以社會-技術觀點探討組織知識能力、知識分享與組織效益關係

全文

(1)國立交通大學資訊管理研究所博士論文. 以社會-技術觀點探討組織知識能力、知識分享與組織效益關係 The Study of Organizational Knowledge Capabilities, Knowledge Sharing, and Organizational Effectiveness: A Socio-technical Perspective. 研究生：陳良駒指導教授：楊. 千. 教授. 中華民國九十五年六月.

(2) 以社會-技術觀點探討組織知識能力、知識分享與組織效益關係. 研究生：陳良駒. 指導教授：楊千教授. 國立交通大學資訊管理研究所. 中文摘要知識管理核心研究議題著重於組織內部有效的知識分享行為，學者多從經濟或社會資本等觀點進行知識分享的研究，卻少有文獻從組織的知識管理能力，特別是整合社會技術觀點來探討；組織知識能力目的在改善組織知識流程效率，進而提昇組織績效。本論文綜合資源(知識)基礎、組織能力及知識管理等理論進行組織知識分享與組織效益間關係之探討。本研究以問卷調查方式進行，樣本對象為台灣北部地區的知識型組織主管或員工，資料透過結構方程模式來分析構念間關係。研究指出四項主要結論：（一）技術資源的多寡與組織技術能力的高低具有顯著的正向關係；（二）組織知識能力對於知識分享行為具有正向的影響效果，尤其社會為基的知識能力效果較大；（三）員工投入及參與愈多的知識分享行為，會顯著的提昇組織的效益；（四）導入知識管理的組織在社會為基的知識能力及知識分享的表現上均較未導入知識管理的公司為佳。關鍵字：知識管理；社會技術觀點；知識分享；組織知識能力. -I-.

(3) The Study of Organizational Knowledge Capabilities, Knowledge Sharing, and Organizational Effectiveness: A Socio-technical Perspective Student: Liang-Chu Chen. Advisor: Chyan Yang. Institute of Information Management National Chiao Tung University. Abstract Recent concerns about the issue of knowledge management (KM) for an intra-organization have accentuated the need for more efficient and effective knowledge sharing. Most scholars explore this issue from the economic and social capital perspectives, yet few research studies focus on organizational knowledge capabilities, specifically, the holistic perspective combined social with technological factors. Organizational knowledge capabilities are developed to perform knowledge processes more efficiency so as to achieve organizational success. Drawing from the theories of resource-based view (RBV), knowledge-based view (KBV), organizational capability, and KM, this study aims at investigating the relationship among organizational knowledge capability (OKC), knowledge sharing (KS), and organizational effectiveness. Using structural equation modeling (SEM) with data from questionnaires collected in different industries, this study considers the knowledge managers and workers of knowledgebased organizations located in the north of Taiwan as research respondents. This study concludes four primary results: (1) IT/IS support can enhance the development of technical OKC; (2) organizational knowledge capabilities have a positive association with knowledge sharing, specifically in social OKC; (3) The more knowledge workers participate in knowledge sharing, the more organizational effectiveness can achieve; (4) firms which implement KM will be better in social OKC and knowledge sharing than firms which do not. Keywords: knowledge management; socio-technical perspective; knowledge sharing; organizational knowledge capability.. -II-.

(4) 誌謝暗夜靜思，真實與虛幻的影像在眼前交疊；恍若一夢，卻是紮實的走完學術探索的啟蒙之路。博士這個頭銜，換盡心血與滄桑，終究榮耀自己。回眸想望這一千多天的日子，學術的探索是一段孤獨研究的過程，但「協同與知識分享」，卻是我在跨領域研究的潮流中獲益甚多的概念。然而，人到中壯年求學的辛苦，只有腦袋瓜裡的阿茲海默病毒知道。博士學位的取得，因緣際會的過程得力於許多有緣人的幫忙，銘感於心卻無法逐一致謝，內心深處仍有些許遺憾。感謝. 楊千老師的指導，他給我的遠多於研究上的薰陶，包括學習態度的養成. 及學術視野的擴展，敦儒的學者人格亦是我努力實踐的典範。博士論文的完成，感謝. 楊老師的督促與激勵，獨到的見解與論述開啟了研究的大門；感謝. 師、. 劉敦仁老師、. 蔡銘箴老師及. 陳鴻基老. 楊瑞明老師等口試委員提供的建議及指正，. 對論文的內涵與未來研究的展開具有明顯的助益。感謝陳安斌所長及所有老師在生活上的照顧及學業上的傳授，讓自己專業的智慧與能力逐步的成長。感謝國防管理學院所有長官及師長的提攜，讓我有機會以師資培訓的員額進行深造；特別是. 傅振華學長對我於公於私的鼓勵及支持，讓我在博士求學過程中得. 以全心投入在專業研究領域。此外，實驗室的生活重啟學生心情。感謝交大資管所、經管所及管科所的學長（姐）及學弟（妹），與您們的互動，是一種協同的知識饗宴。特別是文民，他是刺激我努力追趕的標竿。當然，感謝老婆在我眉頭深鎖時，適時的給我心情的慰藉，讓我在案頭有繼續奮鬥的信心；感謝一對兒女，在思路難解時給予無憂的歡笑；感謝所有親人默默的支持與鼓勵！願大家共享此份榮耀。. 陳良駒二００六年七月十日. -III-.

(5) Content 中文摘要 ..........................................................................................................................I Abstract........................................................................................................................... II 誌謝 ............................................................................................................................... III Content ..........................................................................................................................IV List of Tables .................................................................................................................VI List of Figures.............................................................................................................. VII Chapter1. Introduction.....................................................................................................1 1.1 Research Background .............................................................................................1 1.2 Research Motivation...............................................................................................3 1.3 Research Questions ................................................................................................6 Chapter2. Literature Review............................................................................................7 2.1 Knowledge Management (KM)..............................................................................7 2.2 RBV and KBV......................................................................................................13 2.3 Socio-technical perspective ..................................................................................16 2.4 Organizational capabilities ...................................................................................19 2.5 Knowledge Sharing (KS)......................................................................................24 2.6 Organizational effectiveness.................................................................................27 Chapter3. Research design ............................................................................................28 3.1 Organizational knowledge capability and knowledge sharing .............................30 3.2 Knowledge sharing and Organizational effectiveness .........................................33 3.3 IT/IS support and Technical OKC........................................................................34 3.4 KM, OKC, and KS ...............................................................................................34 Chapter4. Research Methodology .................................................................................36 4.1 Survey instrument.................................................................................................36 4.2 Data Collection and sample description ...............................................................37 Chapter5. Research Analysis and Results .....................................................................40 5.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations ..................................................................40 5.2 The results of the measurement model ................................................................41 5.3 The analysis results of competing models............................................................45 5.4 Results of implementing & not-implementing KM organizations .......................47 5.5 Summary...............................................................................................................48. -IV-.

(6) Chapter6. Discussion .....................................................................................................49 6.1 The Dimensions of Social OKC ...........................................................................49 6.2 The relationship between OKC and KS ...............................................................49 6.3 IT/IS support and technical OKC .........................................................................51 6.4 The effects for a firm implementing KM .............................................................52 Chapter7. Conclusion ....................................................................................................54 References .....................................................................................................................56 Appendix .......................................................................................................................63. -V-.

