Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination

Knwledge Management Enablers, Presses, and rganizatinal Perfrmane: An Integtive View and Empirial Examinatin HEESEK LEE AND BYUNGGU CHI HEESEK LEE is a Prfessr f Infrmatin Systems at the Gduate Shl f Management. Krea Advaned Institute f Siene and Tehnlgy, Krea. He reeived his Ph.D. in MIS frm the University f Arizna, an M.S. frm Krea Advaned Institute f Siene and Tehnlgy, and a B.S. frm Seul Natinal University. He was previusly n the faulty at the University f Nebska at maha. His researh interests inlude knwledge management. Internet business, and IS sttegy. His reent publiatins appear in Jurnal f Management Infrmatin Systems, Infrmatin and Management. Jurnal f rganizatinal Cmputing and Eletrni Cmmere, Expert Systems with Appliatins, Annals f petins Researh, Jurnal f Sy.stems and Sftware, and Infrmatin Systems. BYUNGGU CHI is an Assiate Researher at the Carlsn Shl f Management. University f Minnesta. He reeived his Ph.D. and M.S. in Management frm Krea Advaned Institute f Siene and Tehnlgy and his B.S. frm Krea University. His researh interests inlude Knwledge Management and Eletrni Cmmere. His reent publiatins appear in Jurnal f Management Infrmatin Systems. Infrmatin and Management, and Expert Systems with Appliatins. ABSTRACT: Knwledge is regnized as an imprtant weapn fr sustaining mpetitive advantage and many mpanies are beginning t manage rganizatinal knwledge. Researhers have investigated knwledge management fatrs suh as enablers, presses, and perfrmane. Hwever, mst urrent empirial researh has explred the relatinships between these fatrs in islatin. T fill this gap. this paper develps a researh mdel that internnets knwledge management fatrs. The mdel iniudes seven enablers: llabtin, trust, learning, entlizatin, frmalizatin. T-shaped skills, and infrmatin tehnlgy supprt. The emphasis is n knwledge reatin presses suh as sializatin, externalizatin. mbinatin, and iniemalizatin. T establish redibility between knwledge reatin and perfrmane, rganizatinal reativity is inrpted int the mdel. Surveys lleted frm 58 firms were analyzed t test the mdel. The results nfirmed ihe impat f trust n knwledge reatin. The infrmatin tehnlgy supprt had a psitive impat n knwledge mbinatin nly. rganizatinal reativity was fund t be ritial fr imprving perfrmane: negleting ideas an undermine a business. The results may be used as a stepping stne fr further empirial researh and an help frmulate rhust sttegies that invlve tde-ffs between knwledge management enablers. KEY WRDS AND PHRASES: knwledge-reating presses, knwledge management, knwledge management enablers, rganizatinal reativity, rganizatinal perfrmane. Jurnal f Management tnfrmtuin System.-^ / Summer 21)^.W\. 2. N. I. pp. 179-228. 23 M.E. Sharpe, In. 742-1222 / 23 $9.5 +..

