KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 179
Journal of Management Information Systems Summer 2003 Vol 20 No 1 pp 179ndash228
copy 2003 ME Sharpe Inc
0742ndash1222 2003 $950 + 000
Knowledge Management EnablersProcesses and OrganizationalPerformance An Integrative View andEmpirical Examination
HEESEOK LEE AND BYOUNGGU CHOI
HEESEOK LEE is a Professor of Information Systems at the Graduate School of Man-agement Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Korea He receivedhis PhD in MIS from the University of Arizona an MS from Korea AdvancedInstitute of Science and Technology and a BS from Seoul National University Hewas previously on the faculty at the University of Nebraska at Omaha His researchinterests include knowledge management Internet business and IS strategy His re-cent publications appear in Journal of Management Information Systems Informa-tion and Management Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce Expert Systems with Applications Annals of Operations Research Jour-nal of Systems and Software and Information Systems
BYOUNGGU CHOI is an Associate Researcher at the Carlson School of ManagementUniversity of Minnesota He received his PhD and MS in Management from KoreaAdvanced Institute of Science and Technology and his BS from Korea UniversityHis research interests include Knowledge Management and Electronic CommerceHis recent publications appear in Journal of Management Information Systems In-formation and Management and Expert Systems with Applications
ABSTRACT Knowledge is recognized as an important weapon for sustaining com-petitive advantage and many companies are beginning to manage organizational knowl-edge Researchers have investigated knowledge management factors such as enablersprocesses and performance However most current empirical research has exploredthe relationships between these factors in isolation To fill this gap this paper devel-ops a research model that interconnects knowledge management factors The modelincludes seven enablers collaboration trust learning centralization formalizationT-shaped skills and information technology support The emphasis is on knowledgecreation processes such as socialization externalization combination and internal-ization To establish credibility between knowledge creation and performance orga-nizational creativity is incorporated into the model Surveys collected from 58 firmswere analyzed to test the model The results confirmed the impact of trust on knowl-edge creation The information technology support had a positive impact on knowl-edge combination only Organizational creativity was found to be critical for improvingperformance neglecting ideas can undermine a business The results may be used asa stepping stone for further empirical research and can help formulate robust strate-gies that involve trade-offs between knowledge management enablers
KEY WORDS AND PHRASES knowledge-creating processes knowledge managementknowledge management enablers organizational creativity organizational performance
180 LEE AND CHOI
IN RECENT YEARS IT SEEMS AS THOUGH businesses that could capture the knowledgeembedded in their organization would own the future Companies that isolate knowl-edge management risk losing its benefits It is no surprise that knowledge is overturn-ing the old rules about strategy and competitionmdashthe foundation of industrializedeconomics has shifted from natural resources to intellectual assets In response manymanagers and management thinkers have proclaimed an era of knowledge manage-ment This has compelled researchers to investigate how knowledge is managed Evi-dence is provided by a variety of studies on knowledge [19 79 82] knowledge process[38 70 76 114] and knowledge management architecture [9 21 105]
Companies attempting to deploy knowledge management may be confused by avariety of efforts under way that go under the name of knowledge management [61]Many companies have tried with mixed success to leverage knowledge assets bycentralizing knowledge management functions or by investing heavily in informationtechnology (IT) [44] It is understandable when confronted with a new business phe-nomenon to look to new management practices for guidance Caught up in the gen-eral fever many managers may assume that knowledge management can improvetheir companies However despite their best efforts most studies have not investi-gated how companies can leverage knowledge for the improved performance It isimportant to distinguish themselves through strategies The key question is not whetherto manage knowledge but how to manage it These strategies should be validated bythe use of further empirical tests
To fill this gap prior research has explored which factors are essential for managingknowledge effectively One challenge is to decipher the relationships among thesefactors Most studies have examined the relationships of knowledge managementenablers processes or performance in isolation For example some research has fo-cused on the relationship between enablers and processes [6 43 114 124] the em-phasis of other studies is on the relationship between enablers and organizationalperformance [8 11 35 104] Researchers and practitioners have not tried an integra-tive model An integrative perspective of the knowledge variables based on relevanttheories is a necessity It is also noted that very few empirical studies adopt a process-oriented perspective of organizational knowledge [90] Knowledge creation or trans-fer would benefit companies more than knowledge itself because knowledge is notprimarily about facts but more about context-specific characteristics [115] For ex-ample Xerox systemizes knowledge creation and transfer processes through strategiccommunities [109] Consequently another challenge is to leverage a process-orientedperspective
The primary objective of this paper is to delineate an integrative view of knowledgemanagement and provide strategic guidelines For this purpose this paper analyzesthe previous empirical studies and attempts to find relationships among knowledgemanagement factors such as enablers processes and organizational performance Anintegrative research model is built from a process-oriented perspective and then testedempirically
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 181
Research Background and Literature Review
Theoretical Background
MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE EMPHASIZED three major factors for managing knowledgeenablers processes and organizational performance [9 21 85] Knowledge manage-ment enablers (or influencing factors) are organizational mechanisms for fostering knowl-edge consistently [57] they can stimulate knowledge creation protect knowledge andfacilitate the sharing of knowledge in an organization [108] Knowledge processes(knowledge management activities) can be thought of as a structured coordination formanaging knowledge effectively [35] Typically knowledge processes include activi-ties such as creation sharing storage and usage [2 9] Whereas knowledge processesrepresent the basic operations of knowledge [105] enablers provide the infrastructurenecessary for the organization to increase the efficiency of knowledge processes [96]Organizational performance may be defined as the degree to which companies achievedits business objectives [28] It may be measured in terms of organizational learningprofitability or other financial benefits in knowledge management [18 104] Withoutmeasurable success passion from employees and managers will vanish [85]
There is a general recognition among academics that knowledge management is across-functional and multifaceted discipline A variety of components make up knowl-edge management and the understanding of their interaction is important a holisticview is very useful [80] To this end an integrative research model is necessary thatis the relationships among knowledge enablers processes and organizational perfor-mance can be identified within the framework of systems thinking Systems thinkingtheory considers problems in their entirety [95] This theory is better able to describecomplex and dynamic characteristics of knowledge management in a systematic fash-ion Therefore our integrative framework will be based on this systems thinking theory
Our primary research focus is on the relationships between knowledge enablersand organizational performance by elaborating on the significance of knowledge pro-cesses as the foundation of organizational advantage [79] The relationship amongthese three components is nothing new it can be found in the input-process-outputmodel by Hackerman and Morris [41] The model assumes that the input factorsaffect output performances through certain kinds of interaction processes knowl-edge management enablers affect organizational performance through knowledgeprocesses This relationship is also explained by the use of the knowledge-chain modelproposed by Holsapple and Singh [51] This model suggests that leadership establishenabling conditions for achieving organizational outcome through the knowledgemanagement activities such as acquisition generation internalization and externali-zation It means that knowledge enablers (eg leadership) affect organizational out-come through knowledge processes
A direct relationship between knowledge processes and organizational performanceis not explored yet Because many factors influence the determination of the organiza-tional performance attempts to trace causality to any single factor such as knowledge
182 LEE AND CHOI
process may be risky In order to understand the effect of the knowledge processes onorganizational performance intermediate outcomes (for example knowledge satis-faction or organizational creativity) may be introduced [18] Intermediate outcomesreflect different aspects of an organizationrsquos performance both financial and nonfi-nancial This incorporation may help confirm that enablers ultimately create businessvalue
In sum this paper proposes a research framework as shown in Figure 1
Previous Empirical Studies
Previous empirical studies have investigated the relationships among knowledgemanagement factors They can be classified into four categories depending on howthey identify the relationships (1) relationships between knowledge enablers (2) re-lationships between knowledge enablers and process (3) relationships between knowl-edge process and organizational performance and (4) relationships among knowledgeenablers processes and organizational performance This comparison may be high-lighted as shown in Figure 2
The studies under the first category focus on the relationships among knowledgeenablers The emphasis is on the examination of the effect of knowledge enablers Toidentify this effect they have investigated various knowledge enablers such as knowl-edge management methods structure and culture For example Bennett and Gabriel[10] analyzed a number of knowledge management methods in view of organiza-tional structure culture size and environment
The second category explores the relationships between knowledge enablers andknowledge processes A central proposition is that knowledge enablers (eg industrycharacteristics or knowledge characteristics) should influence knowledge processes(eg transfer) Zander and Kogut [124] proposed that the transfer of organizationalcapabilities be related to the characteristics of social knowledge they analyzed theeffects of the ease of codifying manufacturing capabilities on its transfer timeAppleyard [6] explored knowledge transfer patterns among various nations and in-dustries Szulanski [114] investigated the relationship between four origins of sticki-ness (characteristics of the knowledge transferred the source the recipient and thecontext in which the transfer takes place) and knowledge transfer Hansen [43] em-ployed the notion of complex knowledge to explain the role of weak ties in transfer-ring knowledge in a multiunit organization
The third category examines the relationships between knowledge enablers andorganizational performance The purpose of these studies is to sharpen the under-standing of the effects of knowledge enablers (eg knowledge management strategy)
Figure 1 An Integrative Research Framework for Studying Knowledge Management
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 183
on organizational performance (eg return on assets [ROA] or return on sales [ROS])Bierly and Chakrabarti [11] tried to identify how knowledge management strategiesaffect organizational performance They analyzed knowledge strategies of 21 USpharmaceutical companies that had been categorized into explorers exploiters lon-ers and innovators Simonin [104] tested the relationships among collaborative expe-rience know-how and achievement of organizational performance He proposed thatthe experience of a firm has to be transformed into know-how before it could improveorganizational performance
The emphasis of the fourth category is on relationships among knowledge enablersknowledge processes and organizational performance The primary objective of thesestudies is to identify and assess knowledge enablers (eg task or infrastructure capa-bilities) and processes (eg creation or their capabilities) for improving organiza-tional performance (eg knowledge satisfaction or organizational effectiveness)Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] proposed a contingency framework includingtwo attributes of the organizational subunitrsquos tasksmdashprocess or content orientationand focused or broad domainmdashand linked them to Nonakarsquos knowledge creationprocess [82] The relationship between knowledge creation process and knowledgesatisfaction was also investigated Gold et al [35] analyzed two relationships one
Figure 2 Research Models for Studying Knowledge Management
184 LEE AND CHOI
between infrastructure capabilities and organizational effectiveness and the otherbetween process capabilities and organizational effectiveness Table 1 compares theseprevious studies
Synthesis of Previous Studies
Synthesis of previous studies yields some observations First an integrative model isstill missing Although some studies investigate the relationships among knowledgeenablers processes or organizational performance [8 35] they fail to explore therelationships between enablers and processes simultaneously If managers understandthese relationships in an integrative fashion they can stand a better chance of improv-ing their firmrsquos performance
Second the role of knowledge management processes is not consistent Some stud-ies recognized both knowledge enablers and processes as antecedents of organiza-tional performance [8 35] Other studies recognized knowledge enablers aspreconditions of knowledge processes [6 43 114 124] Therefore the challenge isto clarify the role of knowledge management processes [108]
Third measuring knowledge management performance is still difficult Some stud-ies captured the contribution by the use of knowledge management outcome mea-sures such as knowledge satisfaction [8] whereas others adopted conventionalperformance measures such as ROA [11 104] or organizational effectiveness [35] Itwould appear that the former studies take the relationship between knowledge man-agement outcome and organizational performance for granted although the relation-ship has not been validated The results of the latter studies should be examinedcarefully because the direct relationship between knowledge management processesand organizational performance has not been validated yet [18]
Fourth the knowledge transfer process has been studied extensively [6 43 114124] whereas the other processes such as creation or utilization have received rela-tively little attention In particular some studies have suggested that knowledge cre-ation is most critical for an organizationrsquos long-term success [30] Moreover knowledgetransfer has been assessed by the use of object-perspective measures such as time totransfer [124] number of times of knowledge transfer [6] or percentage of trans-ferred knowledge [43] Recently some researchers have tried to measure knowledgeprocesses themselves [8 35] For example Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8]measured the capacity for knowledge creation by Nonakarsquos knowledge creation modelnot by the use of creation output such as the number of created ideas or patents
A Research Model
OUR OBJECTIVE IS NEITHER TO PROPOSE a model that delineates all of the relation-ships underlying knowledge management nor to generate a longer list of possibleknowledge enablers or processes that affect organizational performance Therefore
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 185
Tabl
e 1
A C
ompa
riso
n of
Pre
viou
s St
udie
s
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
enab
lers
Ben
net a
nd G
abrie
l [10
]S
truc
ture
NA
NA
Effe
ct o
f cha
nge-
frie
ndly
cul
ture
Cul
ture
on th
e nu
mbe
r of
KM
met
hods
Siz
eem
ploy
ed
Env
ironm
ent
KM
met
ho
d
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
Zan
der
and
Kog
ut [1
24]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
tim
e to
NA
Cod
ifiab
ility
tea
chab
ility
and
soci
etal
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
)pa
ralle
l dev
elop
men
t hav
esi
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e tim
eto
tran
sfer
App
leya
rd [6
]In
dust
ry a
ndTr
ansf
er (
nu
mb
er o
fN
Apu
blic
sou
rces
of k
now
ledg
ena
tiona
l cha
ract
eris
tics
tim
es t
he
resp
on
den
tsar
e m
uch
mor
e pr
eval
ent i
np
rovi
de
and
rec
eive
know
ledg
e tr
ansf
er in
kno
wle
dg
e in
a g
iven
sem
icon
duct
ors
than
in th
ep
erio
d)
stee
l ind
ustr
yP
ublic
sou
rces
of t
echn
ical
know
ledg
e pl
ay a
larg
er r
ole
inkn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
in J
apan
than
in th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s(c
onti
nues
)
186 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 1
(C
ontin
ued)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
(co
ntin
ued)
Szu
lans
ki [1
14]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
fou
r-st
age
NA
Rec
ipie
ntrsquos
lack
of a
bsor
ptiv
eth
e kn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
pro
cess
es)
capa
city
cau
sal a
mbi
guity
and
tran
sfer
red
sour
cean
ard
uous
ness
of t
here
cipi
ent c
onte
xt
rela
tions
hip
are
the
maj
orim
pedi
men
ts to
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
Han
sen
[43]
Wea
k tie
s (d
ista
ntTr
ansf
er (
per
cen
tag
eN
AW
eak
ties
impe
de th
e tr
ansf
eran
d in
freq
uent
of
a p
roje
ctrsquos
to
tal
of c
ompl
ex k
now
ledg
ere
latio
nshi
ps)
kno
wle
dg
e th
atK
now
ledg
eco
me
fro
m o
ther
char
acte
rist
ics
div
isio
ns)
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
Bie
rly
and
KM
str
ateg
yN
AR
OS
Inno
vato
rs a
nd e
xplo
rers
are
Cha
krab
arti
[11]
RO
Am
ore
prof
itabl
e th
an e
xplo
iters
and
lone
rs
Sim
onin
[104
]C
olla
bora
tive
NA
Tan
gib
le b
enef
its
Col
labo
rativ
e kn
ow-h
ow a
llow
sex
perie
nce
(RO
I R
OA
)fir
ms
to a
chie
ve g
reat
erC
olla
bora
tive
Inta
ng
ible
ben
efit
sor
gani
zatio
nal b
enef
its
know
-how
colla
bora
tive
expe
rien
ce a
lone
does
not
ens
ure
that
a fi
rm w
illbe
nefit
from
a c
olla
bora
tion
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
180 LEE AND CHOI
IN RECENT YEARS IT SEEMS AS THOUGH businesses that could capture the knowledgeembedded in their organization would own the future Companies that isolate knowl-edge management risk losing its benefits It is no surprise that knowledge is overturn-ing the old rules about strategy and competitionmdashthe foundation of industrializedeconomics has shifted from natural resources to intellectual assets In response manymanagers and management thinkers have proclaimed an era of knowledge manage-ment This has compelled researchers to investigate how knowledge is managed Evi-dence is provided by a variety of studies on knowledge [19 79 82] knowledge process[38 70 76 114] and knowledge management architecture [9 21 105]