(7) List of Tables. Table 2.1 Knowledge management activities..................................................................8 Table 2.2 KM efforts influenced by technology revolution ............................................9 Table 2.3 Knowledge management strategy..................................................................11 Table 2.4 The Comparison between RBV and KBV.....................................................16 Table 2.5 Summary on knowledge sharing factors .......................................................26 Table 4.1 Research variables .........................................................................................37 Table 4.2 The profile of respondents.............................................................................39 Table 5.1 Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix of the key variable ..................41 Table 5.2 Confirmatory factor analysis .........................................................................42 Table 5.3 Results of second-order model ......................................................................44 Table 5.4 Result of the t-test..........................................................................................47 Table 5.5 Summary of Hypotheses test .........................................................................48. -VI-.

(8) List of Figures Figure 1.1 Published KM articles from 1980 to 2005 .....................................................2 Figure 1.2 Knowledge sharing is the core of knowledge process ...................................4 Figure 2.1 The evolution of knowledge management .....................................................7 Figure 2.2 The relationship of organizational constructs ..............................................12 Figure 2.3 Resource portfolio........................................................................................14 Figure 2.4 The multifaceted perspectives on knowledge sharing .................................25 Figure 3.1 Research design............................................................................................28 Figure 3.2 Research framework.....................................................................................30 Figure 5.1 Alternative models tested in confirmatory analysis .....................................43 Figure 5.2 Parameter estimations of three correlated first-order model (Model 4).......45 Figure 5.3 Parameter estimations of second-order model (Model 5) ............................45 Figure 5.4 Results of Structural Model (First-order Model) .........................................46 Figure 5.5 Results of Structural Model (Second-order Model).....................................47. -VII-.

(9) Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Research Background To bring about an increasing emphasis on managing knowledge in the dynamic knowledge environment, organizations move towards constructing more effective knowledge context for improving the knowledge activities. In the era of knowledge economy, the organizations need to integrate their infrastructures, processes, and business activities in order to develop their knowledge assets more efficiently for organizational survival and advancement. Therefore, the ability to scan and recognize critical knowledge plays an important role in gaining competitive advantage and organizational growth. Knowledge management (KM), an emerging perspective for managing knowledge effectively, has been broadly applied to many fields from information management technologies (e.g. data mining, information retrieval, and knowledge extraction) to organizational design efforts (e.g. learning organization, knowledge community, and social capital). The importance of KM has been confirmed by the survey of Almashari et al. (2002), where 77 companies in Kuwait are investigated. They found that the entire samples (both governments and private firms) consider KM as an important factor in the organizations. Specifically, knowledge is an essential intangible resource in impacting the organizational performance. Most companies claim that KM is a part of corporate culture and can enable an organization to improve business process for achieving firm goals (Heisig and Vorbeck, 2001). Many firms do efforts to improve organizational contexts for becoming knowledge oriented enterprises. The Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE), a measure which presents organizational ability to convert tacit and explicit knowledge into new capital and shareholder value, founded in 1998 and aimed at identifying the leading KM organizations (see The KNOW Network website). The MAKE suggests eight knowledge performance criteria, such as a corporate knowledge-driven culture, knowledge workers, knowledge-based products and solutions, enterprise intellectual capital, collaborative knowledge sharing, a learning organization, value-based customer knowledge, and enterprise knowledge convert into shareholder value, to assess an effective knowledge organization. Some leading and famous KM enterprises, including Accenture, BMW, Buckman Laboratories, Dell, Nokia, Sony, and 3M, are best practices when the firms intent to implement KM activities. According to the recent industry survey of the German Top 1000 and European Top 200 companies (Heisig and Vorbeck, 2001), 55.4% of 146 companies have been conducted KM activities more than 3 -1-.

(10) years, and one fifths of the companies are in the planning stage. Therefore, the issue of KM is an emerging solution to manage knowledge effectively in practitioners. On the other hand, the growing interest in KM research has been documented by a number of articles over the past decade (Serenko and Bontis, 2004). Figure 1.1 indicates the number of with the title of articles including “knowledge management” published in a variety of expert journals from 1980 to 2005. By surveying three databases, INSPEC, ABI/INFO, and SDOS, the results are all toward the similar tendency. Many research papers had presented since 1995, and the interests are still sustained. Therefore, the issues of KM in academicians are also a hot research topic.. 1600 1400 INSPEC ABI/INFO SDOS. Number of Articles. 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0. 1980-1985. 1986-1990. 1991-1995. 1996-2000. 2001-2005. INSPEC. 6. 52. 54. 503. 1174. ABI/INFO. 1. 8. 8. 699. 1421. SDOS. 0. 0. 10. 107. 217. Time. Figure 1.1 Published KM articles from 1980 to 2005 (TI=knowledge management) Mouritsen and Larsen (2005) divided KM into two generations: individual and networked. The first wave focuses on people who are regarded as the source of firm’s knowledge, and the most challenging is to distribute individual knowledge to others. For the second wave, KM centres a number of networked knowledge resources, which exist in the organizational context to create firm’s value. In this stage, KM concentrates on the organizational competencies drew from the concept of core competencies (Pralahad and Hamel, 1990). In other words, how the organization is able to integrate knowledge resources, including technologies, skills, processes, and relations, is a worthily exploratory theme. KM is a strategic activity that contributes to organizational profitability and advantage (Debowski, 2006); therefore, it is often connected to the issues of strategic management in an. -2-.

(11) organization. The objective of strategic management is to explore the formulation of superior performance in an organization. The theory of the resource-based view (RBV), developed to achieve a firm’s competitive advantage and performance, has been well received in this field during the last decade (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991). Past literature of the RBV has in fact concentrated on the development of existing specific resources - that is, tangible assets. In recent studies, scholars put more attention to the knowledge-based view (KBV) of the firm, including organizational learning, core competences, and knowledge management (Grant, 1997; Wiig, 1994). According to this perspective, organizational knowledge is considered as the most valuable resource, and the capability of how to manage it is the most significant driver of competitive advantage (Perez and Pablos, 2003). The theoretical insight provides a solid fundamental for the importance of organizational capability in managing knowledge resources. Concerning the literature of knowledge management (KM) for an intra-organization, most researchers acknowledge that knowledge sharing plays an important role in the development of KM (Hendriks, 1999; King et al., 2002; Shin, 2004) and business success (O’Dell et al., 1999; Widen-Wulff and Ginman, 2004), but it is also the most difficult work (Almashari et al., 2002; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Scholl et al., 2004). Davenport and Prusak (1998) revealed that KM projects aim at developing a knowledge intensive culture through encouraging knowledge sharing behavior. In general, organizations attempt to implement KM activities for multiple purposes, such as concentrating customer’s focused knowledge, managing intellectual assets, or encouraging knowledge creation and innovation. However; more enterprises (e.g. Chevron, Dow Chemical, and Price Waterhouse) aim at retaining and transferring best practices when they conduct KM related actions (O’Dell et al., 1999). Alinda and Hasliza (2004) revealed that organizational issue is the most dominant perspective adopted by KM researchers. Within the firm, the most important KM article is organizational capability, which manages knowledge as an essential resource for competitive advantage and firm growth. A number of theoretical themes exist about the organizational capabilities that yield a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991); however, comparatively few research studies have been conducted on the holistic view of knowledge resources and the capabilities for connecting the relationship with knowledge sharing and organizational performance.. 1.2 Research Motivation Depending on shared knowledge, collaboration, and trust, KM is a value-driven process. -3-.

