This section presents a review of the literature on organization contexts relationship with KMS, and knowledge sharing and KMS. Three hypotheses are formulated for this section as follow:
Hypothesis 1: Organization contexts have an effect on KMS.
Hypothesis 2: Knowledge sharing has an effect on KMS.
Hypothesis 3: Knowledge sharing has a mediating effect on the relationship between organization contexts and KMS.
Knowledge Sharing and KMS
Studies on KMS success suggested that the system’s effectiveness primarily depends on the quality of its components. Shih & Morisson (2009) suggested that KMS can be measured by
31
assessing the effectiveness of the knowledge service and the success and sustainability of the knowledge service. According to the authors, while effectiveness of knowledge service includes indicators such as cultural and community development, needs appropriateness, professionalism, and communication; success and sustainable knowledge service encompasses indicators such as cultural appropriateness, ease and clarity of the system, adaptability of the system, design of the system, and continuity of the system (p.36-37). Geisler and Wrichramasinghe (2009) argued that since KMS provides users or employees with a service, therefore it should have the attributes of reliability, recoverability, and flexibility. Researchers and scholars commonly agreed that making the knowledge service more effective is a necessary condition for its success (e.g.
Debowski, 2006; Geisler & Wrickramasinghe, 2009; Jennex & Olfman, 2006, p. 54).
Studies have also shown that KMS success factors are similar to those affecting knowledge sharing. For example, Quaddus & Xu, (2005) indicated that KMS is influenced by organizational and individual factors. KMS success is said to be achieved through the combined integration of technology, organizational structure, culture, knowledge processes (e.g. Bhatt, 2001; du Plessis, 2007a). Research that investigated the failure of KM initiatives such as the development and implementation of KMS have acknowledged information technology (Alavi & Leidner, 1999;
Jennex, Smolnik, & Croasdell, 2008, 2009; Ryan & Prybutok, 2001; Moffett et al., 2003), top management support (Davenport et al. 1998; Holsapple & Joshi, 2000; Jennex & Olfman, 2005;
Jennex et al., 2008, 2009; Yu et al., 2007), organization culture (Davenport et al., 1998;
Debowski, 2006; Jennex & Olfman, 2005; Jennex et al., 2008, 2009), organization structure (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal, 2010; Jennex & Olfman, 2005; Jennex et al., 2008, 2009) , and knowledge sharing (Al Bushaidi et al., 2010; Babcock, 2004; King & Marks, 2008; Hislop, 2002; Yu, et al., 2007) as essential key factors to the system’s performance.
In addition, recent studies indicated that KMS success depends on the effects of the above factors on knowledge sharing. For example, Marks, Polay, McCoy, and Galletta (2008, p. 62) noted that because KMS requires individuals to share their knowledge, success is not guaranteed given that several factors can hinder knowledge sharing. Carter and Scarbrough (2001) and Voelpel, Dous and Davenport quoted in Wang and Noe (2009, 2010) pinpointed that the failure of KMS to accomplish its purposes result from the lack of consideration of how the organizational and interpersonal contexts as well as individual factors affect knowledge sharing.
32
Al-Busaidi et al. (2010) have called on further research to investigate factors that affect knowledge sharing behavior as a crucial step to ensure the successful development of an organization KMS.
Organizations failed attempts to successfully pursue KM initiatives seemed to be deeply rooted in knowledge sharing. Jones and Leonard (2009) referring to a previous study indicated that employees’ willingness to share is the most critical success factor for the success of KM.
With regards to the importance of knowledge sharing for KMS, Babcock (2004)’s study noted that investments that have been made to promote KM initiatives in organizations resulted in a estimated loss of $ 31.5 billion are lost per year by Fortune 500 companies due to lack of knowledge sharing. Similarly, Kankanhalli et al. (2005) noted that the most often observed problem in KMS is the low degree of participation for knowledge sharing or shared database use.
Some empirical evidence has also been found on the literature with regards to the importance of knowledge sharing for KMS. A rare study conducted by Pai (2006) provided empirical support to these arguments by demonstrating that knowledge sharing behavior was essential to the effectiveness of IS/IT Strategic Planning (ISSP). Akhavan, Jafari, and Fathian (2006) carried out a qualitative case study that investigated critical success factors of KMS by using data from six successful companies in KM program. These organizations included Ernst &
Young, Hewlett-Packard, BusinessEdge Solutions, Microsoft, Teltech and Siemens. The findings showed that knowledge sharing was among the important key success factors for KMS in organization such as Hewlett-Packard, Siemens, Ernst & Young, Teltech, BusinessEdge Solutions. These results also indicated that knowledge sharing was identified to be vital to KM success in almost every organization that these authors examined.
