Recommendation for Taiwan ICDF
This study provided evidence on the importance of organization contexts (i.e. information technology, top management support, collaborative culture, and organization structure) for nurturing tacit and explicit knowledge sharing behavior and ensuring KMS and innovation success in nonprofit organizations such as Taiwan ICDF. Although the organization has a centralized structure which supposedly would be expected to inhibit knowledge sharing, the positive impact of organization structure on knowledge sharing suggested that its structure should not be altered. As Nonaka (1995) suggested hierarchical structure can be maintained
126
while the flexibility dimension is added so as to encourage knowledge sharing and collaboration among individuals.
In relation to descriptive statistics results for organization structure, ‘there is good system of delegation of power in my department’ and ‘employees’ participation in decision-making process’ gathered the lowest mean scores. Therefore giving more power to employees in their work and acknowledging or inviting employees to be engage in the decision making process may increase the level of flexibility in the organization structure and subsequently promote individuals’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing behavior. It has been reported by Al-Alawi et al.
(2007) that an organizational structure characterized by participative decision making, ease of information flow and cross functional teams was vital to knowledge sharing. In addition, study conducted by Jones (2002) indicated that the higher the degree of employee participation in decision making, and the more employment conditions were satisfactory, the greater were the preparedness of employees to share knowledge.
Increasing employees’ right to participation in decision making is even more important if the organization’ goal is to foster innovation. Research has shown that being able to participate in decision making was a key factor in enhancing innovation (e.g. Axtell et al., 2000; Forcadell
& Guadamillas, 2002; West & Anderson, 1996). In order to improve employees’ participation in decision-making process, it is recommended that management welcomes employees’ opinions, particularly to those issues that are of concern to them and nurtures collegiality in meetings as a way to invite individuals to openly discuss their ideas.
When it comes to collaborative culture, ‘there is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure’ and ‘there is a willingness to collaborate across organizations units’ gathered the lowest means scores. Accordingly, it is recommended that management organizes periodic meetings across organizations units in order to promote good communication between departments/
organization units. An open door communication policy supporting open communication between individuals and departments may be an important step in helping building a collaborative culture. Moreover, encouraging employees to communicate will help to build relationships between people, establish trust among organizational members. In addition, management needs to create awareness on the importance of tasks colleagues work on through project debriefing as a way to develop connections and collaboration among individuals. Project
127
debriefings for example can help individuals identify who possess the knowledge and the area of expertise of the knowledge providers that they may call upon when the need arises. Through these debriefings, organization members can learn from the success stories that they need to continue to emulate as well as to extract the lessons learned from past failures. In addition, management should focus on building relationships on partnerships in order to nurture a sense of collective responsibility among employees.
In relation to top management support, ‘top management’ efforts in fostering knowledge sharing culture by offering rewards’ had the lowest mean score. Therefore recognizing individuals for their knowledge contribution through rewards can have positive impact on their knowledge sharing behavior. With that said it is recommended that management recognizes employees that have made valuable knowledge contribution to the organization. While all these suggestions could be effective ways to encourage knowledge sharing, management in collaboration with human resource officers needs to understand employees’ needs and objectives in order to tailor effective rewards that may be susceptible to trigger their knowledge sharing behavior.
Referring to information technology, it is suggested that management make more use of information technology to communicate with employees in order to set the example. It is important that organization members understand information technology’s use implications for work, collaboration and communication. For example, the mean response for ‘organization is good at using IT in achieving success’ showed that employees felt somewhat neutral toward such statement. In reference to knowledge sharing, technology applications such as e-mail, videoconferencing, and the like have been found to be effective in facilitating tacit knowledge sharing. Management’s increasing use of information technology to share knowledge may reinforce the message that utilizing technology for knowledge sharing is a desired behavior.
With regards to knowledge sharing, it is recommended that management articulates a knowledge strategy that supports both tacit and explicit knowledge sharing within the organization. According to the results, it seems like the organization favors a personalization strategy. While a personalization strategy may be adopted, it is recommended that some degree of codification strategy should be embraced by management. The codification of knowledge is not only necessary for effective use of knowledge but also is necessary for re-using it when
128
needed so that the knowledge in question is going to belong to the organization rather than the knower (Zaim, 2006, p. 8). While management may continue to promote the sharing of tacit knowledge through socialization, mentoring and the like , it is also recommended that management encourages the exchange of work related reports among organization members (e.g.
PowerPoint slides, spreadsheet) on the organization KMS so that the organization can track the knowledge contributor and evaluate the value of knowledge provided for rewards allocation.