18 LEE AND CHI IN RECENT YEARS, IT SEEMS AS THUGH businesses that uld apture the knwledge embedded in their rganizatin wuld wn the future. Cmpanies that islate knwledge management risk lsing its benefits. It is n surprise that knwledge is verturning the ld rules abut sttegy and mpetitin the fundatin f industrialized enmis has shifted frm natul resures t intelletual assets. In respnse, many managers and management thinkers have prlaimed an e f knwledge management. This has mpelled researhers t investigate hw knwledge is managed. Evidene is prvided by a variety f studies n knwledge [19,79,82], knwledge press [38, 7, 76. 114J, and knwledge management arhiteture [9, 21. I5. Cmpanies attempting t deply knwledge management may be nfused by a variety f effrts under way that g under the name f knwledge management [61]. Many mpanies have tried, with mixed suess, t levege knwledge assets by entlizing knwledge management funtins r by investing heavily in infrmatin tehnlgy (IT) [44]. It is understandable, when nfrnted with a new business phenmenn, t lk t new management pties fr guidane. Caught up in the genel fever, many managers may assume that knwledge management an imprve their mpanies. Hwever, despite their best effrts, mst studies have nt investigated hw mpanies an levege knwledge fr the imprved perfrmane. It is imprtant t distinguish themselves thrugh sttegies. The key questin is nt whether t manage knwledge, but hw t manage it. These sttegies shuld be validated by the use f further empirial tests. T fill this gap, prir researh has explred whih fatrs are essential fr managing knwledge effetively. ne hallenge is t deipher the relatinships amng these fatrs. Mst studies have examined the relatinships f knwledge management enablers, presses, r perfrmane in islatin. Fr example, sme researh has fused n the relatinship between enablers and presses [6,43, 114, 124]; the emphasis f ther studies is n the relatinship between enablers and rganizatinal perfrmane [8, 11, 35. 14]. Researhers and ptitiners have nt tried an integtive mdel. An integtive perspetive f the knwledge variables ba.sed n relevant theries is a neessity. It is als nted that very few empirial studies adpt a pressriented perspetive f rganizatinal knwledge [9]. Knwledge reatin r tnsfer wuld benefit mpanies mre than knwledge itself beause knwledge is nt primarily abut fats but mre abut ntext-speifi hateristis [115]. Fr example. Xerx systemizes knwledge reatin and tnsfer presses thrugh sttegi mmunities [19]. Cnsequently, anther hallenge is t levege a press-riented perspetive. The primary bjetive f this paper is t delineate an integtive view f knwledge management and prvide sttegi guidelines. Fr this purpse, this paper analyzes the previus empirial studies and attempts t fmd relatinships amng knwledge management fatrs suh as enablers, presses, and rganizatinal perfrmane. An integtive researh mdel is built frm a press-riented perspetive and then tested empirially.

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES, AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 181 Researh Bakgrund and Liteture Review Theretial Bakgrund MANY RESEARCHERS HAVE EMPHASIZED three majr fatrs fr managing knwledge: enablers, presses, and rganizatinal perfrmane [9. 21, 851. Knwledge management enablers {r influening fatrs) are rganizatinal mehanisms fr fstering knwledge nsistently [57]; they an stimulate knwledge reatin, prtet knwledge, and failitate the sharing f knwledge in an rganizatin [18]. Knwledge presses (knwledge management ativities) an be thuglit f as a strutured rdinatin fr managing knwledge effetively [35]. Typially, knwledge pres.ses inlude ativities suh as reatin, sharing, stge, and usage [2, 9]. Whereas knwledge presses represent the basi petins f knwledge [15]. enablers prvide the infstruture neessary fr the rganizatin t inrease the effiieny f knwledge presses [96]. rganizatinal perfrmane may be defined as the degree t whih mpanies ahieved its business bjetives [28]. It may be measured in terms f rganizatinal learning, prfitability, r ther finanial benefits in knwledge management [ 18, 14[. Withut measuble suess, passin frm emplyees and managers will vanish [851. There is a genel regnitin amng aademis that knwledge management is a rss-funtinal and multifaeted disipline. A variety f mpnents make up knwledge management and the understanding f their intetin is imprtant; a hlisti view is very useful [8]. T this end, an integtive researh mdel is neessary; that is, the relatinships amng knwledge enablers. presses, and rganizatinal perfrmane an he identified within the fmewrk f systems thinking. Systems thinking thery nsiders prbiems in their entirety 1951. This thery is better able t desribe mplex and dynami hateristis f knwledge management in a systemati fashin. Therefre, ur integtive fmewrk will be based n this systems thinking thery. ur primary researh fus is n the relatinships between knwledge enablers and rganizatinal perfrmane by elabting n the signifiane f knwledge presses as the fundatin f rganizatinal advantage [79]. The relatinship amng these three mpnents is nthing new; it an be fund in the input-press-utput mdel by Hakerman and Mrris [41]. The mdel assumes that the input fatrs affet utput perfrmanes thrugh ertain kinds f intetin presses; knwledge management enablers affet rganizatinai perfrmane thrugh knwledge presses. This relatinship is als explained by the use f the knwledge-hain mdel prpsed by Hlsapple and Singh [51 ]. This mdel suggests that leadership estahlish enabling nditins fr ahieving rganizatinal utme thrugh the knwledge management ativities suh as aquisitin, genetin, internalizatin, and extemalizatin. It means that knwledge enablers (e.g.. leadership) affet rganizatinal utme thrugh knwledge presses. A diret relatinship between knwledge presses and rganizatinal perfrmane is nt explred yet. Beause many fatrs influene the determinatin f the rganizatinal perfrmane, attempts t te ausality t any single fatr suh as knwledge