Companies attempting to deploy knowledge management may be confused by avariety of efforts under way that go under the name of knowledge management [61]Many companies have tried with mixed success to leverage knowledge assets bycentralizing knowledge management functions or by investing heavily in informationtechnology (IT) [44] It is understandable when confronted with a new business phe-nomenon to look to new management practices for guidance Caught up in the gen-eral fever many managers may assume that knowledge management can improvetheir companies However despite their best efforts most studies have not investi-gated how companies can leverage knowledge for the improved performance It isimportant to distinguish themselves through strategies The key question is not whetherto manage knowledge but how to manage it These strategies should be validated bythe use of further empirical tests
To fill this gap prior research has explored which factors are essential for managingknowledge effectively One challenge is to decipher the relationships among thesefactors Most studies have examined the relationships of knowledge managementenablers processes or performance in isolation For example some research has fo-cused on the relationship between enablers and processes [6 43 114 124] the em-phasis of other studies is on the relationship between enablers and organizationalperformance [8 11 35 104] Researchers and practitioners have not tried an integra-tive model An integrative perspective of the knowledge variables based on relevanttheories is a necessity It is also noted that very few empirical studies adopt a process-oriented perspective of organizational knowledge [90] Knowledge creation or trans-fer would benefit companies more than knowledge itself because knowledge is notprimarily about facts but more about context-specific characteristics [115] For ex-ample Xerox systemizes knowledge creation and transfer processes through strategiccommunities [109] Consequently another challenge is to leverage a process-orientedperspective
The primary objective of this paper is to delineate an integrative view of knowledgemanagement and provide strategic guidelines For this purpose this paper analyzesthe previous empirical studies and attempts to find relationships among knowledgemanagement factors such as enablers processes and organizational performance Anintegrative research model is built from a process-oriented perspective and then testedempirically
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 181
Research Background and Literature Review
Theoretical Background
MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE EMPHASIZED three major factors for managing knowledgeenablers processes and organizational performance [9 21 85] Knowledge manage-ment enablers (or influencing factors) are organizational mechanisms for fostering knowl-edge consistently [57] they can stimulate knowledge creation protect knowledge andfacilitate the sharing of knowledge in an organization [108] Knowledge processes(knowledge management activities) can be thought of as a structured coordination formanaging knowledge effectively [35] Typically knowledge processes include activi-ties such as creation sharing storage and usage [2 9] Whereas knowledge processesrepresent the basic operations of knowledge [105] enablers provide the infrastructurenecessary for the organization to increase the efficiency of knowledge processes [96]Organizational performance may be defined as the degree to which companies achievedits business objectives [28] It may be measured in terms of organizational learningprofitability or other financial benefits in knowledge management [18 104] Withoutmeasurable success passion from employees and managers will vanish [85]
There is a general recognition among academics that knowledge management is across-functional and multifaceted discipline A variety of components make up knowl-edge management and the understanding of their interaction is important a holisticview is very useful [80] To this end an integrative research model is necessary thatis the relationships among knowledge enablers processes and organizational perfor-mance can be identified within the framework of systems thinking Systems thinkingtheory considers problems in their entirety [95] This theory is better able to describecomplex and dynamic characteristics of knowledge management in a systematic fash-ion Therefore our integrative framework will be based on this systems thinking theory
Our primary research focus is on the relationships between knowledge enablersand organizational performance by elaborating on the significance of knowledge pro-cesses as the foundation of organizational advantage [79] The relationship amongthese three components is nothing new it can be found in the input-process-outputmodel by Hackerman and Morris [41] The model assumes that the input factorsaffect output performances through certain kinds of interaction processes knowl-edge management enablers affect organizational performance through knowledgeprocesses This relationship is also explained by the use of the knowledge-chain modelproposed by Holsapple and Singh [51] This model suggests that leadership establishenabling conditions for achieving organizational outcome through the knowledgemanagement activities such as acquisition generation internalization and externali-zation It means that knowledge enablers (eg leadership) affect organizational out-come through knowledge processes
A direct relationship between knowledge processes and organizational performanceis not explored yet Because many factors influence the determination of the organiza-tional performance attempts to trace causality to any single factor such as knowledge
182 LEE AND CHOI
process may be risky In order to understand the effect of the knowledge processes onorganizational performance intermediate outcomes (for example knowledge satis-faction or organizational creativity) may be introduced [18] Intermediate outcomesreflect different aspects of an organizationrsquos performance both financial and nonfi-nancial This incorporation may help confirm that enablers ultimately create businessvalue
In sum this paper proposes a research framework as shown in Figure 1
Previous Empirical Studies
Previous empirical studies have investigated the relationships among knowledgemanagement factors They can be classified into four categories depending on howthey identify the relationships (1) relationships between knowledge enablers (2) re-lationships between knowledge enablers and process (3) relationships between knowl-edge process and organizational performance and (4) relationships among knowledgeenablers processes and organizational performance This comparison may be high-lighted as shown in Figure 2
The studies under the first category focus on the relationships among knowledgeenablers The emphasis is on the examination of the effect of knowledge enablers Toidentify this effect they have investigated various knowledge enablers such as knowl-edge management methods structure and culture For example Bennett and Gabriel[10] analyzed a number of knowledge management methods in view of organiza-tional structure culture size and environment
The second category explores the relationships between knowledge enablers andknowledge processes A central proposition is that knowledge enablers (eg industrycharacteristics or knowledge characteristics) should influence knowledge processes(eg transfer) Zander and Kogut [124] proposed that the transfer of organizationalcapabilities be related to the characteristics of social knowledge they analyzed theeffects of the ease of codifying manufacturing capabilities on its transfer timeAppleyard [6] explored knowledge transfer patterns among various nations and in-dustries Szulanski [114] investigated the relationship between four origins of sticki-ness (characteristics of the knowledge transferred the source the recipient and thecontext in which the transfer takes place) and knowledge transfer Hansen [43] em-ployed the notion of complex knowledge to explain the role of weak ties in transfer-ring knowledge in a multiunit organization
The third category examines the relationships between knowledge enablers andorganizational performance The purpose of these studies is to sharpen the under-standing of the effects of knowledge enablers (eg knowledge management strategy)
Figure 1 An Integrative Research Framework for Studying Knowledge Management
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 183
on organizational performance (eg return on assets [ROA] or return on sales [ROS])Bierly and Chakrabarti [11] tried to identify how knowledge management strategiesaffect organizational performance They analyzed knowledge strategies of 21 USpharmaceutical companies that had been categorized into explorers exploiters lon-ers and innovators Simonin [104] tested the relationships among collaborative expe-rience know-how and achievement of organizational performance He proposed thatthe experience of a firm has to be transformed into know-how before it could improveorganizational performance
The emphasis of the fourth category is on relationships among knowledge enablersknowledge processes and organizational performance The primary objective of thesestudies is to identify and assess knowledge enablers (eg task or infrastructure capa-bilities) and processes (eg creation or their capabilities) for improving organiza-tional performance (eg knowledge satisfaction or organizational effectiveness)Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] proposed a contingency framework includingtwo attributes of the organizational subunitrsquos tasksmdashprocess or content orientationand focused or broad domainmdashand linked them to Nonakarsquos knowledge creationprocess [82] The relationship between knowledge creation process and knowledgesatisfaction was also investigated Gold et al [35] analyzed two relationships one
Figure 2 Research Models for Studying Knowledge Management
184 LEE AND CHOI
between infrastructure capabilities and organizational effectiveness and the otherbetween process capabilities and organizational effectiveness Table 1 compares theseprevious studies
Synthesis of Previous Studies
Synthesis of previous studies yields some observations First an integrative model isstill missing Although some studies investigate the relationships among knowledgeenablers processes or organizational performance [8 35] they fail to explore therelationships between enablers and processes simultaneously If managers understandthese relationships in an integrative fashion they can stand a better chance of improv-ing their firmrsquos performance
Second the role of knowledge management processes is not consistent Some stud-ies recognized both knowledge enablers and processes as antecedents of organiza-tional performance [8 35] Other studies recognized knowledge enablers aspreconditions of knowledge processes [6 43 114 124] Therefore the challenge isto clarify the role of knowledge management processes [108]
Third measuring knowledge management performance is still difficult Some stud-ies captured the contribution by the use of knowledge management outcome mea-sures such as knowledge satisfaction [8] whereas others adopted conventionalperformance measures such as ROA [11 104] or organizational effectiveness [35] Itwould appear that the former studies take the relationship between knowledge man-agement outcome and organizational performance for granted although the relation-ship has not been validated The results of the latter studies should be examinedcarefully because the direct relationship between knowledge management processesand organizational performance has not been validated yet [18]
Fourth the knowledge transfer process has been studied extensively [6 43 114124] whereas the other processes such as creation or utilization have received rela-tively little attention In particular some studies have suggested that knowledge cre-ation is most critical for an organizationrsquos long-term success [30] Moreover knowledgetransfer has been assessed by the use of object-perspective measures such as time totransfer [124] number of times of knowledge transfer [6] or percentage of trans-ferred knowledge [43] Recently some researchers have tried to measure knowledgeprocesses themselves [8 35] For example Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8]measured the capacity for knowledge creation by Nonakarsquos knowledge creation modelnot by the use of creation output such as the number of created ideas or patents
A Research Model
OUR OBJECTIVE IS NEITHER TO PROPOSE a model that delineates all of the relation-ships underlying knowledge management nor to generate a longer list of possibleknowledge enablers or processes that affect organizational performance Therefore
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 185
Tabl
e 1
A C
ompa
riso
n of
Pre
viou
s St
udie
s
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
enab
lers
Ben
net a
nd G
abrie
l [10
]S
truc
ture
NA
NA
Effe
ct o
f cha
nge-
frie
ndly
cul
ture
Cul
ture
on th
e nu
mbe
r of
KM
met
hods
Siz
eem
ploy
ed
Env
ironm
ent
KM
met
ho
d
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
Zan
der
and
Kog
ut [1
24]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
tim
e to
NA
Cod
ifiab
ility
tea
chab
ility
and
soci
etal
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
)pa
ralle
l dev
elop
men
t hav
esi
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e tim
eto
tran
sfer
App
leya
rd [6
]In
dust
ry a
ndTr
ansf
er (
nu
mb
er o
fN
Apu
blic
sou
rces
of k
now
ledg
ena
tiona
l cha
ract
eris
tics
tim
es t
he
resp
on
den
tsar
e m
uch
mor
e pr
eval
ent i
np
rovi
de
and
rec
eive
know
ledg
e tr
ansf
er in
kno
wle
dg
e in
a g
iven
sem
icon
duct
ors
than
in th
ep
erio
d)
stee
l ind
ustr
yP
ublic
sou
rces
of t
echn
ical
know
ledg
e pl
ay a
larg
er r
ole
inkn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
in J
apan
than
in th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s(c
onti
nues
)
186 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 1
(C
ontin
ued)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
(co
ntin
ued)
Szu
lans
ki [1
14]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
fou
r-st
age
NA
Rec
ipie
ntrsquos
lack
of a
bsor
ptiv
eth
e kn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
pro
cess
es)
capa
city
cau
sal a
mbi
guity
and
tran
sfer
red
sour
cean
ard
uous
ness
of t
here
cipi
ent c
onte
xt
rela
tions
hip
are
the
maj
orim
pedi
men
ts to
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
Han
sen
[43]
Wea
k tie
s (d
ista
ntTr
ansf
er (
per
cen
tag
eN
AW
eak
ties
impe
de th
e tr
ansf
eran
d in
freq
uent
of
a p
roje
ctrsquos
to
tal
of c
ompl
ex k
now
ledg
ere
latio
nshi
ps)
kno
wle
dg
e th
atK
now
ledg
eco
me
fro
m o
ther
char
acte
rist
ics
div
isio
ns)
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
Bie
rly
and
KM
str
ateg
yN
AR
OS
Inno
vato
rs a
nd e
xplo
rers
are
Cha
krab
arti
[11]
RO
Am
ore
prof
itabl
e th
an e
xplo
iters
and
lone
rs
Sim
onin
[104
]C
olla
bora
tive
NA
Tan
gib
le b
enef
its
Col
labo
rativ
e kn
ow-h
ow a
llow
sex
perie
nce
(RO
I R
OA
)fir
ms
to a
chie
ve g
reat
erC
olla
bora
tive
Inta
ng
ible
ben
efit
sor
gani
zatio
nal b
enef
its
know
-how
colla
bora
tive
expe
rien
ce a
lone
does
not
ens
ure
that
a fi
rm w
illbe
nefit
from
a c
olla
bora
tion
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 181
Research Background and Literature Review
Theoretical Background
MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE EMPHASIZED three major factors for managing knowledgeenablers processes and organizational performance [9 21 85] Knowledge manage-ment enablers (or influencing factors) are organizational mechanisms for fostering knowl-edge consistently [57] they can stimulate knowledge creation protect knowledge andfacilitate the sharing of knowledge in an organization [108] Knowledge processes(knowledge management activities) can be thought of as a structured coordination formanaging knowledge effectively [35] Typically knowledge processes include activi-ties such as creation sharing storage and usage [2 9] Whereas knowledge processesrepresent the basic operations of knowledge [105] enablers provide the infrastructurenecessary for the organization to increase the efficiency of knowledge processes [96]Organizational performance may be defined as the degree to which companies achievedits business objectives [28] It may be measured in terms of organizational learningprofitability or other financial benefits in knowledge management [18 104] Withoutmeasurable success passion from employees and managers will vanish [85]
There is a general recognition among academics that knowledge management is across-functional and multifaceted discipline A variety of components make up knowl-edge management and the understanding of their interaction is important a holisticview is very useful [80] To this end an integrative research model is necessary thatis the relationships among knowledge enablers processes and organizational perfor-mance can be identified within the framework of systems thinking Systems thinkingtheory considers problems in their entirety [95] This theory is better able to describecomplex and dynamic characteristics of knowledge management in a systematic fash-ion Therefore our integrative framework will be based on this systems thinking theory
Our primary research focus is on the relationships between knowledge enablersand organizational performance by elaborating on the significance of knowledge pro-cesses as the foundation of organizational advantage [79] The relationship amongthese three components is nothing new it can be found in the input-process-outputmodel by Hackerman and Morris [41] The model assumes that the input factorsaffect output performances through certain kinds of interaction processes knowl-edge management enablers affect organizational performance through knowledgeprocesses This relationship is also explained by the use of the knowledge-chain modelproposed by Holsapple and Singh [51] This model suggests that leadership establishenabling conditions for achieving organizational outcome through the knowledgemanagement activities such as acquisition generation internalization and externali-zation It means that knowledge enablers (eg leadership) affect organizational out-come through knowledge processes
A direct relationship between knowledge processes and organizational performanceis not explored yet Because many factors influence the determination of the organiza-tional performance attempts to trace causality to any single factor such as knowledge
182 LEE AND CHOI
process may be risky In order to understand the effect of the knowledge processes onorganizational performance intermediate outcomes (for example knowledge satis-faction or organizational creativity) may be introduced [18] Intermediate outcomesreflect different aspects of an organizationrsquos performance both financial and nonfi-nancial This incorporation may help confirm that enablers ultimately create businessvalue
In sum this paper proposes a research framework as shown in Figure 1
Previous Empirical Studies
Previous empirical studies have investigated the relationships among knowledgemanagement factors They can be classified into four categories depending on howthey identify the relationships (1) relationships between knowledge enablers (2) re-lationships between knowledge enablers and process (3) relationships between knowl-edge process and organizational performance and (4) relationships among knowledgeenablers processes and organizational performance This comparison may be high-lighted as shown in Figure 2
The studies under the first category focus on the relationships among knowledgeenablers The emphasis is on the examination of the effect of knowledge enablers Toidentify this effect they have investigated various knowledge enablers such as knowl-edge management methods structure and culture For example Bennett and Gabriel[10] analyzed a number of knowledge management methods in view of organiza-tional structure culture size and environment
