Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance An integrative view

Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance:

An Integration and Empirical Examination

Heeseok Lee 1), Byounggu Choi2)

2)

KAIST, Faculty of Graduate School of Management (dbdc@unitel.co.kr)

KAIST, Doctoral Candidate of Graduate School of Management (bgchoi@kgsm.kaist.ac.kr)

Abstract

1)

Because of the increasing interests on knowledge management (KM), various researches have beenaccomplished. Many conceptual research frameworks have been proposed and thus empirical researchesare required to provide practical benefits. However, most current empirical researches have dealt with therelationship of knowledge management enablers, processes or performance in isolation. Accordingly, anintegrated view of knowledge management is missing and thus how to perform knowledge managementto improve organizational performance is not clear. In order to alleviate these limitations of the previousresearches, this study analyzes the current research frameworks and finds their relationships. Anintegrated research model is built by incorporating knowledge management processes into organizationalperformance. The model is tested empirically to investigate the relationship between knowledgemanagement processes and enablers such as organizational structure, culture, and informationtechnologies. The correlation between knowledge management processes and organizational creativity isalso identified. Both non-financial and financial performance measures are adopted to measure the impactof knowledge management.

The findings of this study imply that knowledge management processes are significant predictors fororganizational creativity, i.e., business organizations can achieve strategic and economic benefits ofknowledge management by utilizing organizational creativity in an effective fashion. Organizationalstructure and culture are found to be significant in predicting the knowledge management processes. Inaddition, it is noted that technology-related variables are not significantly related to the knowledgemanagement. This unexpected finding may result from the early stage of knowledge management inKorea. From a theoretical perspective, this study provides not only a research model for knowledgemanagement but also relationships among knowledge management components. It establishes a genericresearch model by providing an integrated view of knowledge management. Empirical evidences arelikely to help business organizations sharpen their knowledge management strategies.

1. Introduction

Because of the increasing interests on knowledge management (KM), various researches have been accomplished [1,9, 12, 13, 27, 29, 31, 32, 42, 46]. Many conceptual research frameworks have been proposed and empirical researchesare required to provide practical benefits. However, most current empirical researches have dealt with the relationshipof knowledge management enablers, processes or performance in isolation; some researches have focused on therelationship between knowledge management enablers and knowledge management processes [33, 43], and others haveconcentrated on the relationship between knowledge management enablers and organizational performance [5, 14, 40].Accordingly, an integrated view of knowledge management is missing and how to perform knowledge management toimprove organizational performance is not clear.

In order to alleviate these limitations of the previous research, this study analyzes the previous empirical studies andfinds their relationships. An integrated empirical research model is built by incorporating knowledge managementprocesses into organizational performance. This model is tested empirically to investigate the relationship betweenknowledge management processes and enablers such as organizational structure, culture, and information technologies.The correlation between knowledge management processes and organizational creativity is also identified. Both non-

financial and financial performance measures are adopted to measure the impact of knowledge management. Theemphasis is on the creation process among knowledge management processes, because knowledge creation emerges asone of the most important and widespread practical management issues in 1990s [25, 27, 31, 32, 37, 43, 49].

2. Literature Reviews

2.1 Knowledge Management Enablers and Knowledge Management Processes

Nonaka et al [33] conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test Nonaka's [32] organizational knowledge creationmodel. In this study, they validated the hypothesis that the construct of knowledge creation consists of four majorknowledge conversion processes: socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. As a result of thestudy, they suggested that all the four conversion processes explain a high amount of variance in organizationalknowledge creation construct.

Hansen [17] combined the concept of weak ties and the notion of complex knowledge to explain the role of weak tiesin sharing knowledge in a multiunit organization. They suggested that weak interunit ties help a project team search foruseful knowledge in other subunits but impede the transfer of complex knowledge. Having weak interunit ties speed upprojects when knowledge is not complex but slows projects down when the knowledge is highly complex.

Appleyard [3] examined patterns of knowledge sharing in semiconductor industry compared to steel industry, basedon the different characteristics of the two industries. In addition, he examined international differences in knowledgesharing, based on different employment systems and intellectual property regimes found in the United States and Japan.He suggested that public sources of technical data play a larger role in knowledge diffusion in Japan than in the UnitedStates, and they play larger role in semiconductors than steel.