(12) (Debowski, 2006). Following the perspective of KM process, many scholars provide a variety of knowledge processes. The processes include identifying, acquiring, organizing, storing, disseminating, applying, and creating knowledge. In general, knowledge is firstly acquired from the internal or external sources, and then they are organized and stored into the knowledge base through the effort of individual or MIS department. Next, transferring, sharing and disseminating knowledge to others are the critical activities within an organization. Lastly, knowledge is applied to create new knowledge within organizations, or it is sold to external customer or market. Indeed, knowledge sharing, transfer, or dissemination is the core procedure in the knowledge activities (Figure 1.2). Knowledge Sharing is the center of knowledge process Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Creation. Access. Dissemination. Application. Daal, Hass, and Weggeman (1998). Creation. Draw-Up. Dissemination. Apply. Davenport, Long And Beers(1998a). Creation. Despres and Chauvel (1999). Create. Map / bundle. Gartner Group (1999). Create. Organize. Liebowitz (1999). Nissen(1999) Lee et al. (2005). Beckman(1999). Identify. Transference. Capture. Identify. Capture. Capture. Share / Transfer. Access. Store. Capture Creation. Store. Organize Accumulation. Select. Distribute Sharing. Store. Asset Management. Reuse. Evolve. Use. Share. Formalize. Evaluate. Share. Sell. Apply. Apply Utilization. Apply. Internalization. Create. Sell. Figure 1.2 Knowledge sharing is the core of knowledge process (Bechman, 1999; Lee et al., 2005; Nissen and Espino, 2000; Shin et al., 2001). Scholl et al. (2004) assessed the future of KM by experts who had published on the subject of KM or participated in practical KM activities in an organization. The results of the survey reported that knowledge sharing is the most pressing and challenging theoretical research issue and practical problem for the advancement of KM, for example, how to identify the knowledge owners within an organization and how to motivate people to share their knowledge. Riege (2005) revealed that the practices and initiatives of knowledge sharing are a key component of KM. That is why we concern the issue of knowledge sharing behavior in this study. Multi-faceted factors have been proposed to drive the behavior of knowledge sharing, such as a participant’s motivation, social relationship, and organizational culture (Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Szulanski, 1996; Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Based on a variety of aspects, the. -4-.

(13) growing interest in knowledge sharing has been developed by a number of researchers. Shin (2004) constructed an integrated knowledge sharing framework to identify the important variables and relationships from economic perspectives. Cummings and Teng (2003) empirically tested the key factors of affecting R&D knowledge sharing through a context viewpoint. Alavi and Leidner (2001) proposed some research suggestions for effective knowledge sharing from the organizational perspective, including the social, cultural, and technical attributes. Some scholars attempted to explain knowledge sharing through intentionbehavior perspective (Bock et al., 2005; Ryu et al., 2003). However, few research studies focus on the area of capability. Organizational knowledge capabilities are recognized as an interesting theme in knowledge management studies (Kalling, 2003), and are developed to perform knowledge processes more effectively (Dawson, 2000). Following capability perspective, knowledge is regarded as the potential to impact organizational action (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Over the past decade, many firms have given critical efforts to manage knowledge resources so as to enhance organizational capabilities. Alavi and Leidner (2001) believed that KM aims at building organizational competencies, understanding strategic know-how, and creating intellectual capital when knowledge is considered as a capability view. Mouritsen and Larsen (2005) argued that the 2nd wave of KM concerns the viewpoint of knowledge resources and organizational competencies. Hence, the competency of knowledge management and the utilization of knowledge resources for providing strategic advantage are new and crucial issues in the development of KM field (Kalling, 2003; King et al., 2002). Buckman Laboratories, a chemical company established in 1945, made an essential commitment that knowledge should be considered as the organizational foundation in a competitive environment (Pan and Scarbrough, 1998). Buckman Laboratories adopted a holistic view, which consists of social and technical factors, to implement its knowledge management works. From a socio-technical perspective, Pan and Scarbrough (1998) depicted the case, the knowledge sharing behavior of Buckman Laboratories through a knowledge network system - K’Netix®. However, no systematic frameworks and validated measurements have been reported. To summarize, by integrating the theories of RBV, KBV, socio-technical perspective, organizational capability, and KM, this study suggests a holistic research view to examine the knowledge sharing behavior. Moreover, IT/IS support, which is regarded as an important resource to enable the technical knowledge capability, is also examined in this study.. -5-.

(14) 1.3 Research Questions The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of how the different organizational knowledge capabilities on improving the organizational resources for effective knowledge sharing. The relationships among IT/IS support, organizational knowledge capabilities (OKC), knowledge sharing, and organizational effectiveness are developed and analyzed herein. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to: (1) explore the dimensions of organizational knowledge capability from a socio-technical perspective within a corporation; (2) investigate the leverage and impact between organizational knowledge capability and knowledge sharing; (3) examine the relationship between IT/IS resources and technical knowledge capability; (4) examine the significance about the effects of the knowledge sharing on organizational effectiveness; (5) explore the effects of KM program on organizational knowledge capability and knowledge sharing. The dissertation is organized as follows. In chapter 2 we discuss some primary concepts – for example, organizational knowledge capability and knowledge sharing based on the theories of RBV, KBV, and socio-technical view. In chapter 3, this study proposes a research model and explains the relationship among different constructs. Then in chapter 4 and 5, we introduce the research methodology and analyze the results. Finally, we discuss the implications and conclusions in this study.. -6-.

(15) Chapter 2 Literature Review 2.1 Knowledge Management (KM) Cortada & Woods (Book-Eds). The chronology of the important KM studies. Cortada & Woods (Book-Eds) Hansen & Nohria (HBR). Devenpor & Prusak (Book). Wiig ( Book). Polanyi. Nonaka (HBR). 1958. 1991. Alavi & Leidner (MISQ). Wiig Wiig Nonaka ( Book) ( Book) (Book). 1 KM KM**1 1993. 1994. 1998. 1995. 1999. 2000. 2001 Book. *1:The purpose of knowledge management is to facilitate organizational knowledge process; furthermore, achieving firm’s performance.. Journal. 2.1.1 The evolution of KM With the advent of knowledge economy, enterprises emphasize the importance of product innovation, process improvement, and value creation through knowledge accumulation and application. Thus, KM has recently been recognized as a significant means to manage organizational assets and capital. Several scholars have characterized the evolution or the related activities of KM through a few descriptions which exactly elaborate the development of historical events from different views. For example, Tiwana (2002) explored the evolution of KM based on the relationship of important managerial tools (see Figure 2.1).. 1950s PERT. Focus shift toward distributed expertise and knowledge. Tacit knowledge becomes a part of the picture. 1960s Centralization / Decentralization. 1970s The Experience Curve. Culture specificity is recognized. 1980s Corporate Culture. Learning, unlearning, and experience are taken into account. KM emerges as the unifying corporate goal. 1990s The Learning Organization. 2000s Knowledge Management. Figure 2.1 The evolution of knowledge management (Source: Tiwana, 2002). Knowledge management, drawing from the requirement of project management in the. -7-.