The second category explores the relationships between knowledge enablers andknowledge processes A central proposition is that knowledge enablers (eg industrycharacteristics or knowledge characteristics) should influence knowledge processes(eg transfer) Zander and Kogut [124] proposed that the transfer of organizationalcapabilities be related to the characteristics of social knowledge they analyzed theeffects of the ease of codifying manufacturing capabilities on its transfer timeAppleyard [6] explored knowledge transfer patterns among various nations and in-dustries Szulanski [114] investigated the relationship between four origins of sticki-ness (characteristics of the knowledge transferred the source the recipient and thecontext in which the transfer takes place) and knowledge transfer Hansen [43] em-ployed the notion of complex knowledge to explain the role of weak ties in transfer-ring knowledge in a multiunit organization
The third category examines the relationships between knowledge enablers andorganizational performance The purpose of these studies is to sharpen the under-standing of the effects of knowledge enablers (eg knowledge management strategy)
Figure 1 An Integrative Research Framework for Studying Knowledge Management
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 183
on organizational performance (eg return on assets [ROA] or return on sales [ROS])Bierly and Chakrabarti [11] tried to identify how knowledge management strategiesaffect organizational performance They analyzed knowledge strategies of 21 USpharmaceutical companies that had been categorized into explorers exploiters lon-ers and innovators Simonin [104] tested the relationships among collaborative expe-rience know-how and achievement of organizational performance He proposed thatthe experience of a firm has to be transformed into know-how before it could improveorganizational performance
The emphasis of the fourth category is on relationships among knowledge enablersknowledge processes and organizational performance The primary objective of thesestudies is to identify and assess knowledge enablers (eg task or infrastructure capa-bilities) and processes (eg creation or their capabilities) for improving organiza-tional performance (eg knowledge satisfaction or organizational effectiveness)Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] proposed a contingency framework includingtwo attributes of the organizational subunitrsquos tasksmdashprocess or content orientationand focused or broad domainmdashand linked them to Nonakarsquos knowledge creationprocess [82] The relationship between knowledge creation process and knowledgesatisfaction was also investigated Gold et al [35] analyzed two relationships one
Figure 2 Research Models for Studying Knowledge Management
184 LEE AND CHOI
between infrastructure capabilities and organizational effectiveness and the otherbetween process capabilities and organizational effectiveness Table 1 compares theseprevious studies
Synthesis of Previous Studies
Synthesis of previous studies yields some observations First an integrative model isstill missing Although some studies investigate the relationships among knowledgeenablers processes or organizational performance [8 35] they fail to explore therelationships between enablers and processes simultaneously If managers understandthese relationships in an integrative fashion they can stand a better chance of improv-ing their firmrsquos performance
Second the role of knowledge management processes is not consistent Some stud-ies recognized both knowledge enablers and processes as antecedents of organiza-tional performance [8 35] Other studies recognized knowledge enablers aspreconditions of knowledge processes [6 43 114 124] Therefore the challenge isto clarify the role of knowledge management processes [108]
Third measuring knowledge management performance is still difficult Some stud-ies captured the contribution by the use of knowledge management outcome mea-sures such as knowledge satisfaction [8] whereas others adopted conventionalperformance measures such as ROA [11 104] or organizational effectiveness [35] Itwould appear that the former studies take the relationship between knowledge man-agement outcome and organizational performance for granted although the relation-ship has not been validated The results of the latter studies should be examinedcarefully because the direct relationship between knowledge management processesand organizational performance has not been validated yet [18]
Fourth the knowledge transfer process has been studied extensively [6 43 114124] whereas the other processes such as creation or utilization have received rela-tively little attention In particular some studies have suggested that knowledge cre-ation is most critical for an organizationrsquos long-term success [30] Moreover knowledgetransfer has been assessed by the use of object-perspective measures such as time totransfer [124] number of times of knowledge transfer [6] or percentage of trans-ferred knowledge [43] Recently some researchers have tried to measure knowledgeprocesses themselves [8 35] For example Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8]measured the capacity for knowledge creation by Nonakarsquos knowledge creation modelnot by the use of creation output such as the number of created ideas or patents
A Research Model
OUR OBJECTIVE IS NEITHER TO PROPOSE a model that delineates all of the relation-ships underlying knowledge management nor to generate a longer list of possibleknowledge enablers or processes that affect organizational performance Therefore
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 185
Tabl
e 1
A C
ompa
riso
n of
Pre
viou
s St
udie
s
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
enab
lers
Ben
net a
nd G
abrie
l [10
]S
truc
ture
NA
NA
Effe
ct o
f cha
nge-
frie
ndly
cul
ture
Cul
ture
on th
e nu
mbe
r of
KM
met
hods
Siz
eem
ploy
ed
Env
ironm
ent
KM
met
ho
d
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
Zan
der
and
Kog
ut [1
24]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
tim
e to
NA
Cod
ifiab
ility
tea
chab
ility
and
soci
etal
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
)pa
ralle
l dev
elop
men
t hav
esi
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e tim
eto
tran
sfer
App
leya
rd [6
]In
dust
ry a
ndTr
ansf
er (
nu
mb
er o
fN
Apu
blic
sou
rces
of k
now
ledg
ena
tiona
l cha
ract
eris
tics
tim
es t
he
resp
on
den
tsar
e m
uch
mor
e pr
eval
ent i
np
rovi
de
and
rec
eive
know
ledg
e tr
ansf
er in
kno
wle
dg
e in
a g
iven
sem
icon
duct
ors
than
in th
ep
erio
d)
stee
l ind
ustr
yP
ublic
sou
rces
of t
echn
ical
know
ledg
e pl
ay a
larg
er r
ole
inkn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
in J
apan
than
in th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s(c
onti
nues
)
186 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 1
(C
ontin
ued)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
(co
ntin
ued)
Szu
lans
ki [1
14]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
fou
r-st
age
NA
Rec
ipie
ntrsquos
lack
of a
bsor
ptiv
eth
e kn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
pro
cess
es)
capa
city
cau
sal a
mbi
guity
and
tran
sfer
red
sour
cean
ard
uous
ness
of t
here
cipi
ent c
onte
xt
rela
tions
hip
are
the
maj
orim
pedi
men
ts to
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
Han
sen
[43]
Wea
k tie
s (d
ista
ntTr
ansf
er (
per
cen
tag
eN
AW
eak
ties
impe
de th
e tr
ansf
eran
d in
freq
uent
of
a p
roje
ctrsquos
to
tal
of c
ompl
ex k
now
ledg
ere
latio
nshi
ps)
kno
wle
dg
e th
atK
now
ledg
eco
me
fro
m o
ther
char
acte
rist
ics
div
isio
ns)
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
Bie
rly
and
KM
str
ateg
yN
AR
OS
Inno
vato
rs a
nd e
xplo
rers
are
Cha
krab
arti
[11]
RO
Am
ore
prof
itabl
e th
an e
xplo
iters
and
lone
rs
Sim
onin
[104
]C
olla
bora
tive
NA
Tan
gib
le b
enef
its
Col
labo
rativ
e kn
ow-h
ow a
llow
sex
perie
nce
(RO
I R
OA
)fir
ms
to a
chie
ve g
reat
erC
olla
bora
tive
Inta
ng
ible
ben
efit
sor
gani
zatio
nal b
enef
its
know
-how
colla
bora
tive
expe
rien
ce a
lone
does
not
ens
ure
that
a fi
rm w
illbe
nefit
from
a c
olla
bora
tion
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
182 LEE AND CHOI
process may be risky In order to understand the effect of the knowledge processes onorganizational performance intermediate outcomes (for example knowledge satis-faction or organizational creativity) may be introduced [18] Intermediate outcomesreflect different aspects of an organizationrsquos performance both financial and nonfi-nancial This incorporation may help confirm that enablers ultimately create businessvalue
In sum this paper proposes a research framework as shown in Figure 1
Previous Empirical Studies
Previous empirical studies have investigated the relationships among knowledgemanagement factors They can be classified into four categories depending on howthey identify the relationships (1) relationships between knowledge enablers (2) re-lationships between knowledge enablers and process (3) relationships between knowl-edge process and organizational performance and (4) relationships among knowledgeenablers processes and organizational performance This comparison may be high-lighted as shown in Figure 2
The studies under the first category focus on the relationships among knowledgeenablers The emphasis is on the examination of the effect of knowledge enablers Toidentify this effect they have investigated various knowledge enablers such as knowl-edge management methods structure and culture For example Bennett and Gabriel[10] analyzed a number of knowledge management methods in view of organiza-tional structure culture size and environment
The second category explores the relationships between knowledge enablers andknowledge processes A central proposition is that knowledge enablers (eg industrycharacteristics or knowledge characteristics) should influence knowledge processes(eg transfer) Zander and Kogut [124] proposed that the transfer of organizationalcapabilities be related to the characteristics of social knowledge they analyzed theeffects of the ease of codifying manufacturing capabilities on its transfer timeAppleyard [6] explored knowledge transfer patterns among various nations and in-dustries Szulanski [114] investigated the relationship between four origins of sticki-ness (characteristics of the knowledge transferred the source the recipient and thecontext in which the transfer takes place) and knowledge transfer Hansen [43] em-ployed the notion of complex knowledge to explain the role of weak ties in transfer-ring knowledge in a multiunit organization
The third category examines the relationships between knowledge enablers andorganizational performance The purpose of these studies is to sharpen the under-standing of the effects of knowledge enablers (eg knowledge management strategy)
Figure 1 An Integrative Research Framework for Studying Knowledge Management
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 183
on organizational performance (eg return on assets [ROA] or return on sales [ROS])Bierly and Chakrabarti [11] tried to identify how knowledge management strategiesaffect organizational performance They analyzed knowledge strategies of 21 USpharmaceutical companies that had been categorized into explorers exploiters lon-ers and innovators Simonin [104] tested the relationships among collaborative expe-rience know-how and achievement of organizational performance He proposed thatthe experience of a firm has to be transformed into know-how before it could improveorganizational performance
The emphasis of the fourth category is on relationships among knowledge enablersknowledge processes and organizational performance The primary objective of thesestudies is to identify and assess knowledge enablers (eg task or infrastructure capa-bilities) and processes (eg creation or their capabilities) for improving organiza-tional performance (eg knowledge satisfaction or organizational effectiveness)Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] proposed a contingency framework includingtwo attributes of the organizational subunitrsquos tasksmdashprocess or content orientationand focused or broad domainmdashand linked them to Nonakarsquos knowledge creationprocess [82] The relationship between knowledge creation process and knowledgesatisfaction was also investigated Gold et al [35] analyzed two relationships one
Figure 2 Research Models for Studying Knowledge Management
184 LEE AND CHOI
between infrastructure capabilities and organizational effectiveness and the otherbetween process capabilities and organizational effectiveness Table 1 compares theseprevious studies
Synthesis of Previous Studies
Synthesis of previous studies yields some observations First an integrative model isstill missing Although some studies investigate the relationships among knowledgeenablers processes or organizational performance [8 35] they fail to explore therelationships between enablers and processes simultaneously If managers understandthese relationships in an integrative fashion they can stand a better chance of improv-ing their firmrsquos performance
Second the role of knowledge management processes is not consistent Some stud-ies recognized both knowledge enablers and processes as antecedents of organiza-tional performance [8 35] Other studies recognized knowledge enablers aspreconditions of knowledge processes [6 43 114 124] Therefore the challenge isto clarify the role of knowledge management processes [108]
Third measuring knowledge management performance is still difficult Some stud-ies captured the contribution by the use of knowledge management outcome mea-sures such as knowledge satisfaction [8] whereas others adopted conventionalperformance measures such as ROA [11 104] or organizational effectiveness [35] Itwould appear that the former studies take the relationship between knowledge man-agement outcome and organizational performance for granted although the relation-ship has not been validated The results of the latter studies should be examinedcarefully because the direct relationship between knowledge management processesand organizational performance has not been validated yet [18]
Fourth the knowledge transfer process has been studied extensively [6 43 114124] whereas the other processes such as creation or utilization have received rela-tively little attention In particular some studies have suggested that knowledge cre-ation is most critical for an organizationrsquos long-term success [30] Moreover knowledgetransfer has been assessed by the use of object-perspective measures such as time totransfer [124] number of times of knowledge transfer [6] or percentage of trans-ferred knowledge [43] Recently some researchers have tried to measure knowledgeprocesses themselves [8 35] For example Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8]measured the capacity for knowledge creation by Nonakarsquos knowledge creation modelnot by the use of creation output such as the number of created ideas or patents
A Research Model
OUR OBJECTIVE IS NEITHER TO PROPOSE a model that delineates all of the relation-ships underlying knowledge management nor to generate a longer list of possibleknowledge enablers or processes that affect organizational performance Therefore
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 185
Tabl
e 1
A C
ompa
riso
n of
Pre
viou
s St
udie
s
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
enab
lers
Ben
net a
nd G
abrie
l [10
]S
truc
ture
NA
NA
Effe
ct o
f cha
nge-
frie
ndly
cul
ture
Cul
ture
on th
e nu
mbe
r of
KM
met
hods
Siz
eem
ploy
ed
Env
ironm
ent
KM
met
ho
d
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
Zan
der
and
Kog
ut [1
24]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
tim
e to
NA
Cod
ifiab
ility
tea
chab
ility
and
soci
etal
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
)pa
ralle
l dev
elop
men
t hav
esi
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e tim
eto
tran
sfer
App
leya
rd [6
]In
dust
ry a
ndTr
ansf
er (
nu
mb
er o
fN
Apu
blic
sou
rces
of k
now
ledg
ena
tiona
l cha
ract
eris
tics
tim
es t
he
resp
on
den
tsar
e m
uch
mor
e pr
eval
ent i
np
rovi
de
and
rec
eive
know
ledg
e tr
ansf
er in
kno
wle
dg
e in
a g
iven
sem
icon
duct
ors
than
in th
ep
erio
d)
stee
l ind
ustr
yP
ublic
sou
rces
of t
echn
ical
know
ledg
e pl
ay a
larg
er r
ole
inkn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
in J
apan
than
in th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s(c
onti
nues
)
186 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 1
(C
ontin
ued)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
(co
ntin
ued)
Szu
lans
ki [1
14]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
fou
r-st
age
NA
Rec
ipie
ntrsquos
lack
of a
bsor
ptiv
eth
e kn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
pro
cess
es)
capa
city
cau
sal a
mbi
guity
and
tran
sfer
red
sour
cean
ard
uous
ness
of t
here
cipi
ent c
onte
xt
rela
tions
hip
are
the
maj
orim
pedi
men
ts to
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
Han
sen
[43]
Wea
k tie
s (d
ista
ntTr
ansf
er (
per
cen
tag
eN
AW
eak
ties
impe
de th
e tr
ansf
eran
d in
freq
uent
of
a p
roje
ctrsquos
to
tal
of c
ompl
ex k
now
ledg
ere
latio
nshi
ps)
kno
wle
dg
e th
atK
now
ledg
eco
me
fro
m o
ther
char
acte
rist
ics
div
isio
ns)
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
Bie
rly
and
KM
str
ateg
yN
AR
OS
Inno
vato
rs a
nd e
xplo
rers
are
Cha
krab
arti
[11]
RO
Am
ore
prof
itabl
e th
an e
xplo
iters
and
lone
rs
Sim
onin
[104
]C
olla
bora
tive
NA
Tan
gib
le b
enef
its
Col
labo
rativ
e kn
ow-h
ow a
llow
sex
perie
nce
(RO
I R
OA
)fir
ms
to a
chie
ve g
reat
erC
olla
bora
tive
Inta
ng
ible
ben
efit
sor
gani
zatio
nal b
enef
its
know
-how
colla
bora
tive
expe
rien
ce a
lone
does
not
ens
ure
that
a fi
rm w
illbe
nefit
from
a c
olla
bora
tion
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 183
on organizational performance (eg return on assets [ROA] or return on sales [ROS])Bierly and Chakrabarti [11] tried to identify how knowledge management strategiesaffect organizational performance They analyzed knowledge strategies of 21 USpharmaceutical companies that had been categorized into explorers exploiters lon-ers and innovators Simonin [104] tested the relationships among collaborative expe-rience know-how and achievement of organizational performance He proposed thatthe experience of a firm has to be transformed into know-how before it could improveorganizational performance
The emphasis of the fourth category is on relationships among knowledge enablersknowledge processes and organizational performance The primary objective of thesestudies is to identify and assess knowledge enablers (eg task or infrastructure capa-bilities) and processes (eg creation or their capabilities) for improving organiza-tional performance (eg knowledge satisfaction or organizational effectiveness)Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] proposed a contingency framework includingtwo attributes of the organizational subunitrsquos tasksmdashprocess or content orientationand focused or broad domainmdashand linked them to Nonakarsquos knowledge creationprocess [82] The relationship between knowledge creation process and knowledgesatisfaction was also investigated Gold et al [35] analyzed two relationships one
Figure 2 Research Models for Studying Knowledge Management
184 LEE AND CHOI
between infrastructure capabilities and organizational effectiveness and the otherbetween process capabilities and organizational effectiveness Table 1 compares theseprevious studies
Synthesis of Previous Studies
Synthesis of previous studies yields some observations First an integrative model isstill missing Although some studies investigate the relationships among knowledgeenablers processes or organizational performance [8 35] they fail to explore therelationships between enablers and processes simultaneously If managers understandthese relationships in an integrative fashion they can stand a better chance of improv-ing their firmrsquos performance
Second the role of knowledge management processes is not consistent Some stud-ies recognized both knowledge enablers and processes as antecedents of organiza-tional performance [8 35] Other studies recognized knowledge enablers aspreconditions of knowledge processes [6 43 114 124] Therefore the challenge isto clarify the role of knowledge management processes [108]