Szulanski [43] reported the findings of systematic empirical investigation of internal stickiness. He analyzed theinternal stickiness of knowledge transfer and tested a transfer model with canonical correlation analysis. Contrary toconventional wisdom that placed primary blame on motivational factors, he found that barriers related to knowledge,such as the recipient's lack of absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity, and an arduousness of the relationship betweensource and recipient, were most important impediments to knowledge transfer within firms.

Zander and Kogut [49] proposed that the transfer and imitation of capabilities be related to the characteristics ofsocial knowledge. They analyze the effects of the ease of codifying and communicating a manufacturing capability notonly on the time to its transfer, but also on the time to imitation of new product. Based on the empirical test, theysuggested that codifiability, teachability, and parallel development have significant effects on the hazard of transfer.2.2 Knowledge Management Enablers and Organizational Performance

Drew [14] presented the results of a research on benchmarking and confirmed that benchmarking was one of the besttools for promoting organizational performance. However, he suggested that benchmarking be not equally desirable oreffective for all types of firms and that benchmarking be not always a fast or low cost solution to knowledge acquisitionand organizational change. He used self-reported measures to measure organizational performance.

Simonin [40] proposed that the experience of a firm have to be transformed into know-how before it could improveorganizational performance. To prove this theme, he tested the relationship between collaborative experience andcollaborative know-how, and the relationship between collaborative know-how and the achievement both of tangibleand intangible performance. In this study, performance was divided into tangible like financial benefits and intangiblelike learning or knowledge based benefits. Based on the empirical test, he suggested that firms do learn from the pastcollaborations by developing skills in knowledge transfer.

Bierly and Chakrabarti [5] tried to identify groups of firms with similar generic knowledge strategies, determine howthese strategies change over time, and compare profit margins of the groups. Through analyzing knowledge strategies of21 U.S. pharmaceutical, they divided groups into explorers, exploiters, loners, and innovators. They suggested that thefirms in innovator and explorer groups be more profitable than the firms in exploiter and loner groups.

2.3 Summary of previous studies

The previous empirical studies yielded some observations. First, there is no integrated empirical study on knowledgemanagement. Most studies focused on the relationships between knowledge management enablers and knowledgemanagement processes or the relationship between knowledge management enablers and organizational performance.There is lack of an integrative view of knowledge management. Second, there are a very few empirical studies onorganizational performance in knowledge management, because knowledge is intangible and difficult to measure [45].The traditional financial measure is not enough to measure knowledge; there is no common or standard way ofassessing knowledge. Third, only a few studies address knowledge creation because no generic measurement tool isdeveloped for knowledge creation contrary to the hazard rate in knowledge transfer. Fourth, creation or transfer was

measured by static measurements such as the hazard rate or the degree of satisfaction in most researches except Nonakaet al's [33] and Szulanski's [43] although knowledge management was regarded as a process type not an object type.

Table 1 Literature Review

CriteriaFocusCreationTransferAuthorsNonaka et al [33]Hansen [17]Appleyard [3]Szulanski [43]Zander & Kogut [49]Drew [14]Simonin [40]Bierly and Chakrabarti [5]CharacteristicsNonaka's knowledge creation modelRole of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits in a multiunit organizationIndustry and national characteristics in knowledge transferKnowledge transfer processesRole of codifiability and teachability in knowledge transferBenchmarking as knowledge acquisition solutionCollaborative experience and know-howGeneric knowledge strategiesPerformance3. An Empirical Research Framework

3.1 Theoretical Background

In comparative studies for knowledge management frameworks, many researchers suggested three major components forknowledge management [4, 8, 19, 26 ]. The first component is knowledge management enablers (or influencing factors)which are defined as organizational mechanisms for intentionally and consistently developing knowledge [22]. The secondcomponent is knowledge management processes (or knowledge management activities) such as creation, sharing, store, anduse. The third component is organizational performance such as market share and profitability [8]. The relationship of thesethree components can be interpreted by the input-process-output model that was suggested by Hackman and Morris [16]. Thefundamental assumption underlying this model is that the input factors affect performances through some kind ofinteraction process. Based on this model, we can assume that knowledge management enablers affect organizationalperformance through knowledge management processes.