(16) 1950s and drastically increasing since 1996, is a gradual evolution whose focuses shift from disseminating expert knowledge, perceiving tacit knowledge, recognizing corporate culture, conducting organizational learning, to integrating business goal. Notably, leveraging knowledge, experience, and intellectual assets is the key thread of the KM development. Another example, Beckman (1999) recorded the KM related activities from 1980 to 1996. XCON, the first commercially expert system, was designed by Digital Equipment Corporation and Carnegie Mellon University as the origin of KM. The development of KM concept later spread broadly in multiple sources, including research scholar (Dr. Karl Wiig), journal publication (Harvard Business Review), academy conference (Knowledge Management Network), and enterprise involvement (Price Waterhouse). Besides, the consulting firms offer knowledge services to their customers in 1994. Like the tendency in the development of KM literature, the various firms and practitioners focus on KM investments and activities since 1996. The evolution of KM events is briefly shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 Knowledge management activities Year. Entity. Event. 1980. Digital Equipment Corporation Carnegie Mellon University. One of the first commercially successful Expert Systems: XCON: Configures computer components. 1986. Dr. Karl Wiig. Coined KM concept at keynote address for United Nation’s International Labor Organization. 1989. Large management consulting firms. Start internal efforts to formally manage knowledge. 1989. Price Waterhouse. One of the first to integrate KM into its business strategy. 1991. Harvard Business Review. One of the first journal articles on KM published. 1993. Dr. Karl Wiig. One of the first books dedicated to KM published. 1994. Knowledge management Network. First KM conference held. 1994. Large consulting firms. First to offer KM services to clients. 1996+. Various firms and practitioners. Explosion of interest and activities Source：Beckman(1999). Moreover, Alinda and Hasliza (2004) revealed KM efforts through technology perspective (see Table 2.2). In the early stage (1960s), KM belongs to a data-centric activity which emphasizes the knowledge storage and capture with forms, reports, and database by information technology. Following the technical development, MIS-oriented information quires and DSS-oriented information analysis are important phases to identify knowledge application from the 1970s to the 1980s. In the 1990s, Web-based technology supports a wide variety of knowledge activities through capturing, organizing, disseminating, and using web portal. Furthermore, the computation techniques including searching, clustering, networking,. -8-.

(17) and mining are needed to convert a variety of information into effective knowledge since 2000. To summarize, an organization need more latent unknown knowledge in a firm. That is, the more implicit knowledge firms reap, the more productive activities firms perform. Table 2.2 KM efforts influenced by technology revolution Period. Orientation. 1960s. Data-centric, IT orientation Knowledge captured in forms, reports and databases. 1970s. Information-centric, MIS orientation Data converted to information via ad hoc database quires, graphics and presentations. 1980s. Decision Support System orientation Knowledge encapsulated in models and simulations; more sophisticated statistical applications. 1990s. Web-based knowledge support Capture, organization and dissemination of knowledge using web. 2000s. Advanced Computation Techniques Convert information to knowledge using concept clustering, linking, searching, ontologisms, multimedia, AI and others Source：Alinda and Hasliza (2004). Consequently, there exist various perspectives to interpret the signification of KM and the evolution of KM will still sustained through more broadly exploration. 2.1.2 The main contributors of KM The development of KM can be traced from Polanyi’s knowledge concept, including tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge, rooted in individual action and ingrained in mental models, beliefs, and perspectives, is harder to articulate than explicit knowledge. Based on the knowledge level from individual to inter-organization, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) proposed the renowned knowledge conversion and spiral model to discriminate the interplay between the tacit and explicit knowledge. The model consists of socialization (from tacit to tacit), externalization (from tacit to explicit), combination (from explicit to explicit), and internalization (from explicit to tacit). Moreover, compared the characteristics of knowledge creation in Japanese companies with those in Western organization, The authors believed that Japanese (Eastern) organizations focus on group autonomy, tacit knowledge interaction (socialization and internalization), and experiential accumulation. In contrast, Western organizations emphasize on individual autonomy, explicit knowledge interaction (externalization and combination), and analysis capabilities. The book “The knowledge creating company” is written by Nonaka and Takeuchi in 1995, which has -9-.

(18) been very influential (i.e. citation is number one) in the field of KM (Serenko and Bontis, 2004). According to Beckman’s (1999) survey, Dr. Karl Wiig is the originator of KM concept for United Nation’s International Labor Organization in 1986. Dr. Karl Wiig, the main advocator in KM research, presented the term “knowledge management” formally in his book since 1993. KM is defined as the field of systematically analyzing, synthesizing, assessing, and implementing knowledge-related changes to achieve organizational objectives (Wiig, 1994). Wiig proposed multiple issues in his three volume books. For example, in Volume I, he considered the substance of knowledge and the activities of knowledge in an organization, a knowledge management program to become intelligent-acting organizations is prepared in Volume II, and Volume III explores the KM approaches including knowledge survey, knowledge map, and knowledge flow analysis. Many businesses desire to understand what kind of the means and methods of KM can be implemented into an organization in terms of a strategic perspective. Hansen et al. (1999) proposed two significant strategies, codification and personalization, to manage organizational knowledge. Normally, firms focus on different KM styles based on their competitive strategies. Codification strategy, which connects people to document, provides high-quality, reliable and fast information systems by reusing codified knowledge. On the contrary, personalization strategy links people with people by knowledge channel or network to share tacit knowledge and experience. The differences of strategy aspects are shown in Table 2.3. Serenko and Bontis (2004) revealed that “working knowledge” written by Davenport and Prusak (1998) is the second essential work to interpret how well the successful KM project in an organization. The authors survey many cases to explore a few critical questions when organizational managers intent to implement KM. These key questions include the role of knowledge in a firm, the identification of knowledge owners and searchers, the cultural, behavioral, and technological issues in KM, and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer in an organization. Moreover, four broad types of KM objectives and nine successful factors in KM project are proposed (see also Davenport et al., 1998). The objectives of KM are to create knowledge repositories, to improve knowledge access, to enhance knowledge environment, and to manage knowledge as an asset. The successful factors of KM consist of linking to economic performance or industry value, technical/organizational infrastructure, standard and flexible knowledge structure, knowledge-oriented culture, clear vision and language, motivational practices, multiple channels for knowledge transfer, and senior management -10-.

(19) support. To summarize, organizational knowledge moved by a variety of forces is highly dynamic; therefore, human characteristics, such as experience, intuition, and values, are more critical challenges to manage and maximize knowledge assets than tangible capitals. Table 2.3 Knowledge management strategy Strategy Aspect Knowledge Management. Codification. Personalization. • People-to-documents • Develop an electronic document archive to codify, disseminate, and reuse knowledge. • Person-to-person • Develop networks for linking people to share organizational and individual knowledge • Tacit knowledge can be acquired. Economic. • Reuse economics • Invest once in a knowledge asset; reuse it many times· • Use large teams with a high ratio of associates to partners • Focus on generating large overall revenues. • Expert economics • Charge high fees for highly customized solutions to unique problems· • Use small teams with a low ratio of associates to partners • Focus on maintaining high profit margins. Information Technology. • Invest heavily in IT; the goal is to connect people with reusable codified knowledge. • Invest moderately in IT; the goal is to facilitate conversations and the exchange of tacit knowledge. Human Resources. • Hire new college graduates who are well suited to the reuse of knowledge and the implementation of solutions • Train people in groups through computer-based distance learning. • Hire people with outstanding academic background who like problem solving and can tolerate ambiguity • Train people through one-on-one mentoring. Application. • Adopt when business dealing with similar and repetitive projects. • Adopt when primarily deal with unique and diverse problem-solving projects. The Incentives. • Reward people for using and contributing to document databases. • Reward people for knowledge with others. directly. sharing. Source: Hansen et al. (1999). An important milestone about KM is reviewed by Alavi and Leidner (2001). The authors provide an interpretation of KM and knowledge management system (KMS) in different fields with IT perspective. Three issues are explored in this article. First, knowledge which increases organizational capability for effective action is regarded as a state of mind, an object, a process, an access condition, or a capability from different viewpoints. The perceptions of KM and KMS depend on alternative knowledge view. For example, if knowledge is viewed as an object, then KM is considered as management of knowledge stocks. If knowledge is regarded as a capability, then KM focuses on building core competencies. Second, a systematic framework of organizational KM processes, including creation/construction,. -11-.