182 LEE AND CHI Enablers, Press - Intemidiat utme L rgai ^tinal Pertrmane Figure I. An Integtive Researh Fmewrk fr Studying Knwledge Management press may be risky. In rder t understand the effet fthe knwledge presses n rganizatinal perfmiane, intermediate utmes (fr example, knwledge satisfatin r rganizatinal reativity) may be intrdued [18]. Intermediate uttnes reflet different aspets f an rganizatin's perfrmane, bth finanial and nnfinanial. This inrptin may help nfirm that enablers ultimately reate business value. In sum, this paper prpses a researb fmewrk as sbwn in Figure 1. Previus Empirial Studies Previus empirial studies have investigated tbe relatinsbips amng knwledge management fatrs. They an be lassified int fur ategries depending n hw they identify tbe relatin.ships: (1) relatinships between knwledge enablers; (2) relatinships between knwledge enablers and press; (3) relatinsbips between knwledge press and rganizatinal perfrmane; and (4) relatinsbips amng knwledge enablers. presses, and rganizatinal perfrmane. Tbis mparisn may be highlighted as sbwn in Figure 2. The studies under tbe first ategry fus n tbe relatinsbips amng knwledge enablers. Tbe emphasis is n the examinatin f tbe effet f knwledge enablers. T identify (his effet, they have investigated varius knwledge enablers suh as knwledge management methds, struture, and ulture. Fr example. Bennett and Gabriel [1] analyzed a number f knwledge management metbds in view f i^anizatinal strutuns, ulture, size, and envirnment. Tbe send ategry explres the relatinships between knwledge enablers and knwledge presses. A entl prpsitin is that knwledge enablers (e.g., industry hateristis r knwledge hateristis) shuld influene knwledge presses (e.g.. tnsfer). Zander and Kgut [124] prpsed that the tnsfer f rganizatinal apabilities be related t the hateristis f sial knwiedge; tbey analyzed the effets f the ease f difying manufaturing apabilities n its tnsfer time. Appleyard [6] explred knwledge tnsfer patterns amng varius natins and industries. Szulanski 1114 investigated the relatinship between fur rigins f stikiness (hateristis f the knwledge tnsferred, tbe sure, the reipient, and the ntext in wbib the tnsfer takes plae) and knwledge tnsfer. Hansen [43] emplyed the ntin f mplex knwledge t explain the rle f weak ties in tnsferring knwledge in a multiunit rganizatin. The tbird ategry examines the reiatinships between knwledge enablers and rganizatinal perfrmane. Tbe purpse f these studies is t sharpen the understanding fthe effets f knwledge enablers (e.g., knwledge management sttegy)

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES. AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE!83 rganizatinal Perfrmane Zander AKgm [1995] Appleyard [ 1996] S7.ulanski 1996],, Hansen 11999! Figure 2. Researh Mdels fr Studying Knwledge Management Nte: RA = Return n Assets RS = Return n 5ales n rganizatinal perfrmane (e.g., return n assets [RA] r return n sales (RS)). Bierly and Chakbarti [11] tried t identify hw knwledge management sttegies affet rganizatinal perfrmane. They analyzed knwledge sttegies f 21 U.S. pharmaeutial mpanies that had been ategrized int explrers, expliters, lners, and innvatrs. Simnin [14] tested the relatinships amng llabtive experiene, knw-hw, and ahievement f rganizatinal perfrmane. He prpsed that the experiene f a firm has t be tnsfrmed int knw-hw befre it uld imprve rganizatinal perfrmane. The emphasis f the furth ategry is n relatinships amng knwledge enablers. knwledge presses, and rganizatinal perfrmane. The primary bjetive f these studies is t identify and assess knwledge enablers (e.g., task r infstruture apabilities) and presses {e.g., reatin r their apabilities) fr imprving rganizatinal perfrmane (e.g., knwledge satisfatin r rganizatinal effetiveness). Beer-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] prpsed a ntingeny fmewrk inluding tw attributes f the rganizatinal subunit's tasks press r ntent rientatin, and fused r bd dmain^ and linked them t Nnaka's knwledge reatin press [82]. The relatinship between knwledge reatin press and knwledge satisfatin was als investigated. Gld et al. [35] analyzed tw relatinships: ne