In spite of considerable discussion of knowledge management processes and organizational performance, there is no clearlink between them. To establish the relationship between them, we must consider the fourth component for knowledgemanagement. The fourth component is the intermediate measure such as knowledge worker capability, specific process,innovation, or organizational creativity [11]. Based on four components, we propose our empirical research model as follow.

KM Intermediate OutcomeOrganizationalPerformanceKM EnablersKM ProcessFig. 1 Research Framework in Knowledge Management

3.2 Variables

(1) KM Enablers

Knowledge management enablers can be classified according to a socio-technical theory. Socio-technical theoryassumes that an organization or an organization work system can be described as a social-technical perspective [7].According to this perspective, we can identify that enablers are made up of two jointly independent but correlativeinteracting systems. The technical system is concerned with processes, tasks, and technology. The social system isconcerned with attributes of people, relationships among people, reward systems, and authority structures.Organizational structure, organizational culture, and people are considered as a social system, and informationtechnology is considered as a technical system in this study.

(2) KM Processes

Many researches identify knowledge management processes [13, 31, 46]. Choi and Lee [8] proposed knowledge

management processes which consist of creation, sharing, store, use on the basis of their comparative study. Lai and Chu [26]divided knowledge management processes into initiation, generation, modeling, repository, distribution and transfer, use, andretrospect. Most studies on knowledge management involve knowledge creation process and organizational capability. That isbecause knowledge creation is gaining attention as a potential source of competitive advantage for firm operating in today'sglobal marketplace [33]. Therefore we focus on knowledge creation process among knowledge management processes.Nonaka et al. [33] constructed a measuring tool which could measure four knowledge conversion processes. In this study,Nonaka et al's construction is used. It is more effective for measuring knowledge creation process than a number of ideas orthe degree of satisfaction with creation processes.

(3) KM Intermediate Outcome

Intermediate outcome will ideally reflect an aspect of organization's performance which will lead to better financialand nonfinancial performance [11]. These might include knowledge worker capability, specific process, innovation,ideas or organizational creativity. Among them, organizational creativity is defined as the creation of a valuable, usefulproduct, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system [2, 47].Therefore, we consider organizational creativity as intermediate outcome.

(4) Organizational Performance

Measuring the organizational performance is very difficult. However, there is no unique way to measureorganizational performance related to knowledge management. The measures of organizational performance areclassified into four categories: i) financial measure, ii) intellectual capital, iii) balanced scorecard, iv) tangible andintangible benefits. In this study, the financial measure is selected owing to its easiness and objectivity. Self-reporteditems are also used because they do represent broad measures of performance which are commonly tracked, and theyare used to compare business units and industries [14].3.3 Hypothesis

(1) KM Enablers and KM Process

Knowledge management is related to organizational structure [18, 34]. It has profound implications for organizationalstructure [31]. Therefore, new organizational structure was proposed such as hypertext organization or N-formorganization for knowledge management [18, 31].

Two of the most common dimensions of structural frameworks are centralization and formalization. Formalizationrefers to the degree to which decisions and working relationships are governed by formal rules, standard policies, andprocedures [36]. Centralization refers to the locus of decision authority and control within an organizational entity [44]. In order to develop organizational knowledge in a turbulent environment, firm should have various informationsources, various interpretation of information, and various perspectives developed from diversity of interpretation.When this variety has been given, the range of organizational activities will be enlarged and the wide range of activitieswill increase the possibility of developing organizational knowledge [22]. An organization that supports variation inprocess and structure is more adaptable when unforeseen problems arise. It provides more options and allows richstimulation and interpretation for all its members [30]. Therefore, centralization and formalization are importantvariables in our study.

H1: There is a negative relationship between centralization and knowledge creation process.H2: There is a negative relationship between formalization and knowledge creation process.