(20) storage/retrieval, transfer, and application, is developed for analyzing the role of information technologies in these processes. For example, computer networks and electronic bulletin boards construct a community forum to support contact between knowledge seeker and knowledge owner. Third, research suggestions in KM process are proposed. For example, the research questions of knowledge transfer concern four issues: the application of IT to knowledge transfer, the effective strategies of KM in enabling knowledge transfer, the important attributes to motivate knowledge transfer, and the integration of external knowledge sources. Alavi and Leidner (2001) examined KM themes by combining the perspectives with strategic management, organizational theory, and information system, which provided an excellent reference to explain KM phenomenon. Moreover, both KM yearbook 1999-2000 (Cortada and Woods, 1999) and KM yearbook 2000-2001 (Cortada and Woods, 2000) collected some important literatures to exhibit KM concepts from five dimensions, i.e., the nature of knowledge, knowledge-based strategies, KM and organizational learning, KM technologies and tools, and KM useful resources. Both are good references for researchers to study the field of KM. 2.1.3 The research frameworks of KM The studies of organizational theory and design have been developed for a long time. KM is regarded as a part of organizational activities; therefore, organizational performance or industrial value has to be considered. Handzic (2004) developed an integrated KM framework to connect the KM drivers and outcomes with organizational knowledge components (stocks, processes, and measures) and organizational environment (internal and external). As shown in Figure 2.2, most KM studies focus on exploring the relationships among three subsystems (influence factors, systems or processes, and organizational objectives).. Factors Factors. Organizational Organizational Systems Systems. Objectives Objectives. (Enablers (Enablers // Drivers) Drivers). (Processes (Processes // Activities) Activities). (Partial (Partial // Holistic Holistic Outcomes) Outcomes). External Environment. Figure 2.2 The relationship of organizational constructs Nemati (2002) provided a global KM framework for studying the organizational or industrial factors which influence KM processes, and in turn affect successful KM. -12-.

(21) effectiveness. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the KM and the complexity of the research variables involved, more studies in global knowledge initiatives are needed to explore related questions.. For example, the author believed that the research hypothesis “cultural. impediments to knowledge transfer can lead to poorly constructed knowledge repositories” can be developed to examine the knowledge flow of global organization. The similar architecture of exploratory KM research is briefly depicted in Appendix A.. 2.2 RBV and KBV The chronology of the theory of resource based view Grant (CMR). RBV RBV*. Penrose (Wiley). Wernerfelt (SMJ). Barney (JM). 1959. 1984. 1991. 2 2006. Kogut & Zander (OS). Grant Grant (SMJ) (LRP). 1992. 1996 1997. Book Journal. *3. KBV KBV. LRP: Long Range Planning OS: Organization Science. *2: Examining the effects of resources & capabilities on competitive advantage and organizational growth within the field of strategic management. *3: Knowledge is the most important intangible resource; Exploring the importance of knowledge for firm’s growth.. The current premise that a firm must possess heterogeneous and immobile resources to achieve sustained competitive advantage forms the basis of the resource based theory of the firm. The theory of resource based view (RBV) was derived from the Penrose’s book “The theory of the growth of the firm” in 1959 and later expanded by others (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). The RBV indicated that firms are essentially profit-orientated entities endowed with a variety of resources; therefore, it is an important task that firms have to manage and use resources effectively. Organizational resources are defined as a collection of tangible and intangible assets, which are administrated and controlled by the organization in order to perform effective and efficient strategies (Barney, 1991). Particularly, valuable resources are rare, heterogeneous, immobile, and non-substitutable. The resource constructs are conceptualized as assets (what the firm has?) and skills (what the firm does?). The skills belong to intangible capabilities that enable firm to develop successful strategies. Tangible assets consist of financial and physical assets and intangible assets are composed of intellectual property, organizational assets, and reputation assets (Galbreath, 2005). Resource portfolio shown in Figure 2.3 explains the relationship among resource constructs.. -13-.

(22) Figure 2.3 Resource portfolio (Source: Galbreath, 2005) A RBV of the firm elaborated that different performance is explained by the characteristics of assets and capabilities of the firm (Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991). Wernerfelt (1984) concerned this theme under the circumstances where a resource leads to high profits over a long period of time. Barney (1991) proposed a resource based model to emphasize the intraorganizational analysis of strength and weakness when compared to other rivals in competitive environment. Grant (1991) claimed that organizational resources and capabilities as the foundation for strategic development are a critical business direction, which combines two concepts including resource as the basis for corporate profitability and capability as organizational routines. For attaining the profitable market, a firm depends on its ability to acquire and defend advantageous positions in underlying resources being important to production and distribution. Based on the accumulation of resource and capability in the organization, scholars have proposed that sustainable competitive advantage is difficult to duplicate and imitate (Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991). Relevant research concluded that intra-organizational resources (e.g. production technology, employee training, and relations among firm members) are important for achieving organizational competitiveness. The research of knowledge-based view (KBV) has originated from the theory of RBV. Scholars argue that firm exist because of unique and special knowledge resources of leading to firm advantage. In general, the RBV treats knowledge as a generic resource, not a special asset. The theory of RBV emphasizes that the intrinsic characteristics of resources and capabilities prevent imitation. However, most knowledge objects in a firm can be viewed as knowledge resources which will be able to create organizational value. With the coming of knowledge era, enterprise’s focus is not in tangible assets (e.g. land, labours), but in intangible. -14-.

(23) skills (e.g. knowledge, patterns). Foss (1996) named a term “knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm” as an emerging aspect of an economic organization, and argued that the core role about the firm is an entity with the ability to learn and grow through a repository of distinct productive knowledge. For KBV approach, the firm capabilities viewed as the practices of knowledgebased organization are assumed to be at the core of sustainable competitive advantage and firm performance. Kogut and Zander (1992) believed that knowledge is regarded as the critical competitive resource, and the combinative capability is an important ability to synthesize and apply the existing and acquired knowledge resources to generate new business value. Grant (1996) argued that a firm’s role is to integrate the specialist knowledge resident in individuals into organizational goods and services; thus, knowledge coordination in intraorganization is necessary. The kernel of knowledge in firms is reflected in the emergence of the KBV being an essential theory in contemporary organizational research. More generally, the increasing emphasis on the importance of knowledge-based capabilities will be viewed as a characteristic to drive the development of knowledge organization. Moreover, Grant (1997) indicated a set of characteristics to conceptualize the knowledgebased view of the firm: (1) knowledge is the most essential resource for generating organizational value; (2) knowledge comprises different types, explicit and tacit, varying in their transferability; (3) individuals are the actor of knowledge creation and the repositories of tacit knowledge; (4) knowledge is subject to economies of scale and scope, and explicit knowledge can be deployed at low marginal cost. Therefore, concerning KBV as a parallel stream of KM in practice, firms will form a knowledge-based organization by using knowledge capabilities to develop new products, provide new services, and create new customer relationship. KM is a recent development, and it extends the concept of resources and capabilities in the strategic management research. The theory of KBV regards knowledge as the most strategically significant resources of the firm because knowledge assets are so complex that they are difficult to imitate. Besides, a variety of knowledge resources and capabilities among firms are the primary determinants of sustained competitive advantage and superior corporate performance. According to Haataja’s (2005) summarization, the RBV which recognize professional know-how as a critical resource should be more dynamically developed, and the KBV emphasizes the importance of tacit knowledge which is the source of innovativeness. The comparison between RBV and KBV from five dimensions is shown in Table 2.4.. -15-.