184 LEE AND CHI between infstruture apabilities and rganizatinal effetiveness, and the ther between press apabilities and rganizatinal effetiveness. Table I mpares these previus studies. Synthesis f Previus Studies Synthesis f previus studies yields sme bservatins. First, an integtive mdel is still missing. Althugh sme studies investigate the relatinships amng knwiedge enablers. presses, r rganizatinal perfrmane 8, 35), they fail t explre the relatinships between enablers and presses simultaneusly. If managers understand these relatinships in an integtive fashin, they ean stand a better hane f imprving their firm's perfrmane. Send, the rle f knwledge management presses is nt nsistent. Sme studies regnized bth knwledge enablers and presses as anteedents f rganizatinal perfrmane [8, 351. ther sludies regnized knwledge enablers as prenditins f knwiedge presses [6, 43, 114, 124J. Therefre, the hallenge is t larify the rle f knwledge management presses [18]. Third, measuring knwledge management perfrmane is still diffiult. Sme studies aptured the ntributin by the use f knwledge management utme measures suh as knwledge satisfatin [8], whereas thers adpted nventinal perfrmane measures suh as RA [ 11, 14] r rganizatinal effetiveness [35]. It wuld appear that the frmer studies take the relatinship between knwledge management utme and rganizatinal perfrmane fr gnted althugh the relatinship has nt been validated. The results f the latter studies shuld be examined arefully beause the diret relatinship between knwledge management presses and rganizatinal perfrmane has nt been validated yet [18]. Furth, the knwledge tnsfer press has been studied extensively [6, 43, 114, 124] whereas the ther presses suh as reatin r utilizatin have reeived relatively little attentin. In partiular, sme studies have suggested that knwledge reatin is mst ritial fr an rganizatin's lng-term suess [3]. Mrever, knwledge tnsfer has been assessed by the use f bjet-perspetive measures suh as time t tnsfer [124], number f times f knwiedge tnsfer [6], r perentage f tnsferred knwledge [43. Reently, sme researhers have tried t measure knwledge presses themselves [8. 35]. Fr example, Beer-Fernandez and Sabherwal [8] measured the apaity fr knwledge reatin by Nnaka's knwledge reatin mdel, nt by the use f reatin utput suh as the number f reated ideas r patents. A Researh Mdel UR BJECTIVE IS NEITHER T PRPSE a mdel that delineates all f the relatinships underlying knwledge management nr t genete a lnger list f pssible knwledge enablers r presses that affet rganizatinal perfrmane. Therefre,

185 an 3 ien CD D) C x: "!t LU E B i Q E ri & a. E 52 S 5 E «. g.ffl ^.y Q ^ Q. "t x; ( r t.. t:; 1' - r.^ 11 r 9 n ^ m t i; 3 a a a N C n3 b- J I I I ) C V DI E 1 ^ 3 Q) ^ C ^ C V ^^ (1) D) 5) ) ^ -. " «1 ll E 2 g S I- := a. ^ a T3 5 J E LU ) TJ X3 C & ust in X) CC l CL 6 U Si a. IS TJ «T3 T3 N g Q.