With regards to KMS knowledge service, it is also recommended that management pays great attention to the performance of the KMS. Various researchers (e.g. Al-Busaidi et al., 2010;
Cabrera, Salgado & Collins, 2006) have indicated that the effectiveness of a KMS can affect attitude toward knowledge sharing. On the basis of the descriptive statistics results for KMS, it is recommended that the knowledge staff work closely with employees in order to develop an effective system that will meet all employees’ needs for knowledge sharing since they are the main users of the system. System facilitation for knowledge contribution to the system may be one of the primary steps in efforts of making KMS more effective for knowledge sharing.
Moreover, the knowledge staff needs to make the necessary update so that the KMS service is more reliable, dependable and accurate. Cabrera, Collins, and Salgado (2006) noted that individuals’ knowledge sharing may be affected by the system contents quality by shaping perceptions on the importance and impact of contributions. They contended that the quality of the system may encourage people to share their knowledge as this may contribute to project a positive personal image of expertise. In order to improve employees’ perception about KMS content quality, it is recommended that management conduct evaluation related to employees’
satisfaction with the system.
At last, management with the assistance of the organization Human Resource leaders needs to ensure that all users are able to use and understand all aspects of the systems. As perceived ease of use of the system has been found to affect individuals’ attitude toward knowledge sharing, it is therefore recommended that the KMS interface should be easy to operate in order to facilitate access to all users. To this end, it is suggested that management offers their support for KMS use through the development and implementation of training programs necessary to enhance individuals’ skills in using the system.
129
Finally, Taiwan ICDF should not focus on the discussed contextual factors only in developing knowledge sharing strategies. It is highly recommended that the organization leaders take into account other factors outside the scope of this research that may influence employees’
knowledge sharing behavior. Knowledge sharing behavior based on some researchers’ definition can be analyzed as a function where: F(Xks)= a0 + (β1organization context + β2interpersonal context+ β3individual factors) +ε. So far the study investigated only (β1organization context).
Organization context is important because it has the potential to shape individuals’ behavior and to influence interpersonal relationship among organizational members and individual factors.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
In light of the limitations and delimitations of the study, recommendations for future are given. The researcher placed some delimitation in order to manage the scope of the study. First, it was delimitated to Taiwan and to one nonprofit organization, the International Cooperation and Development Fund (Taiwan ICDF). Furthermore, the research was also delimitated to full time employees working in specific offices such as personnel, accounting, legal affairs, and information technology and so on.
Drawing from the delimitations, this study was limited to Taiwan and was carried in one nonprofit organization therefore the results cannot be generalized to other nonprofit organizations. In addition, the research participants consisted only of Taiwanese employees working full time. Since people can have different perceptions of the organizations they belong to and may respond differently to their organization environment, the findings of this study may be context specific and may not be applicable to other group of organization members (i.e.
volunteers, part-time employees, organization experts) and to other nationalities.
This study had also various methodological limitations. This study embraced only a quantitative survey methodology. One of the disadvantages of survey research includes the inability to gather anything more than superficial data without much data. Thus, to better comprehend the impact of organization contexts on knowledge sharing, future studies may need to incorporate a qualitative approach. Qualitative studies provide a rich and in-depth examination of the organizational context in which knowledge sharing occurs (Wang & Noe, 2010). For
130
example, it would be informative for future research to identify the specific elements in a collaborative culture that employees believe demonstrate support for knowledge sharing.
Furthermore, the units of analysis are exclusively full time employees working at Taiwan ICDF. Thus future studies addressing knowledge sharing in nonprofit organizations may target volunteers as population of interest since nonprofit organizations’ personnel comprises both full time employees and volunteers. Volunteers are responsible for many of the programs and accomplishments associated with nonprofit organizations, but leave the organization after a limited tenure resulting in knowledge loss for the organization (Bach, Lee, & Carroll, 2009).
Thus the need to understand the factors affecting volunteers’ knowledge sharing behavior within nonprofit organizations is critical to combating and preventing knowledge loss, developing effective KM initiatives and ensuring organization’s competitive advantage.
Given that knowledge sharing can be described as a function where knowledge sharing=
organization context factors+ interpersonal context factors +individual factors, the research model may be modified to include individuals’ factors in an attempt to identify what group of factors weighs in the most in ensuring knowledge sharing. It would also be interesting for future studies to include rewards policy as a contextual variable and organization commitment as an individual variable.
Future studies may also investigate whether there is a relationship between knowledge sharing and KMS by shifting their direction (see figure 5.1). Authors like (Al-Busaidi et al., 2010;
Collins, Cabrera, & Salgado, 2006) have indicated that the effectiveness/ quality of KMS can contribute to higher level of knowledge sharing behavior within organizations. Therefore it would be interesting to further examine the effects of KMS on knowledge sharing and innovation.