(24) Table 2.4 The Comparison between RBV and KBV The resource-based view. The knowledge-based view. How to achieve competitive advantage. Critical resource bundles combined to a right strategy. Knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. The service process. Different service strategies. Development of service innovations. Knowledge. Internal aspect - static. Cyclical - dynamic. Benefits of the model. Development of internal resources of the organization. Intellectual capital, creativity. Central development objects from the perspective of KIS. Understand dynamic nature of resources, interaction of interface area, resource accumulation. Bounded rationality, recognize intellectual capital, measurement challenges, knowledge protection, innovations Source: Haataja (2005). Consequently, an organization can establish and sustain its competitive advantage depended on a wide spread of knowledge innovation within the firm. Knowledge is seemed to be important assets and KM should be considered as a solution to support knowledge sharing, creation, and innovation through the aspect of the KBV.. 2.3 Socio-technical Perspective Coakes et al. (Book). The chronology of the socio-technical system studies Pan & Scarbrough (JKM) Pasmore (Book) Cherns (HR). Socio-technical Socio-technical Perspective Perspective*4*4. Cherns (HR). Chuang (ESWA). Lee & Choi (JMIS). + KM 1998. 2002. 2003. 2004. x 1976. 1987 1988. *4 Organizational system which emphasizes the interrelatedness of the functioning of the social and technical subsystems. Book Journal. 2.3.1 The development of socio-technical system The theory of socio-technical systems (STS) was derived from the open systems theory. Pasmore (1988) proved that the socio-technical approach of organizational design is successful in organizations throughout the world in the 1950s; however, few organizations are designed by using STS principles and methods. The social system of an organization consists of many features about the organizational workers and their characteristics, such as individual attitudes and beliefs, relationship among company members, corporate culture, past experiences and values, and business policies. The technical system of an organization is composed of the tools, techniques, devices, configurations, and procedures used by employees to conduct business tasks. Following this perspective, the organizations began to make up of. -16-.

(25) people (the social system) by using tools, techniques and knowledge (the technical system) to produce goods or services for customers. Coakes et al. (2002) depicted a four-component socio-technical model. The model relates the technology to task, people and organizational structure. An organizational development is based on the interplay among these components. Consequently, the goal of STS is to design an organizational system which can improve the quality of working life, adapt the change of organizational environment, enhance the individual creativeness, and promote the job satisfaction of the employees. Cherns (1976, 1987) provided nine key principles as a discipline of socio-technical design. For example, “compatibility” depicts that the design process must be compatible with system’s objectives; “support congruence” means that systems should be established within a framework of social support for desired behavior; and “design and human values” denotes that the purpose of systems is to enhance the quality of working life. All principles are as broadly applicable in the case of a system design, which suggests the organization using socio-technical perspective to interpret the flexibility and effectiveness of system. 2.3.2 Socio-technical Perspective in the KM world Two categorizations of KM strategies, codification and personalization, were proposed by Hansen et al. (1999). The knowledge strategy of codification concentrates on reusing codified knowledge by information systems and the knowledge strategy of personalization focuses on communicating individual tacit knowledge by organizational knowledge network. The knowledge codification strategy as system-centric view and the knowledge personalization strategy as human-centric view are consistent with the general KM approaches (Choi and Lee, 2002; 2003). According to Mason and Pauleen (2003), two board approaches (hard and soft) are considered when a firm implements KM. The hard aspects focus on the management of information objects through the development and the use of appropriate technology. The soft aspects focus on the capture and the transformation of knowledge into corporate assets through the management of people and processes. In Ekbia and Hara’s (2006) research, KM approaches are divided into three different views: techno-centric, human-centric, and socio-technical. The KM strategy of techno-centric view focuses on the knowledge capture, in which knowledge can be codified, organized, stored, and access by effective information and communication system. The human-centric view emphasizes knowledge which can be acquired and shared via the social process (e.g. experienced and skilled people, trust and reciprocal relationship among employees) of supporting the KM activities (Choi and Lee, 2003). The socio-technical view, like a balanced. -17-.

(26) or dynamic knowledge strategy noted by Choi and Lee (2002), strikes a right equilibrium between system and human knowledge strategies. In general, the dynamic knowledge style has higher corporate performance than the system and human styles (Choi and Lee, 2003). As we see, it does not pay much attention to issues of KM either techno-centric view or humancentric view. Therefore, the mainstream about KM strategy is to integrate both to develop KM activities, that is, the socio-technical view. The socio-technical view is described as a method of organizational interrelatedness of the social and technological subsystems (Bhatt, 2001; Pan and Scarbrough, 1998). Normally, the technical dimension is based on IT infrastructure and the social dimension emphasizes the importance of culture, structure, people, task, and environment. The concept of socio-technical systems is rapidly applied to organizational research and KM fields. To reap organizational benefit, a firm should adopt the socio-technical view combining with technological and organizational infrastructure, corporate culture, knowledge and people as the source of strategic assets when developing, implementing, and managing its knowledge management system (Meso and Smith, 2000). Bhatt (2001) indicated that IT is an effective infrastructure to transfer data into information and people can interpret the information into knowledge by interacting with others. In other words, organization obtains long-term benefits from KM by coordinating social relations and technologies. Pan and Scarbrough (1998) depicted a KM case in Buckman Laboratories, where an effective knowledge network system, K’Netix®, is established to share knowledge and experience. This case, resulting from a socio-technical perspective, builds a KM environment for supporting the communication of firm’s employees. Microsoft has also developed a successful KM system using the socio-technical approach to keep Microsoft’s competitiveness (Meso and Smith, 2000). The technological infrastructure facilitates a rich knowledge sharing to support Microsoft’s researchers in conducting R&D of future software products. On the other hand, knowledge friendly culture is a strategic asset which indicates a positive relationship to knowledge activities when employees participate in knowledge exchange. For archiving a knowledge centric organization, Coakes et al. (2002, p.87) integrated three interactive elements, including structure, technical infrastructure, and culture, to enable and manage organizational knowledge. Handzic (2004) explored the perceptions of knowledge workers for organizational KM system which considers technical and social aspects in an academic context. Lee and Choi (2003) examined the relationship between knowledge creation and socio-technical enablers in organizations. Chuang (2004) adopted the similar concept to examine how the impacts of the social and technical KM capabilities on -18-.