Most researches have shown culture to be the principal determinant of success of knowledge management [12, 13, 31,34]. However, it is the most neglected variables. As a result, cultural issues often create enormous complexity.Therefore, culture is the biggest issue in managing knowledge in organizations [34, 38]. Organizational culture shouldhave several components with regard to knowledge: i) people have positive orientation to knowledge, ii) people are notinhibited in sharing knowledge, iii) knowledge management project fits with the existing culture [12].

Concerned with cultural factors, the value of care in organizational relationships is one key enabling condition. Carecharacterizes a process of interaction between receivers and providers in firms, and should be understood as a quality ofa relationship rather than a quality of roles or functions [22, 25]. Care can be translated into real collaboration, mutualtrust, and learning and development. Therefore we examine collaboration, trust, and learning and development forcultural factors.

Many researchers have considered collaboration as an important variable in knowledge creation or sharing processes.In this study, collaboration is defined as the degree to which people in the group actively support and help one another

in their work. Scott and Bruce [39] insisted that collaboration reduce fear and increase openness and thereforeencourage new ideas and risk taking. Krough [25] asserted that collaboration be one of the fundamental problems ofsharing knowledge in companies. Ruggles [38] persisted that collaboration be indeed strongly conductive to knowledgecreation and transfer. Therefore, collaboration is the important factor in knowledge management.

Trust facilitates learning between partners. We define trust as reciprocal faith in others' intention and behaviorsaccording to Kreitner and Kinicki [24]. Decisions by exchanging knowledge under certain conditions are based on trust[21]. The current literature on social psychology of teams suggests that trust among team members have a significantinfluence on team performance [28]. Trust is critical in a cross-functional or as interorganizational team, because thewithholding of information with the lack of trust can be especially harmful to the processes of knowledge articulation,internalization, and reflection [18]. Therefore, we consider trust as an important variable in knowledge creation process.Learning and development is important. An emphasis on individual learning and development infuses an organizationwith new ideas [10, 20, 23]. Intense training, mentoring, and peer pressure literally force professional to the top of theirknowledge works. The great intellectual organizations seem to develop deeply ingrained learning and developmentculture [35]. However the mere presence of traditional training and development activities is not sufficient forknowledge management. Continuous learning is required [30]. In this study, learning and development is defined as thedegree to which learning and development is encouraged in an organization.

H3: There is a positive relationship between collaboration and knowledge creation process.H4: There is a positive relationship between trust and knowledge creation process.

H5: There is a positive relationship between learning & development and knowledge creation process.

One adage states that knowledge management is made up of ten percent technology and 90 percent people [49]. Thisimplies that people is one of the most important enabler in knowledge management. There are many factors which arerelated to people such as personality, cognitive style, self-efficacy, and skills. Concerned with skill, many researchersrefer to T-shaped skill [27, 29]. T-shaped skills means that they are both very deep (the stem of the T) yet broad enough(the cross of the T) to enable their possessors to explore the interfaces between their particular knowledge domain andvarious applications of that knowledge in particular product [27]. Madhavan and Grover [29] argue that the horizontalstroke of the T-shaped skill set enables organizational members to meaningfully interact with one another. Withoutthese skills, such interaction would be hampered. Therefore, T-shaped skill is an important variable.H6: There is a positive relationship between T-shaped skill and knowledge creation process.

Technology context is referred to the existing information technology infrastructure and capabilities supporting theknowledge management architecture [49]. There is an ongoing debate on the role that information technology can playin knowledge management [6]. On the one hand, information technology is pervasively used in organizations, and thusqualifies as a natural medium for the flow of knowledge. Knowledge projects are more likely to succeed when broadertechnology infrastructure is adopted [12]. At the other end of spectrum, many theorists leading knowledge managementhave warned about the attitude towards strong investments in information technology, possibly at the expense ofinvestments in human capital [42]. However, investments in information technology seem to be unavoidable in order toscale up knowledge management projects [6].