Future studies may also consider integrating organization commitment within this research’s framework. Organization commitment has been claimed to be essential for the success of any organization initiatives whether it includes promoting effective knowledge sharing, ensuring KMS success, and fostering innovation. It is also well-known that organization contexts have an impact on organization commitment. Such a framework may provide a new perspective on these variables’ relationships.
131
Finally, studies can also investigate the impact of explicit and tacit knowledge sharing on the performance of different types of innovation as for instance administrative and service innovation.
Information Technology
Top Management Support
Collaborative culture
Organization Structure
KMS
Knowledge Sharing
Innovation Organization Contexts
Figure 5.1: Proposed conceptual framework
132
133
REFERENCES
Abassi, R. (2011). Investigating the relation between knowledge map fit and KMS success.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5 (10), 520-527.
Abdullah, H.S., Hassim, A.A., & Chik, R. (2009). Knowledge sharing in a knowledge intensive organization: Identifying enablers. International Journal of Business and Management 4 (4), 115-123.
Abdullah, R., & Selamat, M.H. (2005). A framework for knowledge management systems implementation in collaborative environment for higher learning institution. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. Available at http://www.tlainc.com/articl83.htm.
Adams, G. L., & Lamont, B.T. (2003). Knowledge management systems and developing sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7 (2), 142-154.
doi:10.1108/13673270310477342
Ahmed, P.K., Lim, K.K., & Loh, A.YE. (2002). Learning through knowledge management.
Oxford; Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2006). Critical success factors for knowledge management systems: a multi-case analysis. European Business Review, 18 (2), 97-113. doi:
10.1108/09555340610651820.
Akgun, A.E., Keskin, H., & Gunsel, A. (2007). An empirical analysis concerning the knowledge sharing activities. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 134-141.
Al-Alawi, A.I. (2005). The practice and challenges of knowledge management in financial sectors in Bahrain. Asian Journal of Information Systems, 4 (1), 101-107.
Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N.Y., & Mohammed, Y.F. (2007).Organizational culture and knowledge sharing: critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11 (2), 22-42. doi:10.1108/13673270710738898.
Alam, S.S., Abdullah, Z., Ishak, N.A., & Zain, Z.M. (2009). Assessing knowledge sharing behaviour among employees in SMEs: An empirical study. International Business Research, 2 (2), 115-122.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D.E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1(7), 2-37.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25 (1), 107-136.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T.R., & Leidner, D.E. (2005/2006). An empirical examination of the influence of organization culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management of Information Systems, 22 (3), 191-224.
Al-Busaidi, K.A., & Olfman, L. (2005). An investigation of the determinants of knowledge management success in Omani organizations. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8 (3), 6-27.
Al-Busaidi, K. A., Olfman, L., Ryan, T., & Leroy, G. (2010). Sharing knowledge to a knowledge management system: Examining the motivators and the benefits in an Omani organization.
Journal of Organizational Knowledge Management, 1-12. Available at: http://www.ibimapublishing.com/journals/JOKM/jokm.html Article ID 325835.
Albino, V., Garavelli, A.C., & Schiuma, G. (1998). Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relationships in industrial districts: the role of the leader firm. Technovation, 19 (1), 53-63.
Allameh, S.M., Nouri, B.A., Tavakoli, S.Y., & Shokrani, S.A.R. (2011). Effect of organizational culture on success of knowledge management systems’ implementation Case study:
134
Saderat bank in Isfahan province. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 2 (9), 321-346.
Allame, S.M., Zare, S.M., & reza davoodi, S.M. (2010). Examining the impact of KM enablers on knowledge management processes. Procedia Computer Science 3, 1211-1223.
doi:10.1016/j.procs.2010.12.196
Almahamid, S., McAdams, A.C., & Kalaldeh, T. (2010). The relationships among organizational knowledge sharing practices, employees’ learning commitment, employees’ adaptability, and employees’ job satisfaction: An empirical investigation of the listed manufacturing companies in Jordan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 5, 327-356.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2008). Leadership role in making effective use of knowledge. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 38 (4), 445-460. doi:
10.1108/03055720810917705
Anantatmula, V.S., & Kanungo, S. (2007). Modeling enablers for successful KM implementation.
Proceeding of the 40 th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1-9.
Apostolou, D., Mentzas, G., Abecker, A. (2008/2009). Managing knowledge at multiple organisational levels using faceted ontologies, Journal of Computer Information Systems 49 (2), 32-50.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Differential Potency of Factors Affecting Innovation Performance in Manufacturing and Services Firms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 35-52.