Third measuring knowledge management performance is still difficult Some stud-ies captured the contribution by the use of knowledge management outcome mea-sures such as knowledge satisfaction [8] whereas others adopted conventionalperformance measures such as ROA [11 104] or organizational effectiveness [35] Itwould appear that the former studies take the relationship between knowledge man-agement outcome and organizational performance for granted although the relation-ship has not been validated The results of the latter studies should be examinedcarefully because the direct relationship between knowledge management processesand organizational performance has not been validated yet [18]
Fourth the knowledge transfer process has been studied extensively [6 43 114124] whereas the other processes such as creation or utilization have received rela-tively little attention In particular some studies have suggested that knowledge cre-ation is most critical for an organizationrsquos long-term success [30] Moreover knowledgetransfer has been assessed by the use of object-perspective measures such as time totransfer [124] number of times of knowledge transfer [6] or percentage of trans-ferred knowledge [43] Recently some researchers have tried to measure knowledgeprocesses themselves [8 35] For example Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8]measured the capacity for knowledge creation by Nonakarsquos knowledge creation modelnot by the use of creation output such as the number of created ideas or patents
A Research Model
OUR OBJECTIVE IS NEITHER TO PROPOSE a model that delineates all of the relation-ships underlying knowledge management nor to generate a longer list of possibleknowledge enablers or processes that affect organizational performance Therefore
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 185
Tabl
e 1
A C
ompa
riso
n of
Pre
viou
s St
udie
s
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
enab
lers
Ben
net a
nd G
abrie
l [10
]S
truc
ture
NA
NA
Effe
ct o
f cha
nge-
frie
ndly
cul
ture
Cul
ture
on th
e nu
mbe
r of
KM
met
hods
Siz
eem
ploy
ed
Env
ironm
ent
KM
met
ho
d
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
Zan
der
and
Kog
ut [1
24]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
tim
e to
NA
Cod
ifiab
ility
tea
chab
ility
and
soci
etal
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
)pa
ralle
l dev
elop
men
t hav
esi
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e tim
eto
tran
sfer
App
leya
rd [6
]In
dust
ry a
ndTr
ansf
er (
nu
mb
er o
fN
Apu
blic
sou
rces
of k
now
ledg
ena
tiona
l cha
ract
eris
tics
tim
es t
he
resp
on
den
tsar
e m
uch
mor
e pr
eval
ent i
np
rovi
de
and
rec
eive
know
ledg
e tr
ansf
er in
kno
wle
dg
e in
a g
iven
sem
icon
duct
ors
than
in th
ep
erio
d)
stee
l ind
ustr
yP
ublic
sou
rces
of t
echn
ical
know
ledg
e pl
ay a
larg
er r
ole
inkn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
in J
apan
than
in th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s(c
onti
nues
)
186 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 1
(C
ontin
ued)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
(co
ntin
ued)
Szu
lans
ki [1
14]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
fou
r-st
age
NA
Rec
ipie
ntrsquos
lack
of a
bsor
ptiv
eth
e kn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
pro
cess
es)
capa
city
cau
sal a
mbi
guity
and
tran
sfer
red
sour
cean
ard
uous
ness
of t
here
cipi
ent c
onte
xt
rela
tions
hip
are
the
maj
orim
pedi
men
ts to
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
Han
sen
[43]
Wea
k tie
s (d
ista
ntTr
ansf
er (
per
cen
tag
eN
AW
eak
ties
impe
de th
e tr
ansf
eran
d in
freq
uent
of
a p
roje
ctrsquos
to
tal
of c
ompl
ex k
now
ledg
ere
latio
nshi
ps)
kno
wle
dg
e th
atK
now
ledg
eco
me
fro
m o
ther
char
acte
rist
ics
div
isio
ns)
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
Bie
rly
and
KM
str
ateg
yN
AR
OS
Inno
vato
rs a
nd e
xplo
rers
are
Cha
krab
arti
[11]
RO
Am
ore
prof
itabl
e th
an e
xplo
iters
and
lone
rs
Sim
onin
[104
]C
olla
bora
tive
NA
Tan
gib
le b
enef
its
Col
labo
rativ
e kn
ow-h
ow a
llow
sex
perie
nce
(RO
I R
OA
)fir
ms
to a
chie
ve g
reat
erC
olla
bora
tive
Inta
ng
ible
ben
efit
sor
gani
zatio
nal b
enef
its
know
-how
colla
bora
tive
expe
rien
ce a
lone
does
not
ens
ure
that
a fi
rm w
illbe
nefit
from
a c
olla
bora
tion
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
184 LEE AND CHOI
between infrastructure capabilities and organizational effectiveness and the otherbetween process capabilities and organizational effectiveness Table 1 compares theseprevious studies
Synthesis of Previous Studies
Synthesis of previous studies yields some observations First an integrative model isstill missing Although some studies investigate the relationships among knowledgeenablers processes or organizational performance [8 35] they fail to explore therelationships between enablers and processes simultaneously If managers understandthese relationships in an integrative fashion they can stand a better chance of improv-ing their firmrsquos performance
Second the role of knowledge management processes is not consistent Some stud-ies recognized both knowledge enablers and processes as antecedents of organiza-tional performance [8 35] Other studies recognized knowledge enablers aspreconditions of knowledge processes [6 43 114 124] Therefore the challenge isto clarify the role of knowledge management processes [108]
Third measuring knowledge management performance is still difficult Some stud-ies captured the contribution by the use of knowledge management outcome mea-sures such as knowledge satisfaction [8] whereas others adopted conventionalperformance measures such as ROA [11 104] or organizational effectiveness [35] Itwould appear that the former studies take the relationship between knowledge man-agement outcome and organizational performance for granted although the relation-ship has not been validated The results of the latter studies should be examinedcarefully because the direct relationship between knowledge management processesand organizational performance has not been validated yet [18]
Fourth the knowledge transfer process has been studied extensively [6 43 114124] whereas the other processes such as creation or utilization have received rela-tively little attention In particular some studies have suggested that knowledge cre-ation is most critical for an organizationrsquos long-term success [30] Moreover knowledgetransfer has been assessed by the use of object-perspective measures such as time totransfer [124] number of times of knowledge transfer [6] or percentage of trans-ferred knowledge [43] Recently some researchers have tried to measure knowledgeprocesses themselves [8 35] For example Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8]measured the capacity for knowledge creation by Nonakarsquos knowledge creation modelnot by the use of creation output such as the number of created ideas or patents
A Research Model
OUR OBJECTIVE IS NEITHER TO PROPOSE a model that delineates all of the relation-ships underlying knowledge management nor to generate a longer list of possibleknowledge enablers or processes that affect organizational performance Therefore
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 185
Tabl
e 1
A C
ompa
riso
n of
Pre
viou
s St
udie
s
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
enab
lers
Ben
net a
nd G
abrie
l [10
]S
truc
ture
NA
NA
Effe
ct o
f cha
nge-
frie
ndly
cul
ture
Cul
ture
on th
e nu
mbe
r of
KM
met
hods
Siz
eem
ploy
ed
Env
ironm
ent
KM
met
ho
d
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
Zan
der
and
Kog
ut [1
24]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
tim
e to
NA
Cod
ifiab
ility
tea
chab
ility
and
soci
etal
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
)pa
ralle
l dev
elop
men
t hav
esi
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e tim
eto
tran
sfer
App
leya
rd [6
]In
dust
ry a
ndTr
ansf
er (
nu
mb
er o
fN
Apu
blic
sou
rces
of k
now
ledg
ena
tiona
l cha
ract
eris
tics
tim
es t
he
resp
on
den
tsar
e m
uch
mor
e pr
eval
ent i
np
rovi
de
and
rec
eive
know
ledg
e tr
ansf
er in
kno
wle
dg
e in
a g
iven
sem
icon
duct
ors
than
in th
ep
erio
d)
stee
l ind
ustr
yP
ublic
sou
rces
of t
echn
ical
know
ledg
e pl
ay a
larg
er r
ole
inkn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
in J
apan
than
in th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s(c
onti
nues
)
186 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 1
(C
ontin
ued)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
(co
ntin
ued)
Szu
lans
ki [1
14]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
fou
r-st
age
NA
Rec
ipie
ntrsquos
lack
of a
bsor
ptiv
eth
e kn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
pro
cess
es)
capa
city
cau
sal a
mbi
guity
and
tran
sfer
red
sour
cean
ard
uous
ness
of t
here
cipi
ent c
onte
xt
rela
tions
hip
are
the
maj
orim
pedi
men
ts to
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
Han
sen
[43]
Wea
k tie
s (d
ista
ntTr
ansf
er (
per
cen
tag
eN
AW
eak
ties
impe
de th
e tr
ansf
eran
d in
freq
uent
of
a p
roje
ctrsquos
to
tal
of c
ompl
ex k
now
ledg
ere
latio
nshi
ps)
kno
wle
dg
e th
atK
now
ledg
eco
me
fro
m o
ther
char
acte
rist
ics
div
isio
ns)
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
Bie
rly
and
KM
str
ateg
yN
AR
OS
Inno
vato
rs a
nd e
xplo
rers
are
Cha
krab
arti
[11]
RO
Am
ore
prof
itabl
e th
an e
xplo
iters
and
lone
rs
Sim
onin
[104
]C
olla
bora
tive
NA
Tan
gib
le b
enef
its
Col
labo
rativ
e kn
ow-h
ow a
llow
sex
perie
nce
(RO
I R
OA
)fir
ms
to a
chie
ve g
reat
erC
olla
bora
tive
Inta
ng
ible
ben
efit
sor
gani
zatio
nal b
enef
its
know
-how
colla
bora
tive
expe
rien
ce a
lone
does
not
ens
ure
that
a fi
rm w
illbe
nefit
from
a c
olla
bora
tion
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 185
Tabl
e 1
A C
ompa
riso
n of
Pre
viou
s St
udie
s
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
enab
lers
Ben
net a
nd G
abrie
l [10
]S
truc
ture
NA
NA
Effe
ct o
f cha
nge-
frie
ndly
cul
ture
Cul
ture
on th
e nu
mbe
r of
KM
met
hods
Siz
eem
ploy
ed
Env
ironm
ent
KM
met
ho
d
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
Zan
der
and
Kog
ut [1
24]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
tim
e to
NA
Cod
ifiab
ility
tea
chab
ility
and
soci
etal
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
)pa
ralle
l dev
elop
men
t hav
esi
gnifi
cant
effe
cts
on th
e tim
eto
tran
sfer
App
leya
rd [6
]In
dust
ry a
ndTr
ansf
er (
nu
mb
er o
fN
Apu
blic
sou
rces
of k
now
ledg
ena
tiona
l cha
ract
eris
tics
tim
es t
he
resp
on
den
tsar
e m
uch
mor
e pr
eval
ent i
np
rovi
de
and
rec
eive
know
ledg
e tr
ansf
er in
kno
wle
dg
e in
a g
iven
sem
icon
duct
ors
than
in th
ep
erio
d)
stee
l ind
ustr
yP
ublic
sou
rces
of t
echn
ical
know
ledg
e pl
ay a
larg
er r
ole
inkn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
in J
apan
than
in th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s(c
onti
nues
)
186 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 1
(C
ontin
ued)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
(co
ntin
ued)
Szu
lans
ki [1
14]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
fou
r-st
age
NA
Rec
ipie
ntrsquos
lack
of a
bsor
ptiv
eth
e kn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
pro
cess
es)
capa
city
cau
sal a
mbi
guity
and
tran
sfer
red
sour
cean
ard
uous
ness
of t
here
cipi
ent c
onte
xt
rela
tions
hip
are
the
maj
orim
pedi
men
ts to
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
Han
sen
[43]
Wea
k tie
s (d
ista
ntTr
ansf
er (
per
cen
tag
eN
AW
eak
ties
impe
de th
e tr
ansf
eran
d in
freq
uent
of
a p
roje
ctrsquos
to
tal
of c
ompl
ex k
now
ledg
ere
latio
nshi
ps)
kno
wle
dg
e th
atK
now
ledg
eco
me
fro
m o
ther
char
acte
rist
ics
div
isio
ns)
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
Bie
rly
and
KM
str
ateg
yN
AR
OS
Inno
vato
rs a
nd e
xplo
rers
are
Cha
krab
arti
[11]
RO
Am
ore
prof
itabl
e th
an e
xplo
iters
and
lone
rs
Sim
onin
[104
]C
olla
bora
tive
NA
Tan
gib
le b
enef
its
Col
labo
rativ
e kn
ow-h
ow a
llow
sex
perie
nce
(RO
I R
OA
)fir
ms
to a
chie
ve g
reat
erC
olla
bora
tive
Inta
ng
ible
ben
efit
sor
gani
zatio
nal b
enef
its
know
-how
colla
bora
tive
expe
rien
ce a
lone
does
not
ens
ure
that
a fi
rm w
illbe
nefit
from
a c
olla
bora
tion
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
186 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 1
(C
ontin
ued)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stud
yK
M e
nabl
ers
KM
pro
cess
espe
rfor
man
ceFi
ndin
gs
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
roce
sses
(co
ntin
ued)
Szu
lans
ki [1
14]
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofTr
ansf
er (
fou
r-st
age
NA
Rec
ipie
ntrsquos
lack
of a
bsor
ptiv
eth
e kn
owle
dge
tran
sfer
pro
cess
es)
capa
city
cau
sal a
mbi
guity
and
tran
sfer
red
sour
cean
ard
uous
ness
of t
here
cipi
ent c
onte
xt
rela
tions
hip
are
the
maj
orim
pedi
men
ts to
kno
wle
dge
tran
sfer
Han
sen
[43]
Wea
k tie
s (d
ista
ntTr
ansf
er (
per
cen
tag
eN
AW
eak
ties
impe
de th
e tr
ansf
eran
d in
freq
uent
of
a p
roje
ctrsquos
to
tal
of c
ompl
ex k
now
ledg
ere
latio
nshi
ps)
kno
wle
dg
e th
atK
now
ledg
eco
me
fro
m o
ther
char
acte
rist
ics
div
isio
ns)
Rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n en
able
rs a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
Bie
rly
and
KM
str
ateg
yN
AR
OS
Inno
vato
rs a
nd e
xplo
rers
are
Cha
krab
arti
[11]
RO
Am
ore
prof
itabl
e th
an e
xplo
iters
and
lone
rs
Sim
onin
[104
]C
olla
bora
tive
NA
Tan
gib
le b
enef
its
Col
labo
rativ
e kn
ow-h
ow a
llow
sex
perie
nce
(RO
I R
OA
)fir
ms
to a
chie
ve g
reat
erC
olla
bora
tive
Inta
ng
ible
ben
efit
sor
gani
zatio
nal b
enef
its
know
-how
colla
bora
tive
expe
rien
ce a
lone
does
not
ens
ure
that
a fi
rm w
illbe
nefit
from
a c
olla
bora
tion
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 187
Rel
atio
nshi
p am
ong
know
ledg
e en
able
rs p
roce
sses
and
per
form
ance
Bec
erra
-Fer
nand
ez a
ndTa
sk (
proc
ess
orC
reat
ion
(soc
ializ
atio
nK
M s
atis
fact
ion
Soc
ializ
atio
n is
sui
tabl
e fo
rS
abhe
rwal
[8]
cont
ent o
rien
tatio
nex
tern
aliz
atio
nbr
oad
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
focu
sed
orco
mbi
natio
nta
sks
ext
erna
lizat
ion
for
broa
d do
mai
n)
inte
rnal
izat
ion)
fo
cuse
d an
d co
nten
t-or
ient
edta
sks
com
bina
tion
for
broa
dan
d co
nten
t-or
ient
ed ta
sks
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
for
focu
ses
and
proc
ess-
orie
nted
task
sco
mbi
natio
n an
dex
tern
aliz
atio
n af
fect
know
ledg
e sa
tisfa
ctio
n
Gol
d et
al
[35]
Infr
astr
uctu
re c
apab
ility
Pro
cess
cap
abili
tyO
rgan
izat
ion
alIn
fras
truc
ture
and
pro
cess
(tec
hnol
ogy
str
uctu
re
(acq
uisi
tion
con
vers
ion
effe
ctiv
enes
sca
pabi
litie
s co
ntrib
ute
to th
ecu
lture
)ap
plic
atio
n p
rote
ctio
n)
achi
evem
ent o
f org
aniz
atio
nal
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Not
e B
oldf
ace
type
ind
icat
es d
epen
dent
var
iabl
es
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
188 LEE AND CHOI
our model highlights a few major factors that can explain a large proportion of thevariance in knowledge management
Variables
Enablers
A variety of knowledge management enablers have been addressed in the literature[57 70 97] Among these enablers organizational culture structure people and ITare incorporated into our research model Organizational culture is the most impor-tant factor for successful knowledge management [15 20 21 35] Culture definesnot only what knowledge is valued but also what knowledge must be kept inside theorganization for sustained innovative advantage [71] Organizations should establishan appropriate culture that encourages people to create and share knowledge withinan organization [49 70] This study focuses on collaboration trust and learning onthe basis of the concept of care [29] Care is a key enabler for organizational relation-ships [68] When organizational relationships are fostered through care knowledgecan be created and shared
The organizational structure within an organization may encourage or inhibit knowl-edge management [35 47 82] For example Ichijo et al [57] insisted that firmsshould maintain consistency between their structures to put their knowledge to useOur study includes two key structural factors such as centralization and formalization[77] They are recognized as key variables underlying the structural construct More-over their effects on knowledge management within organizations are widely recog-nized to be potent [29 59 72 91]
People are at the heart of creating organizational knowledge [15 49 80] It is peoplewho create and share knowledge Therefore managing people who are willing tocreate and share knowledge is important [85] Knowledge and competence can beacquired by admitting new people with desirable skills [108] In particular T-shapedskills embodied in employees are most often associated with core capability [56 6070] T-shaped skills may enable individual specialists to have synergistic conversa-tions with one another [74]
Technology contributes to knowledge management [35] This technology infra-structure includes IT and its capabilities [90 99] IT is widely employed to connectpeople with reusable codified knowledge and it facilitates conversations to createnew knowledge Among technology-related variables this study focuses on IT sup-port [108] ITs allow an organization to create share store and use knowledge [70]Therefore the support of IT is essential for initiating and carrying out knowledgemanagement
Enablers may be structured based upon a socio-technical theory [86] This theorydescribes an organization from the social and technical perspectives The two per-spectives are not unique to management information systems (MIS) research [12]they are made up of two jointly independent but correlative interacting componentsOrganizational culture organizational structure and people are social enablers IT is
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 189
a technical enabler For the sake of clarity we consider the impact of each knowledgeenabler independently
Processes
A number of studies have addressed knowledge management processes they divideknowledge management into several processes For example Alavi and Leidner [2]considered four processes such as creation storage transfer and application Theseprocesses are often concurrent and not always in a linear sequence [9]
Among these processes creation-related activities (for example creation [2] orconstruction [21]) become important because knowledge creation is a strategic weaponin todayrsquos global marketplace without the constant creation of knowledge a businessis condemned to obsolescence [83 87] Knowledge creation is a continuous processwhereby individuals and groups within a firm and between firms share tacit and ex-plicit knowledge [82] Although a great deal has been discussed about the importanceof knowledge creation there is relatively little empirical evidence [90] Thereforethe emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation
To explore knowledge creation our study adopts the SECI (socializationexternalization combination internalization) model by Nonaka and Takeuchi [82]for the following reasons First their work has become widely accepted [98] it hasbeen used in many research areas such as organizational learning new product devel-opment and IT [98 99] Second their model includes not only knowledge creationbut also knowledge transfer The transfer of existing knowledge and the creation ofnew knowledge are important and both of them should be considered in knowledgemanagement [69] Their SECI model is made up of four intertwined activity modessocialization (S) externalization (E) combination (C) and internalization (I) Social-ization converts tacit knowledge into new tacit knowledge through social interactionsamong members Externalization codifies tacit knowledge into explicit concepts Com-bination converts explicit knowledge into more systematic sets by combining keypieces Internalization embodies explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge
Intermediate Outcome
In order to achieve a better understanding of knowledge management performancecompanies should attempt to link knowledge processes with intermediate outcomes[18] An important intermediate outcome is organizational creativity which pro-vides a key to the understanding of organizational effectiveness and survival [122]Our model incorporates organizational creativity because it is the seed of all innova-tion [5] and at the very heart of knowledge management [40] Organizational cre-ativity transforms knowledge into business value Neglecting organizational creativitycan quickly undermine a business The relationship between knowledge creationand organizational creativity has received relatively little attention despite its highpotential [119]
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
190 LEE AND CHOI
Organizational Performance
Measuring organizational performance is not a trivial task because it strongly affectsthe behavior of managers and employees The ultimate test of any business is whetherit leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance
Methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management canbe categorized into four groups financial measures [11] intellectual capital [110]tangible and intangible benefits [104] and balanced scorecard [63] This study adoptsa specific measure which is developed and validated by Deshpande et al [22] andDrew [25] This measure can be thought of as a variation of the balanced scorecardmethod The balanced scorecard retains financial performance and supplements itwith measures on the drivers of future potential In addition it is more useful thanintellectual capital or a tangible and intangible approach because it shows cause andeffect links between knowledge components and organization strategies [63]
In summary our empirical research model illustrates the relationship among vari-ables as shown in Figure 3 In total the model consists of 13 variables
Hypotheses
Our hypotheses are largely derived from theoretical statements made in the litera-ture on knowledge management We present our hypotheses through the followingvariables
Collaboration
Collaboration may be defined as the degree to which people in a group actively helpone another in their work [55] Collaborative culture affects knowledge creation throughincreasing knowledge exchange [68 79] Exchanging knowledge among differentmembers is a prerequisite for knowledge creation Collaborative culture fosters thistype of exchange by reducing fear and increasing openness to other members Forexample Zucker et al [126] confirmed the significance of collaborative culture inknowledge creation by examining the biotechnology industry Collaboration betweenorganizational members also tightens individual differences [70] It can help peopledevelop a shared understanding about an organizationrsquos external and internal envi-ronments through supportive and reflective communication Without shared under-standing among organizational members little knowledge is ever created [30 47]We do not have a priori reason to expect a different relationship
H1 There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge cre-ation process
Trust
Trust can be defined as maintaining reciprocal faith in each other in terms of intentionand behaviors [67] Trust may facilitate open substantive and influential knowledge
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 191
exchange [81 85] When their relationships are high in trust people are more willingto participate in knowledge exchange [79] Szulanski [114] empirically found thatthe lack of trust among employees is one of the key barriers against knowledge ex-change The increase in knowledge exchange brought on by mutual trust results inknowledge creation Trust also encourages a climate conducive to better knowledgecreation by alleviating the fear of risk The presence of a high level of trust can reducethis risk [81 92 100] Trust is also critical in a cross-functional or interorganizationalteam because withholding information because of a lack of trust can be especiallyharmful to knowledge creation [47 59] Therefore we would expect the followingrelationship to hold true
H2 There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process
Learning
Learning can be defined as the degree to which it is encouraged in organizations [55]The emphasis on learning infuses an organization with new knowledge [17] Learningis the acquisition of new knowledge by people who are able and willing to apply thatknowledge in making decisions or influencing others [78] Through the emphasis onlearning and development organizations can help individuals play more active rolesin knowledge creation Kanevsky and Housel [62] insisted that the amount of timespent on learning is positively related with the amount of knowledge For successfulknowledge creation organizations should develop a deeply ingrained learning culture
Figure 3 A Research Model
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
192 LEE AND CHOI
[88] and provide various learning means such as education training and mentoring[112 113] For example Nucor [39] which has been the most innovative steel com-pany in the United States built a knowledge creation foundation by investing in con-tinuous and multifunctional training programs Hence we hypothesize
H3 There is a positive relationship between learning and knowledge creationprocess
Centralization
Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organi-zational entity [14 27] The concentration of decision-making authority inevitablyreduces creative solutions whereas the dispersion of power facilitates spontaneityexperimentation and the freedom of expression which are the lifeblood of knowl-edge creation [37] Moreover centralized structure hinders interdepartmental com-munication and frequent sharing of ideas [122] due to time-consuming communicationchannels [10] it also causes distortion and discontinuousness of ideas [108] Withouta constant flow of communication and ideas knowledge creation does not occur Adecentralized organizational structure has been found to facilitate an environmentwhere employees participate in knowledge building process more spontaneously [52]Participatory work environments foster knowledge creation by motivating organiza-tional membersrsquo involvements Therefore decreased centralization in the form of lo-cus of authority can lead to increased creation of knowledge [106 108 115] Weadvance the fourth hypothesis
H4 There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge cre-ation process
Formalization
Formalization refers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships aregoverned by formal rules standard policies and procedures [49 89] Knowledgecreation requires flexibility and less emphasis on work rules [57 73] The range ofnew ideas seems to be restricted when strict formal rules dominate an organizationFlexibility can accommodate better ways of doing things [37] Therefore the in-creased flexibility in an organizational structure can result in increased creation ofknowledge Knowledge creation also requires variation [121] In order to be moreadaptable when unforeseen problems arise an organization may accommodate varia-tion in process and structure Low formalization permits openness and variation whichencourage new ideas and behaviors [17] Knowledge creation is also likely to beencouraged through unhindered communications and interactions [10] Formalitystifles the communication and interaction necessary to create knowledge Lack offormal structure tends to enable organizational members to communicate and interactwith one another to create knowledge [59] Hence we hypothesize
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 193
H5 There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge cre-ation process
T-Shaped Skills
T-shaped skills are both deep (the vertical part of the ldquoTrdquo) and broad (the horizontalpart of the ldquoTrdquo) that is their possessors can explore particular knowledge domainsand their various applications in particular products [70] For example persons withT-shaped skills not only have a deep knowledge of a discipline (like ceramic materi-als engineering) but also know how their discipline interacts with other disciplines(such as polymer processing) [56] People with T-shaped skills are extremely valu-able for creating knowledge because they can integrate diverse knowledge assets [70]They have the ability both to combine theoretical and practical knowledge and to seehow their branch of knowledge interacts with other branches Therefore they canexpand their competence across several functional branch areas and thus create newknowledge [60 74]
H6 There is a positive relationship between the presence of the organizationalmembers with T-shaped skills and knowledge creation process
IT Support
IT support means the degree to which knowledge management is supported by theuse of ITs [35] Many researchers have found that IT is a crucial element for knowl-edge creation [19 36 39] IT affects knowledge in a variety of ways First IT facili-tates rapid collection storage and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicablein the past thereby assisting the knowledge creation process [92] Second a well-developed technology integrates fragmented flows of knowledge [35] This integra-tion can eliminate barriers to communication among departments in organizationThird IT fosters all modes of knowledge creation and is not limited to the transfer ofexplicit knowledge [90 91 99] For instance InfoTESTrsquos enhanced product realiza-tion (EPR) project employs electronic whiteboarding and videoconferencing to en-hance exchanges of tacit knowledge [91] Thus we hypothesize
H7 There is a positive relationship between IT support and knowledge creationprocess
Organizational Creativity
Organizational creativity is the capability of creating valuable and useful productsservices ideas or procedures by individuals working together in a complex socialsystem [5 122] Knowledge plays an important role in the ability of the organizationto be creative [119] Thus organizations with better knowledge diffusion and creat-ing mechanisms are more intelligent [34] Organizational creativity also connectsand rearranges knowledge to create new often surprising ideas that others judge to be
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
194 LEE AND CHOI
useful [65] Creativity is not necessarily related to the amount of knowledge that anemployee possesses but rather the way in which knowledge is created and shared [4]The processes of knowledge creation unleash organizational creativity Naturallyorganizational creativity has a strong link with knowledge creation [119]
H8 There is a positive relationship between the knowledge creation process andorganizational creativity
Organizational Performance
In our study organizational performance is assessed by the use of global output mea-sures such as market share profitability growth rate innovativeness successfulnessand the size of business in comparison with key competitors [22 25] In a knowl-edge-based economy organizational creativity represents a dramatic organizationalchange Robinson and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results of corporate cre-ativity are the organizational change such as improvements (changes to what is al-ready done) and innovations (entirely new activities for the company) Withoutcreativity organizations may fail to adapt to changing internal and external condi-tions [88] and thus lose their knowledge advantage Typically the goals of organiza-tional change include the various aspects of organizational performance such asorganizational effectiveness survival improvement or innovation Organizationalperformance can be thought of as the output of a process that encourages creativity[97] Thus improvements of creativity might lead to better organizational perfor-mance [18 88 102] We hypothesize that
H9 There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and orga-nizational performance
Sample and Measures
SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED TO THE LISTED COMPANIES in order to include majorcompanies in Korea Annual Corporation Reports by Maeil Business Newspaper [75]is the source for sampling because it analyzes all listed companies in the Korea StockExchange Therefore the unit of analysis in this study is the organization We adoptedboth interviews and mail surveys Interviews were used to investigate the currentdetailed status of knowledge management This investigation included knowledgemanagement practices such as the number of communities of practice the rate of useof the knowledge management system and the cost of investment in knowledge man-agement activities Although interview data is not analyzed statistically they werevaluable for our interpretation
After the interview a questionnaire-based survey was conducted Questionnaireswere administered to a total of 1425 middle managers in 147 organizations Depend-ing on each individual firmrsquos size five to 15 middle managers were surveyed fromeach firm Middle managers were reached through their CEOs or CIOs A typical jobtitle of a middle manager was department chief Middle managers were surveyed
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 195
because they played key roles in managing knowledge Middle managers are posi-tioned at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal flows of knowledge Thusthey can synthesize the tacit knowledge of both top managers and frontline employ-ees make it explicit and incorporate it into new products and services [82]
A multiple-item method was used to construct the questionnaires Each item wasbased on a six-point Likert scale from ldquovery lowrdquo to ldquovery highrdquo Likert scales asgenerally used tend to underestimate the extreme positions [3] Respondents are re-luctant to express an extreme position even if they have it They tend to please theinterviewer appear helpful or respond in what they perceive to be a socially accept-able answer Resorting to a scale without a midpoint seems to help mollify this socialdesirability bias without changing the direction of opinion [32] The six-point Likertscale avoids a midpoint which prevents respondents from using a neutral defaultoption [5] The questionnaires were written in Korean
Research constructs were operationalized on the basis of related studies and pilottests The operational definitions of instruments and their related literature are sum-marized in Appendix A Most of the research constructs have already been validatedand used for other studies on knowledge management organizational design learn-ing or IT management For example formalization items have already been vali-dated and used by Caruana et al [14] and Rapert and Wren [89] Self-reported itemshave been used to assess organizational performance [22 25] Although these itemsdo not present a fully balanced scorecard they are effective for comparing businessunits and industries [25] Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation processwhich were used in this study had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83]
Analysis
Sample Characteristics
IN TOTAL 451 QUESTIONNAIRES FROM 63 out of 147 firms were returned (43 percentresponse rate) The rates from individual firms ranged from 23 to 100 percent Due toincomplete data 25 responses from five firms were eliminated Consequently 426responses from 58 firms were analyzed Table 2 summarizes the respondent charac-teristics in terms of industry type departments total sales revenue and number oftotal employees
Samples are divided into three industry types manufacturing service and finan-cial business (banking finance insurance) The majority of these firms are in theservice industry Thirty-two firms have annual total sales revenue of $1 billion ormore and 31 firms have 1000 employees or more As mentioned previously sampleswere collected from various middle managers
Reliability and Validity Analysis
Table 3 presents the results of reliability and validity tests An analysis was performedon the 36 items that measured the components of knowledge enablers other analyses
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
196 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 2
Res
pond
ent C
hara
cter
istic
s
(a)
Indu
stry
type
Indu
stry
type
(m
ain)
Indu
stry
type
(su
b)N
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Man
ufac
turin
gM
achi
nery
5 8
6 E
lect
roni
cs3
52
Che
mis
try
5 8
6 P
harm
aceu
tical
3 5
2 Fo
odb
ever
age
2 3
4 O
ther
s1
17
Fin
anci
ngIn
sura
nce
5 8
6 B
anki
ng4
69
Sec
urity
5 8
6 S
ervi
ceC
onst
ruct
ion
6 10
3
Ret
ailin
g4
69
Tran
spor
tatio
n5
86
Com
mun
icat
ion
9 15
5
Oth
ers
1 1
7 To
tal
58
100
0
(b)
Dep
artm
ents
Num
ber
Dep
artm
ents
Indu
stry
of fi
rms
Plan
ning
Sale
sPr
oduc
tion
Acc
ount
ing
ISR
ampD
Etc
To
tal
Man
ufac
turin
g19
3617
2214
2035
615
0F
inan
cing
1439
28mdash
321
mdash9
100
Ser
vice
2567
28mdash
2541
96
176
Tota
l58
142
7322
4282
4421
426
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 197
(c) T
otal
sal
es r
even
ue
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
$50
mill
ion
712
1$5
0 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
100
mill
ion
35
2$1
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
500
mill
ion
1220
7$5
00 m
illio
n to
bel
ow $
1 bi
llion
46
9$1
bill
ion
to b
elow
$5
billi
on25
431
$5 b
illio
n to
bel
ow $
10 b
illio
n3
52
$10
billi
on a
nd a
bove
46
9To
tal
5810
00
(d)
Tota
l num
ber
of e
mpl
oyee
s
Ran
geN
umbe
r of
fir
ms
Perc
ent
Less
than
100
23
410
0 to
bel
ow 2
004
69
200
to b
elow
500
813
850
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
813
81
000
to b
elow
30
0010
172
300
0 to
bel
ow 1
000
09
155
100
00 to
bel
ow 3
000
07
121
300
00 a
nd a
bove
58
6To
tal
58
100
0
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
198 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
Sta
tist
ics
for
Rel
iabi
lity
and
Val
idity
Tes
ts
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
KC
P4
092
03S
ocia
lizat
ion
KC
S5
384
67
042
41
083
640
7479
094
2E
xter
naliz
atio
nK
CE
54
0025
0
4246
0
9146
078
370
919
Com
bina
tion
KC
C5
417
21
041
78
085
760
8481
087
7In
tern
aliz
atio
nK
CI
43
8227
0
4041
0
8902
088
730
853
Kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent
enab
lers
Col
labo
ratio
nC
OL
53
9634
0
4035
0
8792
069
740
812
076
820
865
074
200
847
068
040
793
068
380
800
Trus
tT
RU
63
6452
0
5964
0
8932
070
020
798
072
300
815
071
660
810
074
100
828
069
870
794
070
820
804
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 199
Lear
ning
LE
A5
421
78
038
87
089
680
6702
078
30
7656
085
70
7063
081
30
7953
087
90
7942
087
8C
entr
aliz
atio
nC
EN
53
1524
0
4252
0
8481
061
760
760
069
680
818
062
360
763
068
440
810
066
380
793
For
mal
izat
ion
FO
R5
354
18
052
95
084
750
5605
070
60
7175
084
00
7592
086
80
7265
084
60
5225
066
9T-
shap
ed s
kills
TS
K5
422
85
031
07
083
090
6973
080
70
6012
075
00
7037
082
90
5911
074
30
5747
073
2IT
sup
port
ITS
54
4878
0
5552
0
8614
062
440
757
062
920
760
076
560
866
070
210
823
068
810
810
(con
tinu
es)
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
200 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 3
(C
ontin
ued)
Con
verg
ent
valid
ityD
iscr
imin
ant
(cor
rela
tion
ofva
lidity
Num
ber
Rel
iabi
lity
item
with
(fac
tor
load
ing
Mea
sure
Acr
onym
of it
ems
Mea
nS
D
(Cro
nbac
h a )
tota
l sco
re-i
tem
)on
sin
gle
fact
ors)
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
OC
53
8114
049
600
8709
067
440
795
070
270
818
070
440
821
076
310
861
064
280
770
Per
form
ance
Org
aniz
atio
nal
OP
54
0199
0
6751
0
8661
077
830
870
perfo
rman
ce0
5619
070
90
7502
085
30
7236
086
50
6383
077
2
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 201