(27) competitive advantage. Besides, Scholl et al. (2004) found that many organizations conduct some necessary KM activities to match social and technical aspects, which is recently the important theoretical advancement in KM research. Consequently, in the designs of the socio-technical perspective, organizations can use social and technical resources effectively and manage knowledge process efficiently. Since the technologies can increase the efficiency of information flow using by organizational members and the social factors can improve the comprehension of knowledge, corporate needs to create an optimal balance between technical and social systems (Bhatt, 2001).. 2.4 Organizational capabilities Lee & Kim (ESwA). The chronology of the organizational capability & competency. Gold et al. (JMIS). Prahalad & Hamel (HBR) Ulrich & Lake (Book). Organizational Organizational Capability Capability*5*5. Grant (OS) Grant Grant (SMJ) (LRP). Chuang (ESwA). Dawson (JKM). Lee (I&M). Sanchez (Book). 2000. 2001. 2003. Tanriverdi (MISQ). + KM 2004. 2005. x 1990. 1996. 1997 Book Journal. *5 Corporate ability to deploy resources effectively for generating values and achieving organizational objectives. 2.4.1 The development of organizational capabilities Organizational capability, which integrates economic/financial, strategic/marketing, and technical capability as a key source of competitive advantage, is defined as “a business’s ability to establish internal structures and processes that influence its members to create organization-specific competencies and thus enable the business to adapt to changing customer and strategic needs” (Ulrich and Lake, 1990, p.40). Abell (2000) indicated that corporate capability is created by multiple sources, for example, skills and expertise of staff, culture and values that encourage knowledge building and sharing, and technological infrastructure. The concepts are integrated with KBV into organizational design which emphasizes the ability to deploy peculiar resources to improve firm knowledge flow and enhance business profitability. The roots of competitiveness are originated from the core competence of corporate which means the collective knowledge about how to coordinate a variety of product skills and integrate multiple streams of technologies (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Therefore, the core competencies, a critical advantage to create unique and integrated capability, are an organizational focus which attempts to achieve the competitive advantage (e.g. invent new -19-.

(28) markets, delight customers with new products). The issues of organizational capabilities have been recently explored as the outcome of knowledge integration (e.g. efficiency, scope, and flexibility) from the theories of resourcebased view and knowledge-based view (Grant, 1996; Gold et al., 2001) – that is, knowledge can be found in individuals and capabilities should be developed to integrate such knowledge in an organization. Frans et al. (1999) revealed that the firms are likely to develop new organization forms and adequate combinative capabilities (system, coordination, and socialization) to increase their efficiency, scope, flexibility, and impact on knowledge absorption. 2.4.2 Organizational capabilities in the KM world Without capabilities and resources, the implementation of knowledge activities will fail (Wiig, 1994). What is the organizational capability for using knowledge resources? Capabilities refer to how a firm deploys resources to generate values and achieve organizational objectives (Dutta et al., 2005). Lee and Kim (2001) suggested that organizational capability in KM can be formed by accumulating, managing, and utilizing firm’s knowledge. For example, knowledge link capability refers as to learn or acquire firm’s necessary knowledge from other organizations. To enable a successful KM, the importance of organizational resources is emphasized. In general, organizational resources are composed of human practice and policy, organizational structure, culture, and technology (Donoghue et al., 1999). Drawing from the concept of competence-based view, Kalling (2003) depicted that the key feature in KM is the transformation of knowledge into competency. Dawson (2000) regarded knowledge capability as the focus of strategic assets. These resources are developed and utilized more effectively as organizational capabilities in order to achieve strategic advantages and benefits in a competitive environment. Three distinct dimensions for defining important aspects of organizational capabilities can be elaborated from knowledge management perspective: process KM capability (Gold et al., 2001; Liu et al., 2004), infrastructure KM capability (Chuang, 2004; Gold et al., 2001), and cross-unit KM capability (Tanriverdi, 2005). KM process capabilities emphasize the capabilities to operate and integrate the organizational knowledge flow. Gold et al. (2001) used knowledge acquisition, conversion, application, and protection as the KM process capabilities. Liu et al. (2004) indicated that knowledge obtaining, refining, storing, and sharing are the requisite capabilities in the product. -20-.

(29) manufacturing process. Bose (2002) presented several KM capabilities through the perspective of currently available technologies, including knowledge creation and capture, knowledge organization and storage, knowledge retrieval, collaboration and workflow, distribution, assimilation, and transformation. The KM infrastructure capabilities are the fundamental capabilities for social capital maximization. To ensure the right knowledge brought to the right people, Donoghue et al. (1999) stated that successful KM has to connect many organizational components, including technology, human resources practices, organizational structure, and culture. Galbreath (2005) emphasized the important components for developing and utilizing organizational assets, such as culture, human policies, and organizational structure. Gold et al. (2001) indicated that infrastructure capabilities combine three components:. technical, structural, and cultural. capabilities. Khalifa (2003) adopted three factors, leadership, culture, and strategy, as KM infrastructure capability. Specifically, KM resource-based capabilities consist of technical resources, structural resources, cultural resources, and human resources (Chuang, 2004). Tanriverdi (2005) proposed the cross-unit KM capabilities, the firm’s ability to create, transfer, integrate, and leverage related knowledge across its business units, which includes three sub-dimensions: product, customer, and managerial capability. The cross-unit KM capability which creates and exploits the synergies from related knowledge resources can lead to superior firm performance. Besides, KM capabilities are interdependent and complementary, and they are needed to be managed as an integrated and interplayed system. The infrastructure KM capability, combining explicit and tacit knowledge to create new knowledge through sharing and exchange mechanisms (Gold et al., 2001), is more dominant than the process KM capabilities for the knowledge management success (Khalifa, 2003). Therefore, this study adopts the infrastructure KM capabilities as the research variables. 2.4.3 Organizational knowledge capabilities (OKC) Organizational knowledge capabilities are developed to perform knowledge processes (generating, capturing, sharing, and applying) more effectively so as to achieve organizational success (Dawson, 2000). Knowledge management capability (KMC) presents the ability to mobilize and deploy knowledge resources in combination with other resources and capabilities for enabling KM activities, and it has a positive effect on competitive advantage (Chuang, 2004) and organizational effectiveness (Gold et al., 2001). Summarily, both OKC and KMC have similar meanings and contexts. We will treat the two terms as the same concept and use OKC as the research variable in this study.. -21-.

(30) In general, organizational capability is regarded as the actable assets which are expressed to be shared among business members and is developed to be towards a view of socio-technical balance (Coakes et al., 2002). To develop OKC successfully, Dawson (2000) proposed two primary means: technology, and skills and behaviors, which are consistent with the sociotechnical perspective proposed by Pan and Scarbrough (1998). Moreover, drawing upon the works of Gold et al. (2001) and Chuang (2004), four organizational knowledge capabilities are proposed to depict the phenomenon about how an organization operates knowledge resources and capabilities to improve knowledge processes for attaining the firm’s performance - that is, technical, structural, cultural, and human knowledge capabilities. Organizational knowledge capabilities are characterized as a research variable to depict the fundamental capabilities for the social capital maximization in an organization. The following discussion of each social OKC (structure, culture, and human) and technical OKC provides more details. 2.4.3.1 Social organizational knowledge capabilities Structural knowledge capability (SKC) Structural factors are normally presented in an incentive system (e.g. reward, career advancement, and learning opportunities) (Hall, 2001), work environment (e.g. task flow and “ba”) (Nonaka and Konno, 1998), and political directives (e.g. norm and principle) (SyedIkhsan and Rowland, 2004), which are often explicit means for implementing new activities or establishing an unused system in a firm. Structural knowledge capability, assessing the extent to which an organization integrates structural resources (such as incentive, context, and policy), aims at creating new knowledge through external encouragement and punishment for organizational creativity and innovation. Thus, SKC is an important component in leveraging the social OKC framework. Cultural knowledge capability (CKC) Organizational culture, the collective perceptions, beliefs, norms, and values of employees in the workplace (Debowski, 2006), is the most usually-cited factor for supporting knowledge management activities. Multi-faceted cultural concepts are adapted to explore organizational knowledge actions, including sharing culture (Davenport et al., 1998), learning culture (Cummings and Teng, 2003), cooperative and collaborative culture (Goh, 2002), and knowledge-centered culture (Janz and Prasarnphanich, 2003). In general, the alignment of core values within organization, including collaboration, communication, interaction, will contribute to establish a positive and effective knowledge culture (Debowski, 2006). Cultural. -22-.