186 55 ) ffl ^ i3 X] E 5 " E ^ " _ -^ {>5 M i rt\ 9^ ^ ^ x: ^ S z: " i= ^ ffl ff = r ^ a) ;= a P.12m g 9 ffl ^ S a).=: -JJ Illlll GJ T3 P.9? 2 m w = *:.5 Sj 2 ffl 15 JS Q. 9 N i 2 ^ I i 1 1 I E t ^ i9 " d a 1/i < CC QC ^ < a» IS I 5) - «i2 tt s Cfl 3 w) ) (nv a. ai nsi nsf " 2 ij >: *..2 ^ U -D 1 Q..^ 3.9- ) W ) ( T5 t C tt.,q -^ [^ S re El 5 ^ ) _ g- s 9 I.2 E

187 3 T3 S r ( f p J:^ in k " ffl «t ij L_ - - ' 3 _^ "*".E =: m C *- *- N C 1^ 2 i "S H S r f -S T) w.y r, a 3 U U) g aa. -a g N ial tin, eati terna mbin ernai N X <D ".9 "5 in). N ~ '^ ( «J Z3 X) a t> u il a w Q -5 r :. e 5 5 g Q- r "S "D 8 P ii CJ P X} Q. r u CD _3 3 t 3 m p 3 3l^ CJ C!Z a. _ I/: C ^_ (L a N a r m CC ' t r f a. u

188 LEE AND CHI ur mdel highlights a few majr fatrs that an explain a large prprtin f the variane in knwledge management. Variables Enahlers A variety f knwledge management enablers have been addressed in the liteture [57, 7. 97. Amng these enablers. rganizatinal ulture, struture, peple., and IT are inrpted int ur researh mdel. rganizatinal ulture is the mst imprtant fatr fr suessful knwledge management [15. 2, 21, 35]. Culture defines nt nly what knwledge is valued, but als what knwledge must be kept inside the rganizatin fr sustained innvative advantage [71]. rganizatins shuld establish an apprpriate ulture that enuges peple t reate and share knwledge within an rganizatin [49, 7]. This study fuses n llabtin, trust, and learning n the basis fthe nept f are [29]. Care is a key enabler fr rganizatinal relatinships [68]. When rganizatinal relatinships are fstered thrugh are, knwledge an be reated and shared. The rganizatinal struture within an rganizatin may enuge r inhibit knwledge management [35, 47, 82]. Fr example, Ihij et al. 57] insisted that firms shuld maintain nsisteny between their strutures t put their knwledge t use. ur study inludes tw key strutul fatrs suh as entlizatin and frmalizatin [77[. They are regnized as key variables underlying the strutul nstrut. Mrever, their effets n knwledge management within rganizatins are widely regnized t be ptent [29, 59, 72. 91 ]. Peple are at the heart f reating rganizatinal knwledge [ 15,49, 8]. It is peple wh reate and share knwledge. Therefre, managing peple wh are willing t reate and share knwiedge is imprtant [85]. Knwledge and mpetene an be aquired by admitting new peple with desible skills [18]. In partiular, T-shaped skills embdied in emplyees are mst ften assiated with re apability [56,6, 7]. T-shaped skills may enable individual speialists t have synergisti nversatins with ne anther [74]. Tehnlgy ntributes t knwledge management [35]. This tehnlgy infstruture inludes IT and its apabilities [9, 99]. IT is widely emplyed t nnet peple with reusable dified knwledge, and it failitates nversatins t reate new knwledge. Amng tehnlgy-related variables, this study fuses n IT supprt [18]. ITs allw an rganizatin t reate, share, stre, and use knwledge [7]. Therefre, the supprt f IT is essential fr initiating and arrying ut knwledge management. Enablers may be strutured based upn a si-tehnial thery [86]. This thery desribes an rganizatin frm the sial and tehnial perspetives. The tw perspetives are nt unique t management infrmatin systems CMIS) researh [12]; they are made up f tw jintly independent but rrelative inteting mpnents. rganizatinal ulture, rganizatinal struture, and peple are sial enablers; IT is

