level of shared tacit knowledge played a vital role in achieving a sustainable innovation. Thus it can be assumed that the greater the sharing of tacit knowledge among members of the organization, the greater the chance for innovation. In addition, the common perception that innovation result from the knowledge created by the interaction between explicit and tacit knowledge is not sustained.
Explicit knowledge sharing and tacit knowledge sharing are found to separately influence innovation.
Explicit knowledge sharing is also found to have a positive influence on innovation. Smith (2001) put forward that explicit knowledge can be reused to solve many similar types of problems or connect people with valuable, reusable knowledge. Lin (2007) stressed that an organization’s ability to transform and exploit knowledge may affect its level of innovation, such as faster problem-solving capability and enhanced rapid reaction to new information. Arguably then, explicit knowledge sharing is essential in ensuring innovation. Thus the more explicit knowledge is more available in the organization by encouraging its sharing among organizational members, the greater the chance for innovation.
123