One aspect of technology infrastructure is knowledge-oriented tools such as Lotus Notes and World Wide Web-basedintranet. Another aspect of technology infrastructure is a common, pervasive set of technologies for desktop computingand communication. This means a capable, networked PC on every desk or in every briefcase, with standardizedpersonal productivity tools that people can exchange documents [12]. If these tools are already in place, knowledgeprojects can be more likely to succeed. Therefore, we consider the support of the information technology as theimportant variable.

H7: There is a positive relationship between support of information technology and knowledge creation process.(2) KM Process and Intermediate Outcome

It is important for researchers to find the relationship between knowledge creation and intermediate outcome likecreativity. A number of researchers have suggested that knowledge creation have been related to organizationalcreativity. Davenport [11] suggested that company should try to link knowledge management process with intermediateoutcome of business performance. Glynn [15] insisted that organizations with more and better diffusion andinstitutionalization mechanism would be more intelligent. Woodman et al [47] proposed that knowledge be the mostclosely related to organizational creativity. Stein [41] identified both positive and negative effects that previous

experience and learning had on creativity.

H8: There is a positive relationship between knowledge creation process and organizational creativity.

(3) Intermediate Outcome and Organizational Performance

A number of researchers have considered organizational creativity as an important factor for organizationalimprovement. Woodman et al [47] suggested that creativity for organizations represent a dramatic organizational change.Organizational change may include organizational effectiveness, survival, and organizational performance. Davenport[11] suggested improvements of ideas might lead to better organizational performance. Quinn [35] suggested thatmotivated creativity gives more value to a firm.

H9: There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and financial performance.

H10: There is a positive relationship between organizational creativity and nonfinancial performance.An empirical research model in this study describes the relationship between variables (Fig. 2).

Influencing Factorsof Knowledge Management

Knowledge Management

Process

Knowledge ManagementIntermediate Outcome

OrganizationalPerformance

Organizational Context- Structure• Formalization• Centralization- Culture• Collaboration• Trust• Learning and development- People• Skill of membersProcess- Creation process Outcome- Organizational creativityPerformance- Financial- Non-financialTechnologicalContext- Information Technology•Support of ITFig 2 Research Model in This Study

4. Research Design

Research constructs are operationalized based on pretest, related literature reviews and various theories. For thequestionnaire, the multiple-item method was used and each item was based on 6 point Likert scale from ‘very low’ to‘very high’. A multiple regression method is used to test the data.

The unit of analysis in this study is organization. For this study, we selected 900 organizations in Korea as aconvenience sample. At our request, these organizations identified the representatives in charge of the firm's KM projector similar project. We focused on the middle managers that were emphasized in Nonaka and Takeuchi [31]. The mailsurvey was performed in parallel with visits. We collected 227 questionnaires, but fourteen were not appropriate for ourstudy. In sum, 203 valid responses were used.

We performed reliability test for internal consistency. Items with cronbach's alpha values less than 0.6 were droppedfor further analysis. Since each variable was measured by the multi-item constructs, factor analysis with varimax wasconducted to check the unidimensionality among the items. Analyses were performed on the 21 items that measured thecomponents of KM processes, on the 43 items that measured the components of KM enablers, and on the 6 items fornonfinancial performance and return on investment (ROI) for financial performance. Items with factor loading valueslower than 0.5 were abandoned for further analysis. Among them, 2 items related to KM process and enablers hadloading value less than 0.5 or had item-to total correlation less than 0.4 were dropped. There was one item with loadingvalue lower than 0.5 for organizational performance.

5. Results

5.1 Testing the Hypothesis

(1) KM Enablers and KM Process

For the organizational structure factors, we found that centralization was a significant predictor of knowledgecreation (β=-0.17, p <0.05), which supported H1. However, formalization was not significantly related to the KMprocesses (H2 was not supported). For the organizational culture factors, collaboration, learning and development, andtrust had significant positive influences on knowledge creation, which support H3, H4, and H5. For T-shaped skill andsupport of information technology, there was no significant effect on knowledge creation.

For further analysis, we divided knowledge creation process into socialization, externalization, combination, andinternalization. Centralization had a significantly negative influence on socialization, externalization, and internalization.Collaboration had a positively significant influence on socialization and internalization. Trust was a significant predictor of allknowledge creation processes. Learning and development was significant in socialization and internalization. Support of IThad a significantly positive influence on combination.