Knowledge sharing is commonly perceived as one important process of KM and a main component of KMS (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Ryu, Hee, & Han, 2003). Zhang et al. (2010) developed a conceptual model describing knowledge sharing as a process where individuals contribute and use knowledge from the systems (see figure. 2.4). KMS is mainly design to capture individuals’ knowledge and requires that they contribute their knowledge (i.e. tacit and explicit) to the system. Akhavan et al. (2006) noted that it is crucial for organization to be able to save both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge because they are among the most important elements of a KMS. Likewise du Plessis (2007a) KM success is also defined by the support of
33
tacit and explicit knowledge. In contrast, Aulawi et al. (2009, p. 2265) stressed that in order to ensure KM success, organization must decide which knowledge is perceived to be critical and decide who has the information.
Figure 2.3. The model of knowledge sharing dynamics in a KMS. Adapted from “Knowledge-sharing reward dynamics in Knowledge Management Systems: Game theory–based empirical validation” by X. Zhang, Z. Chen, D. Vogel, M. Yuan, & C. Guo, 2010, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 20 (2), p. 104. Copyright 2010 by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Information Technology, Knowledge Sharing and KMS
There is an ongoing debate among researchers on the role of information technology in KMS. While some researchers have emphatically maintained that information technology is not essential for KM initiative success (McDermott, 1999; McDermott & O’Dell, 2001), others have suggested that KM necessitates the assistance of information technology to maintain the efficiency of knowledge activities (Li & Tsai, 2009) and considered it to be a pre-requirement for KM success (Aulawi et al., 2009). Various authors including (Alavi and Leidner, 1999;
Hasanali, 2002) stated that information technology infrastructure is a key driver to KMS. Still yet others have pinpointed that although information technology is necessary, it is not sufficient to KM success (e.g. Balthazar & Cooke, 2004; Hall, 2001; Wong, 2005; Yu, Kim, Kim, 2004). For example, Kulkarni et al. (2006/2007) and Grant and Qureshi (2006) noted that by solely relying on technology may cause KMS to be doomed to failure.
34
Arguments and empirical studies can be found throughout the KM literature with regards to the role of information technology in KMS success (e.g., Anantatmula, 2008; Chen, 2009;
Kankanhalli et al., 2003; Tseng, 2008). For example, Tseng (2008) selected four organizations in Taiwan that include Uni-President Corporation, Foxsemicon Integrated Technology Incorporation and InnoLux Display Corporation, and Advanced Semiconductor Engineering Inc.
as case studies to explore the role and effect of information technology in KMS. The findings suggest that information technologies such as groupware, group decision support systems, workflow software, video conferencing, and intranet, can facilitate internal information exchanges, group discussions and communication in organizations. Furthermore, information technologies, such as such as virtual communities, e-mail, electronic bulletin boards, long-distance learning technology and extranet, can facilitate cross-functional communication, external information searches and knowledge transmission among internal divisions of the same company.
An empirical study conducted by Chen (2009) showed that information technology capability was positively related with KMS success. The findings revealed that information technology was most significantly associated with the system quality than the knowledge quality and service quality of the KMS. Studies conducted by Chen (2009) and Tseng (2008) showed that information technology should be considered as one the KMS components that lend support to the KMS functions. Authors like Abdullah and Selmat (2005) that identified information technologies as part of a KMS defined KMS from a technical perspective (see figure 2.5). The KMS’ technical perspective consists of three components that include information technologies, functions and knowledge. A variety of technologies supports knowledge work or activities through its functions which are using, finding, creating knowledge and packaging. Luan and Serban (2002)’s study similarly to Abdullah and Selmat (2005) indicated that information technologies such as document management, data mining and search provide essential support for KMS.
Kankanhalli, Tanudidjaja, Sutanto, and Tan (2003) study of information technology role in KM initiatives highlighted two main functions of information technology that include 1) helping people locate each other and communicate so as to achieve complex knowledge transfer and 2) helping people share knowledge through common knowledge bases so as to achieve the
35
economic reuse of knowledge. Similarly, various researchers have acknowledged that the importance of information technology for KMS success lies in its capability to facilitate knowledge sharing (e.g., Hall, 2001; Yeh, Lai, & Ho, 2006). For example, Hall (2001) cautioned that the technical infrastructure depends on the value of the content it holds. Addressing the importance of knowledge sharing for KMS, Hall (2001) suggested that the success of the KM initiatives depends on the willingness of employees to participate in the creation of common knowledge base (p. 140).