(31) knowledge capability, the supportive capability for valuing organizational knowledge and building up an interactive, collaborative atmosphere among organizational members, assesses the extent of knowledge-related activities in an organization. Thus, the effectiveness of CKC is critical to influence a social OKC construction. Human knowledge capability (HKC) Shared understanding, meaning working closely with others and having a familiarity among organizational members, is an important antecedent of knowledge activities (Ko et al., 2005). O’Dell et al. (1999) noted that teams, relationships, and networks are significant elements to transfer knowledge and best practices more effectively. Human knowledge capability is conceptualized herein as the relationship of interpersonal understanding and the extent of interaction among a firm’s members for creating valuable knowledge network in an organization. Thus, the HKC is attributed to the framework of social OKC. 2.4.3.2 Technical organizational knowledge capabilities Bharadwaj (2000) revealed three dimensions of IT based resources: the tangible resource (e.g. physical infrastructure), the human IT resources (e.g. IT skills), and the intangible ITenabled resources (e.g. knowledge assets). The author adopted the theory of RBV to define a firm’s IT capability as a firm which combines with its other resources and capabilities to deploy IT based resources effectively for organizational competitiveness. Based on different knowledge types, Bassellier et al. (2001) divided IT competence into two categories: (1) explicit IT knowledge emphasizes the understanding about the knowledge of technology, information system, and IT management etc.; (2) tacit IT knowledge focuses on the experience about the personal use of IT. Tippins and Sohi (2003) conceptualized IT competency as the extent to which a firm is knowledgeable about the utilization of IT effectively to manage information within the firm. The authors divided IT competency into three dimensions: IT knowledge (e.g. technical knowledge about computer based systems), IT operations (e.g. utilizes IT to manage market and customer information), and IT objects (e.g. computer-based hardware and software). Information technologies, being used to synthesize, enhance, and expedite organizational KM, may regularly play a critical role in the perspective of KBV (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). From the KM perspective, the technical knowledge management capability can assist firms in enabling rapid acquisition, storage, and exchange of knowledge, mapping internal or external knowledge sources, integrating organizational knowledge flows, and applying existing knowledge to create new knowledge (Chuang, 2004; Gold et al., 2001). Therefore,. -23-.

(32) the technical knowledge capability, the ability to integrate and deploy knowledge by using information communication technology (ICT) effectively, is an essential attribute in a knowledge organization.. 2.5 Knowledge sharing (KS) To successfully reap the effectiveness of KM, knowledge sharing should be the most important consideration (King et al., 2002; Shin, 2004). Many organizations already acquire such potential benefits through knowledge sharing activities, e.g. Toyota (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000), Texas Instruments (TI), Dow Chemical (O’Dell et al., 1999; Shin, 2004), and Ford (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001). Knowledge sharing is depicted as a set of behaviors about knowledge exchange which involve the actors, knowledge content, organizational context, appropriate media, and societal environment (Lee and Suliman, 2002; Shin, 2004). Hendriks (1999) suggested a conceptualized model which consists of two main activities for effective knowledge sharing namely, transmission and absorption (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). The knowledge owner externalizes his knowledge through the skills of codification, elaboration, and presentation. Knowledge is subsequently transmitted to the recipient (reconstructor) by the appropriate media or channels, and then the reconstructor internalizes this knowledge through the capabilities of reading, learning, interpreting, and absorbing. Therefore, knowledge sharing involves many complicated and various factors and it is worthy of further research in identifying what factors help foster knowledge sharing. Lee (2001) proposed two types of knowledge sharing: the explicit knowledge which can be clearly articulated in written documents (e.g. business reports) and the implicit knowledge which is embedded into an individual’s experience (e.g. know-how). In order to demonstrate why knowledge workers participate in knowledge sharing behavior, Bock et al. (2005) integrated the organizational climate construct and TRA (theory of reasoned action) model, which consists of the attitude of knowledge sharing and subjective norm. Ryu et al. (2003) measured the knowledge sharing behavior by combining the aspects of TRA and TPB (theory of planned behavior). Shin (2004) exhibited a knowledge sharing process that was identified by three integrated perspectives – that is, economic view, agent based, and RBV. For effective knowledge sharing from the organizational perspective, Alavi and Leidner (2001) proposed some research suggestions, including the social, cultural, and technical attributes. The. -24-.

(33) organizational culture is the most essential issue for an effective knowledge sharing (McDemott and O’Dell, 2001). Knowledge contextual domain, including source/recipient, activities, and relation, is a special viewpoint to explain the important factors in successful knowledge transfer (Cummings and Teng, 2003). Hendriks (1999) depicted the relationship between information technology and knowledge sharing that exist both direct and indirect effects. Wasko and Faraj (2005) and Widen-Wulff and Giman (2004) explained the phenomenon of knowledge sharing through social capital perspective. Combining with the factors of social and technical, Pan and Scarbrough (1998) explored the knowledge sharing system on Buckman Laboratories. Lee (2001) claimed that organizational capability is a research variable to mediate the relationship between outsourcing and knowledge sharing. With the view of capability-based, Yang and Chen (in press) investigated the knowledge sharing behavior to examine the importance of knowledge capabilities. Different perspectives to explore knowledge sharing are shown in Figure 2.4.. Economic view (Transaction Cost). Agent theory view. Ry u. McDemott & O’Dell(2001,JKM) Moller & Svahn (2004,IMM). Context view. Social Capital view. C um (2 min 00 g 3, s & JE T TM en ) g. intention-behavior view. Bo Organizational ck et Culture al et .( view al 20 .( 05 20 , 03 , E MIS SW Q) A). Knowledge Knowledge Sharing Sharing. Wasko & Faraj (2005,MISQ) Widen-Wulff & Giman (2004,JIS). Hendriks (1999, KPM) Hall (2001, JIS). ICT view. Shin (2004,I&M). Yang & Chen Lee (in press) (2001, I&M). Resource based view. Capability based view. Pan & Scarbrough (1998, JKM). Socio-technical view. Figure 2.4 The multifaceted perspectives on knowledge sharing Three subjects have to be incorporated with the development of knowledge sharing (Yang and Wan, 2004). First, social interactions and organizational networks can accelerate the activities of knowledge sharing. Second, technologies can facilitate the communication of knowledge sharing. Third, top managers must provide a sharing context and establish knowledge culture. All of these themes are the composition of knowledge focused strategies. Lee and Suliman (2002) proposed a knowledge sharing framework which is affected by five -25-.