Table 2 KM Enablers and Knowledge Creation Processes

Relationship

Centralization and knowledge creationFormalization and knowledge creationCollaboration and knowledge creationTrust and knowledge creation

Learning & development and knowledge creationT-shape skill and knowledge creationSupport of IT and knowledge creation

SocializationExternalizationCombinationInternalizationt-valuep-valuet-valuep-valuet-valuep-valuet-valuep-value-2.340.02-2.310.02-0.700.49-2.650.01-1.140.25-0.720.481.580.12-0.0.374.410.001.560.120.300.775.030.004.970.002.770.012.620.011.840.072.180.040.530.600.070.902.690.010.430.670.170.87-0.330.740.170.860.660.510.280.783.010.000.970.33

(2) KM Process and Intermediate Outcome

For the knowledge creation process, we found that knowledge creation was a significant predictor of organizationalcreativity (β=0.65, p <0.00), which support H8. For further analysis, we divided creation processes into socialization,externalization, combination, and internalization. Socialization, externalization, and combination had a significantlypositive influence on organizational creativity.

Table 3 Knowledge Creation Processes and Organizational Creativity

Relationship

Knowledge creation and organizational creativity

SocializationExternalizationCombinationInternalizationt-valuep-valuet-valuep-valuet-valuep-valuet-valuep-value2.280.0245.040.0002.670.0080.7830.434

(3) Intermediate Outcome and Organizational Performance

As proposed in hypothesis 9, organizational creativity showed a strong positive relationship with nonfinancialperformance (β=0.373, p <0.00). The strength of this association indicated a very significant relationship betweenorganizational creativity and organizational performance. However, organizational creativity was not significantlyrelated to financial performance (β=0.106, p <0.133). Thus H10 was not supported. In sum, Table 4 shows the resultsfor the hypotheses.

5.2 Findings and Implications

In the relationship between creation processes and KM enablers, variables such as organizational structure andorganizational culture are found to be significant in predicting creation processes. When organizational culture variableshave high values, creation processes are likely to be greater. In particular, trust was a significant predictor of allknowledge creation processes. Centralization was found to be negatively related to the knowledge creation; exceptcombination process, centralization affects on socialization, externalization, and internalization. Enablers such as T-shaped skill of organizational member and support of information technology were not significantly related to the

creation processes. However, support of information technology had a meaningful effect on combination process asexpected.

Table 4 Result for Hypotheses

Standardized betacoefficient

H1: Centralization and knowledge creation-0.17H2: Formalization and knowledge creation-0.02H3: Collaboration and knowledge creation0.28H4: Learning & development and knowledge creation0.27H5: Trust and knowledge creation0.11H6: T-shape skill and knowledge creation0.01H7: Support of IT and knowledge creation0.09H8: Knowledge creation and organizational creativity0.65H9: Organizational creativity and nonfinancial performance0.37H10: Organizational creativity and financial performance0.10

Hypotheses

t-value-2.58

-0.343.924.231.860.251.2712.095.691.50

ResultsNot RejectRejectNot RejectNot RejectNot RejectRejectRejectNot RejectNot RejectReject

In the relationship between creation processes and organizational creativity, we found that socialization,externalization, and combination were the significant predictors of organizational creativity. Externalization especiallyshowed a strong positive relationship with organizational creativity. The findings of this study indicated thatorganizational creativity was the significant predictors for nonfinancial performance of organization. That is, anorganization can achieve strategic benefits of KM from effective creation processes.

The nonsignificant findings in the pilot study bear discussion. We expected that technological contexts would have apositive relationship with KM. However, the study indicated that these contexts were not significantly related to KM.These results may reflect the early stage of KM in Korea. Since KM in Korea is in the introduction stage, many firmsmay have not considered technology context yet. The relationship between organizational creativity and financialmeasure may reflect the unique economy environment in Korea between 1997 and 1998. During the period, Korea hadexperienced the IMF. Therefore, many financial measures had had great fluctuation. This implies that financial measuremay not be stable in the period.