were performed on the 20 items for the knowledge creation processes on the fiveitems for organizational creativity and on the six items for organizational perfor-mance Cronbachrsquos alpha is used for examining the reliability of the instruments Ahigher cutoff value of 07 may be used because these instruments have been adoptedpreviously [84] All constructs had higher than 07 cutoff alpha value ranging from08309 to 09203 For convergent validity items having item-to-total correlation scoreslower than 04 were dropped from further analysis One item relating to organiza-tional performance had an item-to-total correlation of less than 04 and thus was elimi-nated from further analysis
Factor analysis is used to check discriminant validity [64] Because each variablewas measured by multi-item constructs factor analysis with varimax was adopted tocheck the unidimensionality among items Items with factor loading values lowerthan 05 were deleted There was one item with factor loading of lower than 05 forthe knowledge creation processes A factor analysis for the knowledge enablers andknowledge creation processes is shown in Table 4 Relatively high values of reliabil-ity and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate All themeasures used in this study are reported in Appendix B
Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Analysis
Whereas the unit of analysis in this study is the organization the questionnaire wasdistributed to organizational members to measure characteristics of their organiza-tions Therefore answers from the same organization should be aggregated and usedas an organizational indicator Given the perceptual nature of the measures and theconversion of individual responses into organizational indicators inter-rater reliabil-ity and agreement analysis are necessary [118] Inter-rater reliability is defined as anindex of consistency which represents consistency of variance among raters [66] Incontrast agreement is defined as the interchangeability among raters which addressesthe extent to which raters make the same ratings [58]
The inter-rater reliability was assessed by the use of the interclass correlation coef-ficient (ICC) Because each company was rated by a different rater and their ratingswere averaged ICC (1k) was appropriate ICC (1k) is calculated by one-way analy-sis of variance (ANOVA) [103] James et al [58] developed indices appropriate forwithin-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item(rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)) For our study rwg(J) is adopted Table 5 summa-rizes the results of inter-rater reliability and agreement A number of managementstudies suggest that ICC ranging from 0 512 to 0991 and rwg(J) ranging from 069 to096 [5 46] are appropriate Our results are consistent with these ICC and rwg(J) rangesand thus inter-rater reliability and agreement may be guaranteed
Regression Analysis
A multiple regression analysis tests our hypotheses For each hypothesis models wererun for each of the dependent variables separately as shown in Figure 4 Our model is
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
202 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
Rot
ated
Fac
tor
Mat
rixe
s w
ith V
arim
ax R
otat
ion
(a)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
enab
lers
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4Fa
ctor
5Fa
ctor
6Fa
ctor
7
CO
L10
2595
038
340
0402
064
520
3900
024
930
0138
CO
L20
4136
031
310
1654
069
840
2503
015
570
0631
CO
L30
3914
024
880
0801
058
760
0718
001
960
4429
CO
L40
2937
026
250
2701
071
030
1653
006
200
0410
CO
L50
4018
022
000
1102
066
790
1400
006
870
2986
TR
U1
074
000
2119
017
170
0407
019
870
1194
014
78T
RU
20
6104
030
710
2406
013
540
3794
030
550
0482
TR
U3
067
950
1918
010
890
3386
006
980
0154
035
15T
RU
40
8172
021
540
1290
004
780
3018
ndash00
397
009
73T
RU
50
7670
024
240
1006
013
790
2269
013
16ndash0
137
3T
RU
60
7278
020
330
0808
022
060
1661
ndash00
694
039
41LE
A1
005
540
2525
000
100
1941
004
430
1569
074
38LE
A2
ndash00
022
016
300
1814
016
700
0204
027
740
7975
LEA
30
2379
012
030
1724
040
340
0765
011
620
6372
LEA
40
0550
025
740
1267
025
250
1811
020
330
7643
LEA
5ndash0
039
70
2345
019
290
3959
011
270
1375
075
19
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 203
CE
N1
ndash03
817
ndash00
381
ndash01
684
ndash01
719
ndash06
308
013
24ndash0
289
4C
EN
2ndash0
279
3ndash0
001
6ndash0
150
2ndash0
385
9ndash0
585
9ndash0
018
5ndash0
428
7C
EN
3ndash0
266
8ndash0
310
0ndash0
207
40
0599
ndash06
104
ndash01
072
ndash03
406
CE
N4
ndash02
997
ndash02
389
ndash02
800
ndash02
995
ndash07
084
ndash02
618
ndash00
550
CE
N5
ndash02
148
ndash01
582
ndash01
010
ndash02
640
ndash08
218
ndash01
877
008
31F
OR
1ndash0
134
8ndash0
341
7ndash0
620
70
0127
ndash02
154
ndash01
858
013
79F
OR
2ndash0
176
7ndash0
095
3ndash0
831
2ndash0
121
1ndash0
204
2ndash0
056
3ndash0
222
3F
OR
3ndash0
284
1ndash0
300
8ndash0
756
6ndash0
211
5ndash0
173
1ndash0
166
2ndash0
124
0F
OR
4ndash0
159
80
0648
ndash08
719
ndash00
565
ndash00
827
ndash01
456
ndash01
457
FO
R5
ndash00
362
ndash00
253
ndash07
755
ndash01
560
006
74ndash0
165
30
2901
TS
K1
030
81ndash0
197
80
1587
026
54ndash0
013
30
6024
016
58T
SK
20
2185
005
220
2981
011
820
2443
072
28ndash0
179
6T
SK
30
0607
002
920
3193
007
580
0974
079
400
0676
TS
K4
017
410
2533
ndash00
515
ndash01
318
021
950
6079
037
09T
SK
5ndash0
025
80
0574
ndash01
198
018
53ndash0
069
90
7694
040
34IT
S1
020
250
8320
004
270
2608
014
48ndash0
000
5ndash0
053
7IT
S2
041
940
6828
020
100
2577
ndash00
871
ndash00
334
009
28IT
S3
023
280
8263
009
250
2059
017
080
1612
008
41IT
S4
035
850
7789
016
190
0434
010
910
0203
019
86IT
S5
033
000
8032
004
930
1835
020
99ndash0
041
00
0169
(con
tinu
es)
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
204 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 4
(C
ontin
ued)
(b)
Fact
or m
atri
x fo
r en
tire
item
s of
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Var
iabl
esFa
ctor
1Fa
ctor
2Fa
ctor
3Fa
ctor
4
KC
S1
008
650
5335
001
500
1482
KC
S2
024
060
8193
ndash00
151
036
68K
CS
30
3345
060
290
2587
041
51K
CS
40
3213
062
650
4340
027
42K
CS
50
4823
056
950
5394
037
81K
CE
10
8070
022
720
1754
005
12K
CE
20
8022
036
670
1667
022
97K
CE
30
5686
036
880
3585
020
56K
CE
40
7238
039
980
1822
009
58K
CE
50
7551
044
390
2218
032
00K
CC
10
3591
037
530
5686
030
56K
CC
20
2402
016
150
6951
038
48K
CC
30
0583
024
170
8523
004
62K
CC
40
2146
015
660
8532
016
29K
CC
50
5430
042
630
6105
037
60K
CI1
018
030
1471
010
820
8855
KC
I20
3560
011
440
1117
082
00K
CI3
034
480
3970
031
450
6772
KC
I40
3483
042
780
3420
064
74
Not
e I
tem
loa
ding
s on
the
ir t
heor
etic
ally
ass
ocia
ted
fact
ors
are
high
ligh
ted
in b
oldf
ace
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 205
Table 5 Results of Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement
Variables Indices ICC (1k) rwg(J)
Knowledge Socialization 06627 08138creation Externalization 06468 08815process Combination 05252 08522
Internalization 05285 08633
Knowledge Collaboration 06081 08691management Trust 08037 08929enablers Learning 06863 08927
Centralization 05632 08426Formalization 06983 08393T-shaped skills 05236 08203IT support 07515 08460
Organizational creativity 07390 08552
Organizational performance 08397 08601
not meaningful if the correlation between enablers and the knowledge creation pro-cess is not significant Therefore the knowledge creation process is considered as anaggregated variable and its correlation is computed We then test each hypothesis tofind which enablers are more important for knowledge creation and which processesare more important for organizational performance
To meet the assumptions of regression analysis we examined the linearity constantvariance and normality [42] Because the scatterplots of individual variables do notindicate any nonlinear relationships the linearity is guaranteed Plotting the studentizedresiduals against the predicted value shows that no variable violates the constant vari-ance The result from the normal probability plot and Kolmogorov-Smirnov testsindicates no violation of normality (statistic = 0050 ~ 0096 p gt 0200)
The overall regression model (for finding the relationship between the knowledgecreation process and enablers) is significant (F = 51771 p lt 0000) R2 (0879) sug-gests that 879 percent of the variance is explained by seven variables The result ofthe collinearity test (VIF = 1429 ~ 3725) shows no multicollinearity problem
Analysis Results
TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES OUR REGRESSION RESULTS In order to provide a better presen-tation of significant relationships Figure 5 has been provided Collaboration trustlearning and centralization are found to be relatively significant predictors for knowl-edge creation
Organizational culture variables are found to be essential for knowledge creationCollaboration is positively related with socialization externalization and internaliza-tion whereas it does not affect the combination mode In particular trust is a signifi-cant predictor of all knowledge creation modes Centralization is negatively relatedwith socialization externalization and internalization while it is not significantly re-lated with combination By contrast formalization and T-shaped skills of members
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
206 LEE AND CHOI
do not significantly affect knowledge creation IT support is significantly related withknowledge combination only
Knowledge creation is positively related with organizational creativity which ispositively related with organizational performance This finding confirms that an or-ganization can achieve strategic benefits of knowledge management through effec-tive knowledge creation
Discussion
Limitations
THE FINDINGS OF THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING but they should be considered inlight of its inherent limitations First this study presents a snapshot research that does
(a) Between the knowledge creation processes and knowledge management enablers
KCP = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCS = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCE = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCC = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + eKCI = a + b1 COL + b2 TRU + b3 LEA + b4 CEN + b5 FOR + b6 TSK + b7 ITS + e
(b) Between organizational creativity and knowledge creation processes
OC = a + b1 KCP+ eOC = a + b1 KCS + b2 KCE + b3 KCC + b4 KCI + e
(c) Between organizational performance and organizational creativity
OP = a + b1 OC + e
Figure 4 Regression Equations
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 207
Tabl
e 6
Sum
mar
y of
Reg
ress
ion
Res
ults
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
Col
labo
ratio
n (H
1)bbbb b
= 0
208
5bbbb b
= 0
301
7b b b b b
= 0
247
7b
= ndash0
069
4bbbb b
= 0
269
2N
At
= 2
490
1
t =
31
036
t
= 1
994
1t =
ndash0
4938
t =
20
947
Trus
t (H
2)bbbb b
= 0
352
5bbbb b
= 0
237
9bbbb b
= 0
307
9b b b b b
= 0
404
1b
= 0
318
2N
At
= 3
590
7
t =
20
873
t
= 2
114
0
t =
24
515
t
= 2
111
8
Lear
ning
(H
3)bbbb b
= 0
213
8bbbb b
= 0
309
6b
= 0
129
6b
= 0
161
2b b b b b
= 0
189
5N
At
= 2
249
8
t =
28
054
t =
09
191
t = 1
010
2t
= 1
998
5
Cen
tral
izat
ion
(H4)
b b b b b =
ndash0
2030
b b b b b =
ndash0
1755
b b b b b =
ndash0
2144
b =
ndash0
1353
b b b b b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t =
ndash2
6745
t
= ndash
201
42
t =
ndash1
9039
t =
ndash1
0618
t =
ndash1
7381
For
mal
izat
ion
(H5)
b =
ndash0
013
b =
ndash0
0520
b =
ndash0
1165
b =
00
018
b =
01
152
NA
t = ndash
021
62t =
ndash0
5262
t = ndash
128
91t =
00
267
t = 1
319
4
T-sh
aped
ski
lls (
H6)
b =
00
443
b =
00
286
b =
00
560
b =
00
205
b =
00
545
NA
t = 0
741
1t =
04
139
t = 0
633
9t =
02
053
t = 0
595
8(c
onti
nues
)
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
208 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 6
(C
ontin
ued)
Kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
proc
ess
Soci
aliz
atio
nE
xter
naliz
atio
nC
ombi
natio
nIn
tern
aliz
atio
nR
2 = 0
879
R2 =
08
37R
2 = 0
733
R2 =
06
58R
2 = 0
714
F =
51
771
F
= 3
655
3
F =
19
619
F
= 1
374
9
F
= 1
785
7
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Var
iabl
es(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)(N
= 5
8)cr
eativ
ity
IT s
uppo
rt (
H7)
b =
00
611
b =
ndash0
0111
b =
01
124
b b b b b =
02
516
b =
ndash0
2025
NA
t = 0
891
1t =
ndash0
1388
t = 1
202
9t
= 2
184
8
t = ndash
173
81
Org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
(H
8)R
2 =
08
19b b b b b
= 0
903
5b b b b b
= 0
295
7b b b b b
= 0
290
6b b b b b
= 0
177
8b b b b b
= 0
237
1N
AF
= 5
991
4
t =
15
7786
t =
20
883
t
= 2
228
1
t =
18
835
t =
26
010
(N
= 5
8)
Org
aniz
atio
nal
perfo
rman
ce (
H9)
R2 =
04
02N
AN
AN
AN
AN
Ab b b b b
= 0
633
8F
= 3
759
2
t =
61
313
(N
= 5
8)
Not
es
Sup
port
ed h
ypot
hese
s in
bol
dfac
e ty
pe
p
lt 0
01
p lt
00
5
p lt
01
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 209
Fig
ure
5 S
igni
fica
nt R
elat
ions
hips
in R
egre
ssio
n R
esul
ts
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
210 LEE AND CHOI
not consider feedback effects A longitudinal study to investigate the dynamic fea-tures of knowledge management would provide further robust results Second it fo-cuses on relatively large and profitable firms The results may differ in small or venturefirms Finally the results are limited to Korean firms The generalizability from aKorean setting to other countries may be questionable
Implications
Our results can help managers establish distinctive strategic positions Knowledgemanagement strategies can be described along two dimensions to reflect knowledgemanagement focus [45] One dimension refers to knowledge sharing via interper-sonal interaction The other dimension refers to the capability to help create storeshare and use an organizationrsquos explicitly documented knowledge The former ismore affected by socialization and the latter is more affected by combination [16]Knowledge management strategists can sharpen weak knowledge management di-mensions on the basis of enablers mentioned in our study Table 7 highlights theseimplications The following is a further discussion of these implications
Our findings confirm that knowledge creation is associated with cultural factorssuch as collaboration trust and learning For instance groups are most creative whentheir members collaborate members stop holding back when they have mutual trust[54] Shaping cultural factors is crucial for a firmrsquos ability to manage its knowledgeeffectively [15 20 35 71] For example our interview with an executive of a confec-tionery company highlights this point The executive pointed out that their employeesdid not just use the manual or other codified supports It was noted that they preferredto depend on their own experiences and networking relationships A trust-based cul-ture is the foundation for their knowledge management initiative
However many knowledge management projects in reality focus on IT [19 35111] An organization may face difficulties in building its knowledge creating envi-ronment due to the lack of adequate culture despite its well-constructed IT [23 72]Stein and Zwass [107] insisted that successful information systems should be condi-tioned by a number of cultural factors such as organizational values and appropriatelearning methods Initiating knowledge management only through IT can be a riskyproposition [19]
Our analysis confirms that IT support affects combination There are several re-sources for a sound understanding of the impact of IT on knowledge combination[82 100] This finding highlights the characteristics of knowledge combination IT iscritical for codifying explicit knowledge it provides fast feedback for explicit knowl-edge [69 120] In order to support knowledge combination the question is not whetherto deploy IT but how to deploy it Interestingly our analysis also reveals that trustaffects combination This result implies that simply improving the IT infrastructuredoes not provide a competitive advantage for knowledge combination Through in-terviews with executives in the disk industry in the United States Scott [100] foundthat communication of even explicit knowledge is difficult without a solid founda-
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 211
Tabl
e 7
Sum
mar
y of
Im
plic
atio
ns
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es
Sig
nific
ant
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
Cul
tura
l fac
tors
are
pos
itive
ly a
ssoc
iate
dS
hapi
ng c
ultu
ral f
acto
rs is
cru
cial
for
know
ledg
ew
ith k
now
ledg
e cr
eatio
nm
anag
emen
tIn
itiat
ing
know
ledg
e m
anag
emen
t onl
y th
roug
hin
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
can
be
a ri
sky
prop
ositi
on
Man
ager
s ne
ed to
est
ablis
h kn
owle
dge
man
agem
ent c
onsi
deri
ng fi
rmrsquos
cul
ture
C
ombi
natio
nC
ombi
natio
n is
affe
cted
by
ITIn
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
is c
ritic
al fo
r co
dify
ing
and
trus
tex
plic
it kn
owle
dge
Sim
ply
impr
ovin
g th
e in
form
atio
n te
chno
logy
infr
astr
uctu
re d
oes
not p
rovi
de a
com
petit
ive
adva
ntag
e fo
r kn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
Man
ager
s sh
ould
pay
car
eful
atte
ntio
n to
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
of i
nfor
mat
ion
tech
nolo
gy o
nkn
owle
dge
com
bina
tion
with
the
cons
ider
atio
n of
trus
t in
a fir
m
(con
tinu
es)
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
212 LEE AND CHOI
Tabl
e 7
(C
ontin
ued)
Focu
sFi
ndin
gsIm
plic
atio
ns
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
enab
lers
and
pro
cess
es (
cont
inue
d)
Non
sign
ifica
ntF
orm
aliz
atio
nN
o re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n fo
rmal
izat
ion
Two
diffe
rent
asp
ects
of f
orm
aliz
atio
nan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
(for
mal
izat
ion
may
inhi
bit t
acit-
rela
ted
For
mal
izat
ion
may
tend
to in
hibi
tac
tiviti
es b
ut m
ay e
ncou
rage
exp
licit-
rela
ted
soci
aliz
atio
n an
d ex
tern
aliz
atio
nac
tiviti
es)
whe
reas
it fa
cilit
ates
com
bina
tion
Fur
ther
exp
lora
tion
of r
elat
ions
hip
betw
een
and
inte
rnal
izat
ion
form
aliz
atio
n an
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
isne
eded
(if
the
emph
asis
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
on ta
cit k
now
ledg
e e
xter
naliz
atio
n m
ay b
ene
gativ
ely
asso
ciat
ed w
ith fo
rmal
izat
ion
ifth
e co
nver
sion
pro
cess
or
its te
chno
logy
pers
pect
ive
of e
xter
naliz
atio
n is
em
phas
ized
fo
rmal
izat
ion
can
affe
ct e
xter
naliz
atio
npo
sitiv
ely)
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 213
Non
sign
ifica
ntT-
shap
ed s
kills
No
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
T-sh
aped
ski
llsW
ithou
t an
envi
ronm
ent i
n w
hich
T-s
hape
dan
d kn
owle
dge
crea
tion
skill
s flo
uris
h p
eopl
e w
ith T
-sha
ped
skill
s w
illno
t atte
mpt
to c
reat
e ne
w k
now
ledg
eA
cru
cial
ele
men
t of s
ucce
ssfu
l kno
wle
dge
man
agem
ent i
s no
t T-s
hape
d sk
ills
them
selv
es b
ut th
e sy
stem
atic
man
agem
ent
of th
ese
skill
s (T
-sha
ped
man
agem
ent
syst
ems)
IT
sup
port
IT s
uppo
rt is
not
sig
nific
antly
rel
ated
The
cur
rent
sta
te o
f inf
orm
atio
n te
chno
logy
may
with
kno
wle
dge
crea
tion
exce
ptno
t affe
ct s
ocia
lizat
ion
ext
erna
lizat
ion
or
com
bina
tion
inte
rnal
izat
ion
dire
ctly
Rel
atio
nshi
ps b
etw
een
inte
rmed
iate
out
com
e an
d pe
rfor
man
ce
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
affe
cts
Man
ager
s pa
y m
ore
atte
ntio
n to
org
aniz
atio
nal
crea
tivity
orga
niza
tiona
l per
form
ance
cr
eativ
ity in
ord
er to
impr
ove
orga
niza
tiona
lT
he p
erce
ntag
e of
tota
l var
iatio
n of
perf
orm
ance
or
gani
zatio
nal p
erfo
rman
ce e
xpla
ined
The
cre
ativ
ity p
arad
ox (
orga
niza
tiona
l cre
ativ
ityby
org
aniz
atio
nal c
reat
ivity
isis
val
uabl
e b
ut it
s ov
er-e
ncou
rage
men
t may
rela
tivel
y lo
w
not b
e al
way
s us
eful
)
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
214 LEE AND CHOI
tion of trust Managers should pay careful attention to the potential impact of IT onknowledge combination with the consideration of trust in a firm