Aulawi, H., Sudirman, I., Suryadi, K., & Govindaraju, R. (2009). Knowledge sharing behavior, antecedent and their impact on individual innovation capability. Journal of Applied Science Research, 5 (12), 2238-2246.
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E., & Harrigton, E. (2000).
Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265-285.
Babcock, P. (2004). Shedding light on knowledge management; lessons learned lead to new ideas about sharing information. HR Magazine, 49 (5), 46-50. Also available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_5_49/ai_n6041032/
Bach, P.M., Lee, R.L., & Carroll, J.M. (2009). Knowledge Management Challenges in the nonprofit sector. Available at:
http://ebooks.narotama.ac.id/files/Encyclopedia%20of%20Information%20Science%20and
%20Technology%20(2nd%20Edition)/Knowledge%20Management%20Challenges%20in
%20the%20Non-Proft%20Sector.pdf
Bajwa, D.S., Rai, A., & Brennan, I. (1998). Key antecedents of executive information system success: A path analytic approach. Decision Support Systems, 22, 31-43.
Balbontin, A., Yazdani, B., Cooper, R., & Souder, W. E. (1999). New Product Success Factors in American and British firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 17 (3), 259-280.
Balthazar, P.A., & Cooke, R.A. (2004). Organization culture and knowledge management success: Assessing the behavior–Performance continuum. Proceeding of 37th Hawaii International Conference on SystemsSciences.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
135
Bartee, R.T., Grandjean, B.D., & Bieber, S.L. (2004). Confirming the reliability of a theory based questionnaire. American Journal of Health Studies, 19 (3), 175-180. Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CTG/is_3_19/ai_n16084029/
Bartol, K. M., & Srivasta, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational rewards systems. Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, 9 (1), 64-76.
Beatty, R.C., Shim, J.P. and Jones, M.C. (2001). Factors influencing corporate website adoption:
A time-based assessment, Information Management, 38, 337-354.
Becerra-Fernandez, I. & Sabherwal, R. (2010). Knowledge management: systems and processes.
Gibson Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Bechina, A. A. A., & Ndlela, M. N. (2008/2009). Success factors in implementing knowledge based systems. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7 (2), 211-218.
Benbya, H. & Belbaly, N. A. (2005). Mechanisms for knowledge management effectiveness: An exploratory analysis. Knowledge and Process Management, 12 (3), 203-216.
Bhatt, G.D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: Examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (1), 68-75.
Bhirud, S., Rodrigues, L., & Desai, P. (2005). Knowledge sharing practices in KM: A case study in Indian software subsidiary. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. Available at: http://www.tlainc.com/articl103.htm
Blair, D.C. (2002). Knowledge management: hype, hope or help? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 (12), 1019-1028.
Bock, G.-W. & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management Journal, 15 (2), 14-21.
Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.-G., & Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the role of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quaterly, 29 (1), 87-111.
Bontis, N., & Fitz-enz, J. (2002). Intellectual capital ROI: A causal map of human capital antecedents and consequents. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3 (3), 223-247. doi:
10.1108/1469130210435589.
Bordia, P., Irmer, B. E., & Abusah, D. (2006). Differences in sharing knowledge interpersonally and via databases: The role of evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3), 262−280. doi:
10.1080/13594320500417784.
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40 (3), 90-111.
Cabrera, A., & Cabrera, E.F. (2002). Knowledge- sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies 23, 687-710.
Cabrera, A., Collins, W.C., & Salgado, J.F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17 (2), 245-264. doi: 10.1080/09585190500404614.
Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24 (1), 29-39.
136
Carbonell, P., & Rodriguez-Escudero, A. I. (2009). Relationships among team’s organization context, innovation speed, and technological uncertainty: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26 (1/2), 28-45.
Carmelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J., Sousa-Ginel, E., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2011). The influence of human resource management on knowledge sharing and innovation in Spain: The mediating role of affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22 (7), 1442-1463.
Cavusgil, S.T., Calantone, R.J., & Zhao, Y. (2003). Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation capability. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 18 (1), 6-21.
Chandran, D., & Raman, K. (2009). Awareness and problems of implementing knowledge management systems in medium sized business organization in Malaysia. J Soc Sci, 19 (2), 155-161.
Chang, M.-H., & Harrington Jr., J. E. (1998). Organization structure and firm innovation in a retail chain. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 3(4), 267-288.
Chang, M.-Y., Ho, J. S.-Y., & Lau, P. M. (2009). Knowledge sharing in academic institutions: a
Chang, M.-Y., Ho, J. S.-Y., & Lau, P. M. (2009). Knowledge sharing in academic institutions: a