KM ENABLERS, PRCESSES, AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 189 a tehnial enabler. Fr the sake f larity, we nsider the impat f eah knwledge enabler independently. Presses A number f studies bave addressed knwledge management presses; they divide knwledge management int sevel presses. Fr example. Alavi and Leidner 12] nsidered fur presses suh as reatin, stge, tnsfer, and appliatin. These presses are ften nurrent and nt always in a linear sequene 19]. Amng these presses, reatin-related ativities (fr example, reatin [2] r nstrutin [21 ]) beme imprtant beause knwledge reatin is a sttegi weapn in tday's glbal marketplae; withut the nstant reatin f knwledge, a business is ndemned t bslesene [83, 87]. Knwledge reatin is a ntinuus press whereby individuals and grups within a firm and between firms share tait and expliit knwledge 82]. Althugh a great deal has been disussed abut the imprtane f knwledge reatin, there is relatively little empirial evidene [9]. Therefre, the emphasis f this study is n knwledge reatin. T explre knwledge reatin, ur study adpts the SECl (sializatin, externalizatin. mbinatin, internalizatin) mdel by Nnaka and Takeuhi [82 fr the fllwing reasns. First, their wrk has beme widely aepted [98]; it has been used in many researh areas suh as rganizatinal learning, new prdut develpment, and IT [98, 99]. Send, their mdel inludes nt nly knwledge reatin but als knwledge tnsfer. The tnsfer f existing knwledge and the reatin f new knwledge are imprtant, and bth f them shuld be nsidered in knwiedge management [69]. Their SECI mdel is made up f fur intertwined ativity mdes; sializatin (S), externalizatin (E), mbinatin (C), and internalizatin (I). Sializatin nverts tait knwledge int new tait knwledge thrugh sial intetins amng members. Externalizatin difies tait knwledge int expliit nepts. Cmbinatin nverts expliit knwledge int mre systemati sets by mbining key piees. Internalizatin embdies expliit knwledge int tait knwledge. Intermediate utme In rder t ahieve a better understanding f knwledge management perfrmane, mpanies shuld attempt t link knwledge presses with intermediate utmes [18]. An imprtant intermediate utme is rganizatinal reativity, whih prvides a key t the understanding f rganizatinal effetiveness and survival [122]. ur mdel inrptes rganizatinal reativity beause it is the seed f all innvatin [5] and at the very heart f knwledge management [4]. rganizatinal reativity tnsfrms knwledge int business value. Negleting rganizatinal reativity an quikly undermine a business. The relatinship between knwledge reatin and rganizatinal reativity bas reeived relatively little attentin despite its high ptential [119].

19 LEE AND CHI rganizatinal Perfrmane Measuring rganizatinal perfrmane is nt a trivial task beause it strngly affets the behavir f managers and emplyees. The ultimate test f any business is whether it leads t measuble imprvements in rganizatinal perfrmane. Methds fr measuring rganizatinal perfrmane in knwledge management an be ategrized int fur grups: finanial measures [11], intelletual apital [11], tangible and intangible benefits [14], and balaned sreard 163]. This study adpts a speifi measure, whih is develped and validated by Deshpande el al. [22] and Drew [25]. This measure an be thught f as a variatin fthe balaned sreard methd. The balaned sreard retains fmanial perfrmane and supplements it with measures n the drivers f future ptential. In additin, it is mre useful than intelletual apital r a tangible and intangible apph beause it shws ause and effet links between knwledge mpnents and rganizatin sttegies [63]. In summary, ur empirial researh mdel illusttes the relatinship amng variables as shwn in Figure 3. In ttal, the mdel nsists f 13 variables. Hyptheses ur hyptheses are largely derived frm theretial statements made in the liteture n knwledge management. We present ur hyptheses thrugh the fllwing variables. Cllabtin Cllabtin may be defined as the degree t whih peple in a grup atively help ne anther in their wrk [55]. Cllabtive ulture affets knwledge reatin thrugh inreasing knwledge exhange [68, 79]. Exhanging knwledge amng different members is a prerequisite fr knwledge reatin. Cllabtive ulture fsters this type f exhange by reduing fear and inreasing penness t ther members. Fr example, Zuker et al. [126] nfirmed the signifiane f llabtive ulture in knwledge reatin by examining the bitehnlgy industry. Cllabtin between rganizatinal members als tightens individuai differenes [7]. It an help peple develp a shared understanding abut an rganizatin's external and internal envirnments thrugh supprtive and refletive mmuniatin. Withut shared understanding amng rganizatinal members, little knwledge is ever reated 13, 47]. We d nt have a priri reasn t expet a diflerent relatinship. HI: There is a psitive relatinship between llabtin and knwledge reatin press. Trust Trust an be defined as maintaining reipl faith in eah ther in terms f intentin and behavirs [67]. Trust may failitate pen, substantive, and influential knwiedge