The nonsignificant findings in this study also bear some implication Several stud-ies have come to the conclusion that formalization weakens knowledge management[57 106] In contrast our study shows no relationship between formalization andknowledge creation This rather intriguing result reflects the two different aspects offormalization According to the ambidextrous model which is based on the distinc-tion between the initiation and implementation stages of innovation [26 94] formal-ization may inhibit tacit-related activities such as socialization (b = ndash0052) andexternalization (b = ndash01165) but may encourage explicit-related activities such ascombination (b = 00018) and internalization (b = 01152) However this interpreta-tion needs further exploration because all b values are not statistically significant
In particular a more careful investigation of externalization is of interest Externali-zation involves the expression of tacit knowledge [8] From this perspective a formalorganizational structure may inhibit spontaneity and freedom of expression neces-sary for externalization [10] In our study the emphasis of externalization is on tacitknowledge and thus externalization is negatively associated with formalization How-ever externalization may also involve conversion of tacit into explicit knowledge [8]The formal structure can facilitate the rapid and continuous conversion of tacit intoexplicit knowledge [37] If the conversion process or its technology perspective ofexternalization is emphasized like Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] we mayspeculate that formalization can affect externalization positively
Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills positively influence knowledge cre-ation [60 70 74] However our study shows no relationship between T-shaped skillsand knowledge creation This contradiction may reflect the importance of T-shapedmanagement systems T-shaped management systems attempt to break out of the tra-ditional corporate hierarchy and encourage people to share knowledge [44] How-ever most current formal organizational incentives encourage I-shaped skills (thedeep functional expertise) in isolation [70] Without an environment in which T-shapedskills flourish people with T-shaped skills will not attempt to create new knowledgeIt implies that a crucial element of successful knowledge management is not T-shapedskills themselves but the systematic management of these skills
It would be expected that technologies could facilitate knowledge creation How-ever our result shows that IT support is not significantly related with knowledge cre-ation except for combination It seems that IT does not support all modes of knowledgecreation directly Although groupware intranet or videoconferencing can help col-laborative works this technologically facilitated communication cannot replace face-to-face contact for tacit-to-tacit knowledge transfer [53] Accessing the tacit knowledgesuch as knowledge inside employeesrsquo heads is not possible simply by an intranet or adatabase [23] That is the current state of IT may not affect socialization externalizationor internalization directly
Our study shows that organizational creativity affects organizational performance(b = 06338 p lt 001) This result is in line with previous studies [73 102] Forexample Shani et al [102] provided a framework linking organizational performance
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 215
and organizational creativity through a field study of the Seagate Corporation It im-plies that managers pay more attention to organizational creativity in order to im-prove organizational performance Although the relationship is statistically significantthe percentage of total variation of organizational performance explained by organi-zational creativity is relatively low (R2 = 0402) This may reflect the creativity para-dox [116] If creativity is encouraged and reinforced at the expense of operationalbehaviors it may decrease organizational performance That is organizational cre-ativity is valuable but its overencouragement may not be always useful
Conclusions
OUR STUDY IS OF INTEREST FROM BOTH theoretical and practical perspectivesTheoretically a framework is proposed for empirical studies to link knowledge
management enablers and processes with organizational performance This study isprobably the first to establish this integrative view of knowledge management Weadopt a process-oriented perspective of knowledge by using Nonakarsquos creation model[82] Our framework may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical researchon knowledge management To strengthen the feasibility of this framework we canclarify the role of knowledge creation process (see Appendix C) and intermediateoutcome (see Appendix D)
From a practical point of view the relationships among knowledge creation orga-nizational creativity and organizational performance may provide a clue as to howfirms can adjust knowledge creation processes to sustain their performance Further-more managers will be better able to find which enablers are critical for knowledgecreation Because firms may not manage all modes of knowledge creation they mayneed robust strategies that involve trade-offs
The current findings of this study may indicate the following avenues for furtherresearch First an analysis of different factors such as domain knowledge [101] orother types of knowledge process may lead to interesting implications For examplean interesting candidate is Szulanskirsquos knowledge transfer model which is made upof four processesmdashinitiation implementation ramp-up and integration [114] Sec-ond our study shows which knowledge enablers can enhance a firmrsquos capability tomanage knowledge Appropriate knowledge management strategies may be able tofacilitate these enablers Finding these strategies may be of interest Third what is theeffect of our findings on electronic commerce Electronic commerce is changing thebusiness world rapidly The quality of knowledge management may determine a suc-cess template for electronic commerce For example Holsapple and Singh [50] pro-posed the potential benefits of applying knowledge management principles to electroniccommerce Finally other types of performance measures may sharpen the results ofour study ROI3 (return on ideas return on information and return on investment)[73] or a strategy map [63] is a good alternative
Acknowledgments This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
216 LEE AND CHOI
REFERENCES
1 Adler P Goldoftas B Levine D Flexibility versus efficiency A case study of modelchangeovers in the Toyota production system Organization Science 10 1 (1999) 43ndash68
2 Alavi M and Leidner DE Review Knowledge management and knowledge man-agement systems Conceptual foundations and research issues MIS Quarterly 25 1 (2001)107ndash136
3 Albaum G The Likert scale revisited An alternative version Journal of the MarketResearch Society 39 2 (1997) 331ndash348
4 Amabile TM A model of creativity and innovation in organizations In BM Staw andLL Cummings (eds) Research in Organizational Behavior vol 10 Greenwich CT JAIPress 1988 pp 123ndash167
5 Amabile TM Conti R Coon H Lazenby J and Herron M Assessing the workenvironment for creativity Academy of Management Journal 39 5 (1996) 1154ndash1184
6 Appleyard M How does knowledge flow Interfirm patterns in the semiconductorindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 137ndash154
7 Baron RM and Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research Conceptual strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology 51 6 (1986) 1173ndash1182
8 Becerra-Fernandez I and Sabherwal R Organizational knowledge management Acontingency perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)23ndash55
9 Beckman T The current state of knowledge management In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowl-edge Management Handbook Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1999 pp 1-1ndash1-22
10 Bennett R and Gabriel H Organizational factors and knowledge management withinlarge marketing departments An empirical study Journal of Knowledge Management 3 3(1999) 212ndash225
11 Bierly P and Chakrabarti A Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceuticalindustry Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 123ndash135
12 Bostrom R and Heinen J MIS problems and failures A socio-technical perspectiveMIS Quarterly 1 3 (1977) 17ndash32
13 Brown J and Eisenhardt K Product development Past research present findingsand future directions Academy of Management Review 20 2 (1995) 343ndash378
14 Caruana A Morris MH and Vella AJ The effect of centralization and formaliza-tion on entrepreneurship in export firms Journal of Small Business Management 36 1 (1998)16ndash29
15 Chase R The knowledge-based organization An international survey Journal of Knowl-edge Management 1 1 (1997) 38ndash49
16 Choi B and Lee H Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge cre-ating process Expert Systems with Applications 23 3 (2002) 173ndash187
17 Damanpour F Organizational innovation A meta-analysis of effects of determinantsand moderators Academy of Management Journal 34 3 (1991) 555ndash590
18 Davenport TH Knowledge management and the broader firm Strategy advantageand performance In J Liebowitz (ed) Knowledge Management Handbook Boca Raton FLCRC Press 1999 pp 2-1ndash2-11
19 Davenport TH and Prusak L Working Knowledge Boston Harvard Business SchoolPress 1998
20 Davenport TH Long D and Beers MC Successful knowledge management projectsSloan Management Review 39 2 (Winter 1998) 43ndash57
21 Demarest M Understanding knowledge management Long Range Planning 30 3(1997) 374ndash384
22 Deshpande R Jarley U and Webster F Corporate culture customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms A quadrad analysis Journal of Marketing 57 1 (January1993) 23ndash37
23 DeTienne KB and Jackson LA Knowledge management Understanding theoryand developing strategy Competitiveness Review 11 1 (2001) 1ndash11
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 217
24 Dougherty D and Corse SM When it comes to product innovation what is so badabout bureaucracy Journal of High Technology Management Research 6 1 (1995) 55ndash76
25 Drew S From knowledge to action The impact of benchmarking on organizationalperformance Long Range Planning 30 3 (1997) 427ndash441
26 Duncan RB The ambidextrous organization Designing dual structures for innova-tion In RH Kilmann LR Pondy and DP Slevin (eds) The Management of OrganizationStrategy and Implementation New York North-Holland 1976 pp 167ndash188
27 Ein-Dor P and Segev E Organizational context and MIS structure Some empiricalevidence MIS Quarterly 6 3 (1982) pp 55ndash68
28 Elenkov DS Effects of leadership on organizational performance in Russian compa-nies Journal of Business Research 55 6 (2002) 467ndash480
29 Eppler MJ and Sukowski O Managing team knowledge Core processes tools andenabling factors European Management Journal 18 3 (2000) 334ndash341
30 Fahey L and Prusak L The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management Califor-nia Management Review 40 4 (1998) 265ndash276
31 Galliers RD Newell S Huang JC and Pan SL Implementing enterprise re-source planning and knowledge management systems in tandem Fostering efficiency and in-novation complementarity Information and Organization forthcoming 2003
32 Garland R The mid-point on a rating scale Is it desirable Marketing Bulletin 2 (May1991) 66ndash70
33 Ghemawat P and Costa R The organizational tension between static and dynamicefficiency Strategic Management Journal 14 8 (Winter 1993) 59ndash73
34 Glynn M Innovative genius A framework for relating individual and organizationalintelligence to innovation Academy of Management Review 21 4 (1996) 1081ndash1111
35 Gold AH Malhotra A and Segars AH Knowledge management An organiza-tional capabilities perspective Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer2001) 185ndash214
36 Gottschalk P Strategic knowledge networks The case of IT support for Eurojuris lawfirms in Norway International Review of Law Computers amp Technology 14 1 (2000) 115ndash129
37 Graham AB and Pizzo VG A question of balance Case studies in strategic knowl-edge management European Management Journal 14 4 (1996) 338ndash346
38 Grover V and Davenport TH General perspectives on knowledge management Fos-tering a research agenda Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Summer 2001)5ndash21
39 Gupta AK and Govindarajan V Knowledge managementrsquos social dimension Les-sons from Nucor steel Sloan Management Review 42 1 (Fall 2000) 71ndash80
40 Gurteen D Knowledge creativity and innovation Journal of Knowledge Manage-ment 2 1 (1998) 5ndash13
41 Hackerman J and Morris C Group tasks group interaction process and group per-formance effectiveness A review and proposed integration In L Berkowitz (ed) Group Pro-cess New York Academic Press 1978 pp 1ndash15
42 Hair JF Anderson R Tatham R and Black W Multivariate Data Analysis withReadings Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice Hall 1995
43 Hansen MT The search-transfer problem The role of weak ties in sharing knowledgeacross organization subunits Administrative Science Quarterly 44 1 (1999) 82ndash111
44 Hansen MT and Oetinger B Introducing T-shaped managers Knowledgemanagementrsquos next generation Harvard Business Review 79 3 (March 2001) 107ndash116
45 Hansen MT Nohria N and Tierney T Whatrsquos your strategy for managing knowl-edge Harvard Business Review 77 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 106ndash116
46 Hater JJ and Bass BM Superiorsrsquo evaluations and subordinates perceptions of trans-formational and transactional leadership Journal of Applied Psychology 73 4 (1988) 695ndash702
47 Hedlund G A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation StrategicManagement Journal 15 5 (1994) 73ndash90
48 Herbold RJ Inside Microsoft Balancing creativity and discipline Harvard BusinessReview 80 1 (January 2002) 72ndash79
49 Holsapple CW and Joshi KD Organizational knowledge resources Decision Sup-port Systems 31 1 (2001) 39ndash54
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
218 LEE AND CHOI
50 Holsapple CW and Singh M Electronic commerce From a definitional taxonomytoward a knowledge-management view Journal of Organizational Computing and ElectronicCommerce 10 3 (2000) 149ndash170
51 Holsapple CW and Singh M The knowledge chain model Activities for competi-tiveness Expert Systems with Applications 20 1 (2001) 77ndash98
52 Hopper MD Rattling SABRE-new ways to compete on information Harvard Busi-ness Review 68 3 (MayndashJune 1990) 118ndash125
53 Howells J Knowledge innovation and locations In JR Bryson PW Daniels NDHenry and JS Pollard (eds) Knowledge Space Economy London Routledge 2000 pp50ndash62
54 Huemer L Krogh G and Johan R Knowledge and the concept of trust In G KroghJ Roos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 123ndash145
55 Hurley R and Hult T Innovation market orientation and organizational learning Anintegration and empirical examination Journal of Marketing 62 3 (1998) 42ndash54
56 Iansiti M Real-world RampD Jumping the product generation gap Harvard BusinessReview 71 3 (1993) 138ndash147
57 Ichijo K Krogh G and Nonaka I Knowledge enablers In G Krogh J Roos and DKleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 173ndash203
58 James LR Demaree RG and Wolf G rwg An assessment of within-group interrateragreement Journal of Applied Psychology 78 2 (1993) 306ndash309
59 Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS The use of collaborative electronic media for infor-mation sharing An exploratory study of determinants Strategic Information Systems 9 2ndash3(2000) 129ndash154
60 Johannenssen J-A Olsen B and Olaisen J Aspects of innovation theory based onknowledge management International Journal of Information Management 19 2 (1999)121ndash139
61 Junnarkar B Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilitiesExpert Systems with Applications 13 1 (1997) 29ndash40
62 Kanevsky V and Housel T The learning-knowledge-value cycle In G Krogh JRoos and D Kleine (eds) Knowing in Firms Thousand Oaks CA Sage 1998 pp 269ndash284
63 Kaplan R and Norton D Having trouble with your strategy Then map it HarvardBusiness Review 78 5 (SeptemberndashOctober 2000) 167ndash176
64 Kerlinger FN Foundation of Behavioral Research 3d ed Fort Worth TX Holt Rinehartand Winston 1986
65 Koh AT Linking learning knowledge creation and business creativity A preliminaryassessment of the East Asian quest for creativity Technological Forecasting and Social Change64 1 (2000) 85ndash100
66 Kozlowski W and Hattrup K A disagreement about within-group agreement Disen-tangling issues of consistency versus consensus Journal of Applied Psychology 77 2 (1992)161ndash167
67 Kreitner R and Kinicki A Organizational Behavior Homewood IL Richard DIrwin 1992
68 Krogh G Care in the knowledge creation California Management Review 40 3 (1998)133ndash153
69 Krogh G Nonaka I and Aben M Making the most of your companyrsquos knowledgeA strategic framework Long Range Planning 34 4 (2001) 421ndash439
70 Leonard-Barton D Wellsprings of Knowledge Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation Boston Harvard Business School Press 1995
71 Long DD Building the knowledge-based organizations How culture drives knowl-edge behaviors Working Paper of the Center for Business Innovation Ernst amp Young LLPCambridge MA 1997
72 Lubit R Tacit knowledge and knowledge management The keys to sustainable com-petitive advantage Organizational Dynamics 29 4 (2001) 164ndash178
73 Lusch RF Harvey M and Speier C ROI3 The building blocks for successful glo-bal organizations in the 21st century European Management Journal 16 6 (1998) 714ndash728
74 Madhavan R and Grover R From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledgeNew product development as knowledge management Journal of Marketing 62 4 (1998)1ndash12
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 219
75 Maeil Business Newspaper Annual Corporation Reports CD-ROM Maeil BusinessNewspaper Company Seoul Korea 2000
76 Markus ML Toward a theory of knowledge reuse Types of knowledge reuse situa-tions and factors in reuse success Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1 (Sum-mer 2001) 57ndash93
77 Menon A and Varadarajan R A model of marketing knowledge use within firmsJournal of Marketing 56 4 (1992) 53ndash71
78 Miller DA A preliminary typology of organizational learning Synthesizing the litera-ture Journal of Management 22 3 (1996) 484ndash505
79 Nahapiet J and Ghoshal S Social capital intellectual capital and the organizationaladvantage Academy of Management Review 23 2 (1998) 242ndash266
80 Ndlela LT and Toit ASA Establishing a knowledge management programme forcompetitive advantage in an enterprise International Journal of Information Management 212 (2001) 151ndash165
81 Nelson KM and Cooprider JG The contribution of shared knowledge to IS groupperformance MIS Quarterly 20 4 (1996) 409ndash429
82 Nonaka I and Takeuchi H The Knowledge Creating Company New York OxfordUniversity Press 1995
83 Nonaka I Byosiere P and Konno N Organizational knowledge creation theory Afirst comprehensive test International Business Review 3 4 (1994) 337ndash351
84 Nunnally JC Psychometric Theory 2d ed New York McGraw-Hill 197885 OrsquoDell C and Grayson J Knowledge transfer discover your value proposition Strat-
egy amp Leadership 27 2 (MarchndashApril 1999) 10ndash1586 Pan S and Scarbrough H A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman
laboratories Journal of Knowledge Management 2 1 (1998) 55ndash6687 Parent M Gallupe RB Salisbury WD and Handelman JM Knowledge creation
in focus group Can group technologies help Information amp Management 38 1 (2000) 47ndash5888 Quinn JB Anderson P and Finkelstein S Leveraging intellect Academy of Man-
agement Executive 10 3 (1996) 7ndash2789 Rapert M and Wren B Reconsidering organizational structure A dual perspective of
frameworks and processes Journal of Managerial Issues 10 3 (1998) 287ndash30290 Raven A and Prasser SG Information technology support for the creation and trans-
fer of tacit knowledge in organizations In R Ramsower (ed) Association for InformationSystems 1996 Americas Conference Phoenix CAIS 1996 (available at hsbbayloreduramsoweraisac96papersRAVENhtm)