Figure 2.4. The technical perspective of a KMS. Adapted from “A framework for knowledge management systems implementation in collaborative environment for higher learning institution” by R. Abdullah, & M. H. Selamat, (2005), Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. Available at http://www.tlainc.com/articl83.htm.
36
Top Management Support, Knowledge Sharing and KMS
Top management support has been associated theoretically and empirically with the successful implementation of various types of information systems (e.g. Bajwa et al., 1998; Lee
& Ahn, 2010; Pai, 2006; Young & Jordan, 2008). For instance, Bajwa et al. (1998) study showed that high levels of top management support indirectly influence the success of executive information systems by developing a supportive context for the organization. Likewise Guimaraes and Igbaria (1997) suggested several reasons for the importance of management support for any system success. These authors contended that management support for a system success is essential to receive personnel and monetary resources necessary to the system development. They also added that management support is crucial to user satisfaction and adoption of the system.
With regards to KMS, research has also shown that management support is essential for system adoption (e.g. Wong & Aspinall, 2006), perceived usefulness of the system (Quaddus &
Xu, 2005) and system implementation (Akhavan et al., 2006). For example, Akhavan et al. (2006) qualitative case study indicated that KMS requires CEO/ management support during its design and implementation phases. Researchers and Scholars are increasingly acknowledging that KMS success depend on top management support for knowledge sharing. Davenport et al. (1998) and McKenzie, Truch, and van Winkelen (2001, p.69) pointed that top management plays an important role in ensuring KM success by sending messages that KM is critical to company’s success, identifying the type of knowledge that is important for the organization, and by describing their vision of how this knowledge can make a difference to the organization. Various studies have provided evidence that top management behavior need to be consistent with their messages and vision for KMS and emphasize the importance of knowledge sharing in order to ensure the success of the system. One interviewee in Al- Alawi et al.’s (2007, p.35) pointed this fact by stating that:
‘…my communication of information via e-mail or circulars is usually not taken very appreciatively by my coworkers because they think it is my personal initiative due to lack of management support and praise to that initiative”.
Likewise, in a survey of 173 employees working in the administrative affairs of a large US university Flowers et al.’s (2010) concluded that top management openness led to employees’
37
contribution to an electronic knowledge sharing database (EKSDB). Through an analysis of successful case studies of KMS, Benbya and Belbaly (2005) indicated that employees’
perception of management support for knowledge sharing can be one the mechanisms for KMS effectiveness. Similarly, Al-Busaidi et al. (2010) used a partial least square methodology to analyze the factors that determine the individual knowledge sharing behavior to a repository KMS by surveying 104 employees working in a private petroleum organization in Oman. The authors concluded that management support encouraged individual’s knowledge sharing behavior to KMS.
In contrast, a study conducted by Ciborra & Patriotta (1998) showed that numbers of employees refrained from engaging in electronic exchange forums due to concerns held about how their knowledge might be used or interpreted by senior managers. For example, Ciborra &
Patriotta (1998) found that in one of groupware systems they examined, individuals’ contribution levels changed noticeably due to comments put on the system by a senior manager. This led to a panic reaction among employees and contributed to a freeze in the use of the system for months.
Using a sample of 151 of IT/IS executive managers based on data collected from 805 large companies in Taiwan, Pai (2006) study showed that top management support had a positive impact on knowledge sharing behavior and was subsequently associated with ISSP effectiveness.
Organization Culture, Knowledge Sharing and KMS
Researchers agree that the key success to KM resides in organization’s capability to nurture an adequate organization culture. Forcadelll and Guadamillas (2002) case study of Itziar Company indicated that the corporate culture given its influence on the other organization factors was one of the essential factors that influence the successful implementation of KMS. Likewise Akhavan et al. (2006) qualitative case study findings showed that organization culture was an essential factor for KMS success for every organization that they investigated. In contrast, Al-Alawi (2005) study of knowledge intensive Bahraini organizations indicated that KMS failed due to organization culture. The study revealed that KM initiatives were weak in Bahraini organizations due to the lack of consideration that were given to cultural and organizational development issues that are seminal to any successful KM project or system.