We showed that each creation process was affected by different KM enablers. For example, externalization wasnegatively affected by centralization but combination was positively affected by the support of information technology.Therefore, organizations should consider appropriate KM enablers to improve their ill-operated processes out of thefour knowledge creation processes.

6. Conclusion

We present an integrated empirical research model for KM and report results of relationships among KM enablers,KM processes, intermediate outcome, and organizational performance. There are several contributions in this paper.First, a theoretical framework is provided for empirical study on KM. Second, the relationship between KM processesand organizational performance is addressed. Third, this study attempts to find the relationships between enablers andeach creation process such as socialization, externalization, combination and internalization.

In spite of the interesting implications, this study has several limitations as follows. First, this study was the snapshotresearch that did not consider the feedback effects. Second, we surveyed one individual in each organization. Even if wetried to avoid response bias through careful questionnaire design, we were not totally free from such bias. Finally, theresults from this survey were limited to Korean firms. Therefore, the results of this study may have to be carefullyinterpreted.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported in part by a grant from KOSEF (98-0102-08-01-3)

References

[1] Alavi, M; KPMG Peat Marwick U.S.: One Giant Brain, Harvard Business School, pp75-95, 1997

[2] Amabile, T. et al; Assessing The Work Environment for Creativity. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 39 No.

5 pp1154-1184. 1966

[3] Appleyard, M; How Does Knowledge Flow? Interfirm Patterns in the Semiconductor Industry. Strategic

Management Journal. Vol. 17 (Winter Special Issue). pp137~154. 1996[4] Beckman, T: The Current State of Knowledge Management, In J. Liebowitz (Ed.), Knowledge Management

Handbook, CRC Press, pp1-1-1-22, 1999[5] Bierly, P. and Chakrabarti, A.; Generic Knowledge Strategies in the U.S. Pharmaceutical Industry. Strategic

Management Journal. Vol. 17 (Winter Special Issue). pp123~135. 1996[6] Borghoff, U. and Pareschi, R.; Information technology for knowledge management. Journal of Universal

Computer Science. Vol. 3. No. 8. pp835-842. 1997[7] Bostrom, R. and Heinen, J; MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 1, No.

3, pp17-32, 1977[8] Choi, B., and Lee, H.; Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance. INFORM-KORMS 2000 (in

press). 2000[9] Choo, C.; The Knowing Organization: A Process Model of Knowledge Management (http://choo.fis.utoronto.ca).

1998[10] Damanpour, F.; Organizational Innovation: A Meta-Analysis of Effects of Determinants and Moderators.

Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 3. pp220-227. 1991[11] Davenport, T: Knowledge Management and the Broader Firm: Strategy, Advantage, and Performance, In J.

Liebowitz (Ed.), Knowledge Management Handbook, CRC Press, pp2-1-2-11, 1999[12] Davenport, T. et al; Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review. Winter. pp43-57.

1998[13] Demarest , M; Understanding Knowledge Management. Long Range Planning. Vol. 30. No. 3. pp374-384. 1997[14] Drew, S.; From Knowledge to Action: the Impact of Benchmarking on Organizational Performance. Long Range

Planning. Vol. 30. No. 3. pp427-441. 1997[15] Glynn, M; Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligence to innovation,

Academy of Management Revies, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp1081-1111, 1996[16] Hackerman, J. and Morris, C: Group Tasks, group interaction process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A

Review and Proposed Integration, , In L. Berkowitz (Ed), Group Process, Academic, pp1-15, 1978[17] Hansen, M; The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization

Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol.44. pp82-111. 1999[18] Hedlund, G.; A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-Form Corporation. Strategic Management Journal.

Vol. 15. pp73-90. 1994[19] Holsapple, C. and Joshi, K.; Description and Analysis of Existing Knowledge Management Frameworks.

Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp1-15. 1999[20] Hurley, R.; Group Culture and Its Effect on Innovative Productivity. Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management. Vol. 12. pp57-75. 1995[21] Huemer, L. et al: Knowledge and the Concept of Trust, In G. Krough, J. Roos, and D. Kleine (Ed.), Knowing In

Firms, SAGE Publication, pp123-145, 1998[22] Ichijo, K. et al: Knowledge Enablers, In G. Krough, J. Roos, and D. Kleine (Ed.), Knowing In Firms, SAGE

Publication, pp173-203, 1998[23] Katz, R. and Tushman, M; An Investigation into the Managerial Roles and Career Paths of Gate Keepers and

Project Supervisors in a Major R&D Facility. R&D Management. Vol. 11. No. 3. pp103-110. 1981[24] Kreitner, R., and Kinicki, A.: Organizational Behavior. Homewood, Il: Richard D. Irwin, 1992

[25] Krogh, G. ; Care in the Knowledge Creation. California Management Review. Vol. 40. No.3. pp133-153. 1998

[26] Lai, H. and Chu, T;.Knowledge Management: A Review of Theoretical Frameworks and Industrial Case.

Proceedings of the 33nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. pp1-10. 2000

[27] Leonard, B.: Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Boston,

Massachusetts, Harvard Business School , 1995[28] Madhavan, R. and Grover, R.; From Embedded Knowledge to Embodied Knowledge : New Product Development

as Knowledge Management. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 62. pp1~12. 1998[29] Malhotra, Y.; Knowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations,\" In the 3rd America Conference on Information

Systems (www.brint.com/km/km.htm), 1997[30] Nevis,E., et al; Understanding Organizations as Learning Systems. Sloan Management Review. Winter. pp73~85.

1995[31] Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge Creating Company, New York, Oxford university press, 1995[32] Nonaka, I.; A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science. Vol.5. No. 1. pp14-37. 1994[33] Nonaka, I. et al ; Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory: A First Comprehensive Test. International Business

Review. Vol.3. No. 4. pp337-351. 1994[34] O'Dell, C., and Grayson, J.; If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification and Transfer of Internal Best

Practices. California Management Review. Vol. 40. No.3. pp154-174. 1998[35] Quinn, J. et al; Leveraging Intellect. Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10, No. 3. pp7-27. 1996

[36] Rapert, M., and Wren, B.; Reconsidering Organizational Structure: A Dual Perspective of Frameworks and

Processes. Journal of Managerial Issues. Vol. 10. No. 3. pp287-302. 1998[37] Reed, R., and DeFillipi.; Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage.

Academy of Management Review. Vol. 15. No. 1. pp 88-102. 1990[38] Ruggles, R.; The State of Notion: Knowledge Management in Practice. California Management Review. Vol. 40.

No.3. pp80-. 1998[39] Scott, S., and Bruce, R.; Determinants of Innovative Behavior: A Path Model of Individual Innovation in the

Workplace. The Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 37. pp580-607. 1994[40] Simonin, B.; The Importance of Collaborative Know-how: An Empirical Test of the Learning Organization.

Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 40. No. 5. pp509-533. 1997[41] Stein, B: Memory and Creativity, In J. Glover, R. Ronning, and C. Reynolds (Ed), Handbook of Creativity, Plenum

Press, pp163-176, 19[42] Sveivy, K. : The New Organizational Wealth, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler, 1997

[43] Szulanski, G.; Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice Within the Firm.

Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 17. Winter. pp27-43. 1996[44] Walker, O., and Ruckert, R.; Marketing's Role in the Implementation of Business Strategies: A Critical and

Conceptual Framework. Journal of Marketing. Vol. 51. pp15-33. 1987[45] Wiig, K. et al; Supporting Knowledge Management: A Selection of Methods and Techniques. Expert Systems

With Applications. Vol. 13. No. 1. pp15-27. 1997[46] Wiig, K.: Knowledge Management Methods, Schema Press, 1995

[47] Woodman, R. et al; Toward A Theory of Organizational Creativity. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 18. No.

2. pp293-321. 1993[48] Zack, M.; Managing Codified Knowledge. Sloan Management Review. Summer. pp45-58.1999

[49] Zander, D., and Kogut, B.; Knowledge and the Speed of the Transfer and Imitation of Organizational Capabilities:

An Empirical Test. Organization Science. Vol. 6. No. 1. pp76~92. 1995