91 Riggins FJ and Rhee H Developing the learning network using extranets Interna-tional Journal of Electronic Commerce 4 1 (Fall 1999) 65ndash83
92 Roberts J From know-how to show-how Questioning the role of information andcommunication technologies in knowledge transfer Technology Analysis amp Strategic Manage-ment 12 4 (2000) 429ndash443
93 Robinson AG and Stern S Corporate Creativity How Innovation and ImprovementActually Happen San Francisco CA Berrett-Koehler 1997
94 Rogers E Diffusion of Innovations 3d ed New York Free Press 198395 Rubenstein-Montano B Liebowitz J Buchwalter J McCaw D Newman B and
Rebeck K The knowledge management methodology team A systems thinking frameworkfor knowledge management Decision Support Systems 31 1 (2001) 5ndash16
96 Sarvary M Knowledge management and competition in the consulting industry Cali-fornia Management Review 41 2 (1999) 95ndash107
97 Sawhney M and Prandelli E Communities of creation Managing distributed innova-tion in turbulent markets California Management Review 42 4 (2000) 24ndash54
98 Scharmer CO Organizing around not-yet-embodied knowledge In G Krogh I Nonakaand T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation A Source of Value New York St MartinrsquosPress 2000 pp 36ndash60
99 Scott JE Organizational knowledge and the internet Decision Support Systems 23 1(1998) 3ndash17
100 Scott JE Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology Jour-nal of Management Information Systems 17 2 (Fall 2000) 81ndash113
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
220 LEE AND CHOI
101 Shaft TM and Vessey I The relevance of application domain knowledge Character-izing the computer program comprehension process Journal of Management Information Sys-tems 15 1 (Summer 1998) 51ndash78
102 Shani AB Sena JA and Stebbins MW Knowledge work teams and groupwaretechnology Learning from Seagatersquos experience Journal of Knowledge Management 4 2(2000) 111ndash124
103 Shrout PE and Fliess JL Interclass correlation Uses in assessing rater reliabilityPsychological Bulletin 86 3 (1979) 420ndash428
104 Simonin B The importance of collaborative know-how An empirical test of the learn-ing organization Academy of Management Journal 40 5 (1997) 509ndash533
105 Spek R and Spijkervet A Knowledge management Dealing intelligently with knowl-edge In J Liebowitz and L Wilcox (eds) Knowledge Management and Its Integrative Ele-ments Boca Raton FL CRC Press 1997 pp 31ndash59
106 Starbuck WH Learning by knowledge-intensive firms Journal of Management Stud-ies 29 6 (1992) 713ndash740
107 Stein EW and Zwass V Actualizing organizational memory with information sys-tems Information Systems Research 6 2 (1995) 85ndash117
108 Stonehouse GH and Pemberton JD Learning and knowledge management in theintelligent organization Participation amp Empowerment An International Journal 7 5 (1999)131ndash144
109 Strock J and Hill PA Knowledge diffusion through ldquostrategic communitiesrdquo SloanManagement Review 41 2 (Winter 2000) 63ndash74
110 Sveiby K The New Organization Wealth Management and Measuring Knowledge-Based Assets San Francisco Berrett-Koehler 1997
111 Swan J Newell S and Robertson M Limits of IT-driven knowledge managementfor interactive innovation processes Towards a community-based approach In RH SpragueJr (ed) Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-ences Los Alamitos CA IEEE Computer Society Press 2000 pp 84ndash94
112 Swap W Leonard D Shields M and Abrams L Using mentoring and storytellingto transfer knowledge in the workplace Journal of Management Information Systems 18 1(Summer 2001) 95ndash114
113 Swieringa J and Wierdsma A Becoming a Learning Organization Beyond the Learn-ing Curve Wokingham UK Addison-Wesley 1992
114 Szulanski G Exploring internal stickiness Impediments to the transfer of best practicewithin the firm Strategic Management Journal 17 10 (Winter 1996) 27ndash43
115 Teece DJ Strategies for managing knowledge assets The role of firm structure andindustrial context Long Range Planning 33 4 (2000) 35ndash54
116 Thompson KR Confronting the paradoxes in a total quality environment Organiza-tional Dynamics 23 3 (1998) 62ndash74
117 Tushman ML and OrsquoReilly CA Winning Through Innovation Boston HarvardBusiness School Press 1997
118 Venkatraman N and Grant JH Construct measurement in organizational research Acritique and proposal Academy of Management Review 11 1 (1986) 71ndash87
119 Vicari S and Troilo G Organizational creativity A new perspective from cognitivesystems theory In G Krogh I Nonaka and T Nishiguchi (eds) Knowledge Creation ASource of Value New York St Martinrsquos Press 2000 pp 63ndash88
120 Weiser M and Morrison J Project memory Information management for projectteams Journal of Management Information Systems 14 4 (Spring 1998) 149ndash166
121 Wilkstrom S and Norman R Knowledge amp Value A New Perspective on CorporateTransformation London Routledge 1994
122 Woodman R Sawyer J and Griffin R Toward a theory of organizational creativityAcademy of Management Review 18 2 (1993) 293ndash321
123 Wright P and Snell S Toward a unifying framework for exploring fit and flexibilityin strategic human resource management Academy of Management Review 23 4 (1998)756ndash772
124 Zander D and Kogut B Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation oforganizational capabilities An empirical test Organization Science 6 1 (1995) 76ndash92
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 221
125 Zbaracki M The rhetoric and reality of total quality management Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly 43 3 (1998) 602ndash636
126 Zucker LG Darby MR Brewer M B and Peng Y Collaboration structures andinformation dilemmas in biotechnology Organization boundaries as trust production In RMKramer and TR Tyler (eds) Trust in Organizations Frontiers of Theory and Research Thou-sand Oaks CA Sage 1996 pp 90ndash113
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
222 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix A Operational Definitions and Related Literature
Variables Operational definition Related literature
Collaboration Degree of active support and helps in [54 67 85 100]organization
Trust Degree of reciprocal faith in othersrsquo intentions [19 54 57 68 74behaviors and skills toward organizational 81 85]goals
Learning Degree of opportunity variety satisfaction [55 62 88 113]and encouragement for learning anddevelopment in organization
Centralization Degree of authority and control over decisions [14 17 27 47 89115]
Formalization Degree of formal rules procedures and [14 34 89 106standard polices 115]
T-shaped skills Degree of understanding his or her own and [56 60 70 74]othersrsquo task areas
IT support Degree of IT support for collative work for [20 35 87 90 99]communication for searching and accessingfor simulation and prediction and forsystematic storing
Knowledge Degree of socialization externalization [82 83]creation combination and internalization
Socialization Degree of tacit knowledge accumulation [82 83]extra-firm social information collectionintra-firm social information gathering andtransfer of tacit knowledge
Externalization Degree of creative dialogue deductive and [82 83]inductive thinking use of metaphors andexchanged ideas
Combination Degree of acquisition and integration [82 83]synthesis and processing and dissemination
Internalization Degree of personal experiences simulation [82 83]and experimentation
Organizational Degree of belief that organizations is actually [5 34 40 65 119creativity producing creative (noveluseful) ideas 122]
(servicesproducts)
Organizational Degree of overall success market share [22 25]performance growth rate profitability and innovativeness
in comparison with major competitors
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 223
Appendix B Questionnaire
(1) Knowledge management enablers
Construct Items
Collaboration COL1 Our organization members are satisfied by the degree of(COL five items) collaboration
COL2 Our organization members are supportiveCOL3 Our organization members are helpfulCOL4 There is a willingness to collaborate across organizationalunits within our organizationCOL5 There is a willingness to accept responsibility for failure
Trust Our company members (TRU six items) TRU1 are generally trustworthy
TRU2 have reciprocal faith in other membersrsquo intentions andbehaviorsTRU3 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo abilityTRU4 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo behaviors to work towardorganizational goalsTRU5 have reciprocal faith in othersrsquo decision towardorganizational interests than individual interestsTRU6 have relationships based on reciprocal faith
Learning Our company (LEA five items) LEA1 provides various formal training programs for performance
of dutiesLEA2 provides opportunities for informal individual developmentother than formal training such as work assignments and jobrotationLEA3 encourages people to attend seminars symposia and so onLEA4 provides various programs such as clubs and communitygatheringsLEA5 members are satisfied by the contents of job training orself-development programs
Centralization Our company members (CEN five items) CEN1 can take action without a supervisor (R)
CEN2 are encouraged to make their own decisions (R)CEN3 do not need to refer to someone else (R)CEN4 do not need to ask their supervisor before action (R)CEN5 can make decisions without approval (R)
Formalization In our company (FOR five items) FOR1 there are many activities that are not covered by some formal
procedures (R)FOR2 contacts with our company are on a formal or plannedbasisFOR3 rules and procedures are typically writtenFOR4 members can ignore the rules and reach informalagreements to handle some situations (R)FOR5 members make their own rules on the job (R)
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
224 LEE AND CHOI
Construct Items
T-shaped skills Our company members (TKS five items) TSK1 can understand not only their own tasks but also othersrsquo
tasksTSK2 can make suggestion about othersrsquo taskTSK3 can communicate well not only with their departmentmembers but also with other department membersTSK4 are specialists in their own partTSK5 can perform their own task effectively without regard toenvironmental changes
IT support Our company (ITS five items) ITS1 provides IT support for collaborative works regardless of time
and placeITS2 provides IT support for communication among organizationmembersITS3 provides IT support for searching for and accessing necessaryinformationITS4 provides IT support for simulation and predictionITS5 provides IT support for systematic storing
ldquoRrdquo indicates that the item is actually measured in a reverse fashion
(2) Knowledge creation processes
Construct Items
Socialization Our company stresses (KCS five items)Tacit knowledge accumulation KCS1 gathering information from sales and
production sitesTacit knowledge accumulation KCS2 sharing experience with suppliers and
customersExtra-firm social information KCS3 engaging in dialogue with competitors collectionIntra-firm social information KCS4 finding new strategies and market collection opportunities by wandering inside the firmTransfer of tacit knowledge KCS5 creating a work environment that allows peers
to understand the craftsmanship and expertise
Externalization Our company stresses (KCE five items)Dialogue KCE1 creative and essential dialoguesMetaphor KCE2 the use of deductive and inductive thinkingMetaphor KCE3 the use of metaphors in dialogue for concept
creationDialogue KCE4 exchanging various ideas and dialoguesDialogue KCE5 subjective opinions
Combination Our company stresses (KCC five items)Acquisition and integration KCC1 planning strategies by using published
literature computer simulation and forecastingSynthesis and processing KCC2 creating manuals and documents on products
and services
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 225
Synthesis and processing KCC3 building databases on products and serviceSynthesis and processing KCC4 building up materials by gathering
management figures and technical informationDissemination KCC5 transmitting newly created concepts
Internalization Our company stresses (KCI four items)Personal experience KCI1 enactive liaisoning activities with functional(knowledge acquisition departments by cross-functional developmentform real world) teamsExperimentation (knowledge KCI2 forming teams as a model and conductingacquisition from virtual world) experiments and sharing results with entire
departmentsPersonal experience KCI3 searching and sharing new values and
thoughtsPersonal experience KCI4 sharing and trying to understand management
visions through communications with fellows
(3) Organizational creativity
Construct Items
Creativity Our company (OC five items) OC1 has produced many novel and useful ideas
(servicesproducts)OC2 fosters an environment that is conductive to our own ability toproduce novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)OC3 spends much time for producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts)OC4 considers producing novel and useful ideas(servicesproducts) as important activitiesOC5 actively produces novel and useful ideas (servicesproducts)
(4) Organizational performance
Construct Items
Organizational Compared with key competitors our company performance OP1 is more successful(OP five items) OP2 has a greater market share
OP3 is growing fasterOP4 is more profitableOP5 is more innovative
Note Linkage between knowledge creation constructs and our questionnaire items
Questionnaire items for the knowledge creation process which were used in thisstudy had been validated and used by Nonaka et al [83] They conducted a confirma-tory factor analysis to test Nonakarsquos [82] organizational knowledge creation modelwith data collected from 105 Japanese middle managers Results of the study suggestthat the construct of knowledge creation consists of four knowledge conversion pro-cesses socialization externalization combination and internalization All four knowl-edge conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in the knowledge creation
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
226 LEE AND CHOI
construct Four factors constitute the process of converting tacit to tacit knowledgeaccumulation of tacit knowledge extra-firm social information gathering activitiesintra-firm social information gathering activities and transfer of tacit knowledge fromthe master to the different team members Externalization process is made up of onefactor This result differs from Nonakarsquos theory that hypothesized that metaphor anddialogue would be retained Combination process consists of three factors that repre-sent a three-step sequence of data processing acquisition and integration of informa-tion synthesis and processing of information and dissemination of informationExplicit knowledge in the organization may be converted into tacit knowledge (inter-nalization) in two different ways personal experience in which knowledge is ac-quired from real world and simulation and experimentation in which knowledge isacquired from the virtual world
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
KM ENABLERS PROCESSES AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE 227
Appendix C Mediating Effect of Knowledge Creation Process
OUR STUDY HINTS THAT KNOWLEDGE CREATION process mediates between enablersand organizational creativity However some recent studies regard both knowledgeenablers and knowledge creation process as antecedents of organizational perfor-mance [8 35] that is both of them are independent variables of organizational per-formance Therefore in order to test the mediating effect of knowledge creation processthe Baron and Kenny [7] procedure is adopted Table A1 shows this analysis resultThis results in the mediation effect because the following three conditions hold Firstknowledge enablers affect knowledge creation process significantly It has been notedthat collaboration trust learning and centralization affect creation However this isnot the case with formalization T-shaped skills and IT support we could not assessthe mediating effect for these three enablers Second collaboration trust learningand centralization affect organizational creativity Third knowledge creation processaffects creativity (b = 07042) while the effects of the previous four enablers are re-duced For example in the case of collaboration its beta value is reduced from 02144to 01316 In sum we may point out that knowledge creation process mediates be-tween the four enablers (collaboration trust learning and centralization) and organi-zational creativity
Table A1 Mediation Analysis Result
Knowledge Organizational Organizationalcreation creativity creativity
(beta values) (beta values) (beta values)
Collaboration 02085 02144 01316Trust 03525 03916 01353Learning 02138 02015 01291Centralization ndash02030 ndash01808 ndash01047Formalization ndash00130 ndash00390 ndash00296T-shaped skills 00443 01682 01514IT support 00611 00949 00493Knowledge creation 07442
p lt 001 p lt 005 p lt 01
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously
228 LEE AND CHOI
Appendix D Mediating Effect of Intermediate Outcome
IN ORDER TO VALIDATE WHETHER an intermediate outcome is an important predictorof knowledge management or not another model without organizational creativity isbuilt to explore the direct relationship between knowledge creation and organiza-tional performance Testing this direct relationship indicates no significant relation-ships except for socialization (b = 0540 p lt 005) This result is consistent with theprevious study [18] It implies that the intermediate outcome can help build a chain ofcredibility between knowledge creation and organizational performance
Although not the focus of this study it is of interest to note an alternative concurrentmodel in organization theory This model would posit that efficiency and bureaucratic(or mechanistic) structures would chain through to organizational performance Forexample centralization can lead to efficiency because it prevents a strategic vacuum oforganizations and enables the development of precise control procedures [30] In addi-tion formalization has been found to lead to efficiency because it may facilitate therapid and continuous transformation of ideas into superior products and services andenhance communication flow through their extensive monitoring and reporting require-ments [36] Similarly standardizing business practices may encourage efficiency [48]
Related to an interplay between creativity (flexibility) and efficiency it has beenassumed that a firm must either focus on efficiency or flexibility [33 123] That isflexibility (or efficiency) can only be achieved at the cost of efficiency (or flexibility)Therefore some researchers have concentrated on improving efficiency [125] whereasothers have focused on how to improve flexibility and creativity [13]
However there are now a few studies that have suggested that it is possible to besimultaneously efficient and flexible [24 31] Organizations can obtain their com-petitive advantages through achieving efficiency by emphasizing control as well asflexibility (creativity) by creating knowledge [117] Case studies such as Microsoft[48] Unilever [69] and NUMMI (a Toyota subsidiary) [1] have shown this simulta-neous approach These studies suggest that balancing between imposing disciplinefor efficiency and delegating authority to encourage flexibility and creativity pro-vides tremendous benefits for organizations
In summary some studies insist that efficiency and flexibility are mutually exclu-sive whereas others argue that they are perfectly compatible Our study focuses oncreativity (flexibility) only The interplay between these creativity forces and efficiencyforces should be further investigated in the field of knowledge management For ex-ample Krogh et al [69] indicated that knowledge management allows an organizationto improve both its efficiency and flexibility (innovation) capabilities simultaneously