38
There is a common perception that in order to develop successful KMS, the culture of an organization needs to support knowledge sharing (Ruggles 1998). A collaborative culture is not only perceived to be essential to knowledge sharing but it is also claimed to be important for KMS success. Alavi, Kayworth & Leidner (2005) cited expertise, formalization, innovativeness, collaboration and autonomy as the values of organizational culture that lead to effective KM.
Debowski (2006) indicates a collaborative culture needs to be nurtured to ensure KMS success.
In contrast, a culture that is based on hostility will cause the organization to fail in achieving potential benefits of effective KMS (Allame, Nouri, Tavakoli, & Shokrani, 2011). For example, research conducted by Orlikowski (1992, 2000) showed that consultants in a large US services firm avoided Lotus Notes, a groupware for knowledge sharing due to the fact that the incentive policy and evaluation criteria did not encourage cooperation and knowledge sharing through the KMS. Furthermore, the competitive culture, low mutual trust and high fear of share in the firm hindered the sharing of individual knowledge to the intranet-based KMS.
Similarly, Lam (2005) found that organization culture was the main cause for the unsuccessful implementation of an intranet based KMS in an Indian software development company. The organization adopted a codification based approach strategy where an intranet system was established to facilitate employees to record essential knowledge that could be accessed by other organizational members. The majority of employees were unwilling to codify any of their knowledge due to the individualistic and competitive nature of the organizational culture. For example one interviewee mentioned, ‘I’m the expert and I know all there is to know’
while another interview observed, ‘why should I share with others, what’s in it for me (e.g.
financial or career development)?’
In addition, the study also showed that people were concerned that their repetitive and continuous use of the codified knowledge made available through the KMS by their colleagues could be perceived as a weakness by colleagues, and as a lack of innovativeness to develop their own ideas. Thus, one interviewee expressed this concern by saying, ‘people will see me as dependent on the brain of others’. Ruppel and Harrington (2001, p.38) suggested that ‘since sharing on intranets imply sharing both explicit and tacit knowledge therefore an organizational culture that encourage sharing is conducive to more effective KM, intranet use and success’.
Furthermore, Jennex, Smolnik, and Croasdell (2008, 2009) suggested that an organization
39
culture that support learning, knowledge sharing and use is essential to KM success.
Collaborative culture has been identified to be among the culture characteristics that facilitate knowledge sharing and KMS success.
Organization Structure, Knowledge Sharing and KMS
Though organization structure has been claimed to be related with organization culture (Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000; Kulkarni et al., 2006/2007), researchers have also identified it as a critical key factor for KM initiative success. Malhotra (2002) and Allame et al. (2011) indicated that it could be also be as well a key constraint to the success of KMS. The influence of organization structure on KMS can be acknowledged from several aspects. First, according to Mayer and colleagues in McNeish and Mann (2010) the impact of organization structure on the division of labor, allocation of decision rights, choice of coordinating mechanisms, delineation of organization boundaries, and networks of information relationships impacts the way knowledge is managed and shared. Similarly, Debowski (2006) also indicated that organization structure influences how knowledge is created and most importantly disseminated. Organization structure defines the relationship between individual and organization knowledge by determining who is expected to control specific knowledge, as well as who must share it and who can hoard it.
Hasanali (2002) indicated that organization structure is vital for KM success and also suggested that roles and responsibilities are also crucial to KMS success. Akhavan et al. (2006)’s qualitative case study revealed that organization structure was considered to be among the most important key factors for KMS success for organizations such as Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Siemens, Teltech, and BusinessEdge Solutions. These authors hinted that a decentralized and a value oriented organization structure facilitate the implementation of KMS. Anantatmula and Kanungo (2007) indicated that formalization can influence KM success. In contrast, formalization and standard operating procedures have been claimed to impede KM initiative success (Levy, Hadar, Greenspan, & Hadar, 2010).
Similarly, Conley and Zheng (2009) advanced that a formalized and centralized structure undermines KM success whereas a flexible structure promotes it. Davenport et al. (1998) conducted an exploratory study of 31 KM projects in 24 organizations which sought to identify the factors related to KM effectiveness. The authors indicated that a standard and flexible
40
knowledge structure were associated to KM effectiveness. Similarly, Forcadell and Guadamillas (2002) case study revealed that the flexible structure of ‘Itziar Company’ facilitated the successful implementation of KMS. Jennex et al. (2008, 2009) indicated that an organization structure that support learning knowledge sharing and use is essential to KM success.