KM EN.A,BL RS. PRCESSES. AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 191 Knwledge Management Enablrs Culture Cllabtin Trust LeaminK Knwledge Creatin Knwledge Management rganizatinal Intermediate utme Perfnnane Sial perspetive Struture Cerulizaiin Frmalizatin Peple Siatizabn Exiemaliuitin Cmbinwin Iirternalizalin rganizatinal reaiiviiy rganizatinal perfrmane T-shaped skills Infrmatin Tehnlgy rr Suppn Figure 3. A Researh Mdel exhange [81, 85]. When their relatinships are high in trust, peple are mre willing t partiipate in knwledge exhange [79]. Szulanski [1141 empirially fund that the lak f trust amng emplyees is ne f the key barriers against knwledge exhange. The inrease in knwledge exhange brught n by mutual trust results in knwledge reatin. Trust als enuges a limate nduive t better knwledge reatin by alleviating the fear f risk. The presene f a high level f trust an redue this risk [81, 92, 1]. Trust is als ritial in a rss-funtinal r interrganizatina! team beause withhlding infrmatin beause f a lak f trust an be espeially harmful t knwledge reatin [47, 59]. Therefre, we wuld expet the fllwing relatinship t hld true: H2: There is a p.sitive relatinship hetween trust and knwledge reatin press. Learning Learning an be defined as the degree t whih it is enuged in rganizatins [55]. The emphasis n learning infuses an rganizatin with new knwledge 117]. Learning is the aquisitin f new knwledge by peple wh are able and willing t apply that knwledge in making deisins r influening thers [78]. Thrugh the emphasis n learning and develpment, rganizatins an help individuals play mre ative rles in knwledge reatin. Kanevsky and Husel [62] insisted that the amunt f time spent n learning is psitively related with the amunt f knwledge. Fr suessful knwledge reatin, rganizatins shuld develp a deeply ingined learning ulture

192 LEE AND CHI [88] and prvide varius learning means suh as eduatin, tining, and mentring [112, 113]. Fr example, Nur [39], whih has been the mst innvative steel mpany in the United States, built a knwledge reatin fundatin by investing in ntinuus and multifuntinal tining prgms. Hene, we hypthesize: H3: There is a psitive relatinship between learning and knwledge reatin press. Centlizatin Centlizatin refers t the lus f deisin authrity and ntrl within an rganizatinal entity [14, 27]. The nenttin f deisin-making authrity inevitably redues reative slutins, wbereas the dispersin f pwer failitates spntaneity, experimentatin, and the freedm f expressin, whih are the lifebld f knwledge reatin [37]. Mrever, entlized struture hinders interdepartmental mmuniatin and frequent sharing f ideas [ 122] due t time-nsuming mmuniatin hannels [1]; it als auses distrtin and disntinuu.sness f ideas [ I8. Withut a nstant flw f mmuniatin and ideas, knwledge reatin des nt ur. A deentlized rganizatinal struture has been fund t failitate an envirnment where emplyees partiipate in knwledge building press mre spntaneusly [52]. Partiipatry wrk envirnments fster knwledge reatin by mtivating rganizatinal members' invlvements. Therefre, dereased entlizatin in the frm f lus f authrity an lead t inreased reatin f knwledge [16, 18. 115]. We advane the furth hypthesis: H4: There is a negative relatinship between entlizatin and knwledge reatin press. Frmatizatin Frmalizatin refers t the degree t whih deisins and wrking relatinships are gverned by frmal rules, standard pliies, and predures [49, 89. Knwledge reatin requires flexibility and less emphasis n wrk rules [57, 73]. The nge f new ideas seems t be restrited when strit frmal rules dminate an rganizatin. Flexibility an ammdate better ways f ding things [37]. Therefre, the inreased flexibility in an rganizatinal struture an result in inreased reatin f knwledge. Knwledge reatin als requires variatin [121]. In rder t be mre adaptable when unfreseen prblems arise, an rganizatin may ammdate variatin in press and struture. Lw frmalizatin permits penness and variatin, whih enuge new ideas and behavirs [17]. Knwledge reatin is als likely t be enuged thrugh unhindered mmuniatins and intetins [1]. Frmality stifles the mmuniatin and intetin neessary t reate knwledge. Lak f frmal struture tends t enable rganizatinal members t mmuniate and intet with ne anther t reate knwledge 159]. Hene, we hypthesize:

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES. AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 193 H5: There is a negative rvlatinship between frmalizatin and knwledge reatin press. T-Shaped Skills T-shaped skills are bth deep (the vertial part f the 'T") and bd (the hrizntal part fthe "T'); that is, their pssessrs an explre partiular knwledge dmains and their varius appliatins in partiular prduts [7]. Fr example, persns with T-shaped skills nt nly have a deep knwledge f a disipline (like emi materials engineering), but als knw hw their disipline intets with ther disiplines (suh as plymer pressing) 156]. Peple with T-shaped skills are extremely valuable fr reating knwledge beause tbey an integte diverse knwledge assets [7]. They have the ability bth t mbine theretial and ptial knwledge and t see hw their bnh f knwledge intets with ther bnbes. Therefre, they an expand their mpetene arss sevel funtinal bnh areas, and thus reate new kjiwledge [6, 74]. H6: There is a psitive relatinship between the presene f the rganizatinal members with T-shaped skills and knwledge reatin press. IT Supprt IT supprt means the degree t whih knwledge management is supprted by the use f ITs [35. Many researhers have fund that IT is a ruial element fr knwledge reatin [ 19, 36, 39]. IT affets knwledge in a variety f ways. First, IT failitates pid lletin, stge, and exhange f knwledge n a sale nt ptiable in tbe past, thereby assisting the knwledge reatin press [92]. Send, a welldevelped tehnlgy integtes fgmented flws f knwledge [35]. This integtin an eliminate barriers t mmuniatin amng departments in rganizatin. Third, IT fsters all mdes f knwledge reatin and is nt limited t the tnsfer f expliit knwledge [9, 91, 99). Fr instane, InfTEST's enhaned prdut realizatin (EPR) prjet emplys eletrni whitebarding and videnferening t enhane exhanges f tait knwledge [91]. Thus, we hypthesize: H7: There is a psitive relatinship between IT supprt and knwledge reatin press. rganizatinal Creativity rganizatinal reativity is the apability f reating valuable and useful prduts, servies, ideas, r predures by individuals wrking tgether in a mplex sial system [5, 122]. Knwledge plays an imprtant rle in the ability f the rganizatin t be reative [1191. Thus, rganizatins with better knwledge diffusin and reating mehanisms are mre intelligent [34. rganizatinal reativity als nnets and rearnges knwledge t reate new, ften surprising ideas that thers judge t be

194 LEE AND CHI useful [65]. Creativity is nt neessarily related t tbe amunt f knwledge that an emplyee pssesses, but ther the way in whih knwledge is reated and shared [4]. The presses f knwledge reatin unleash rganizatinal reativity. Natully, rganizatinal reativity has a strng link with knwledge reatin [119]. H8: There is a psitive relatinship between the knwledge reatin press and rganizatinal reativity. rganizatinal Perfrmane In ur study, rganizatinal peribrmane is assessed hy the use f glbal utput measures suh as market share, prfitability, grwth te, innvativeness. suessfulness, and the size f business in mparisn with key mpetitrs [22, 25]. In a knwledge-based enmy, rganizatinal reativity represents a dmati rganizatinal hange. Rbinsn and Stern [93] insisted that the tangible results f rpte reativity are the rganizatinal hange suh as imprvements (hanges t what is already dne) and innvatins (entirely new ativities fr the mpany), Withut reativity, rganizatins may fail t adapt t hanging internal and external nditins 88[, and thus lse their knwledge advantage. Typially, the gals f rganizatinal hange inlude the varius aspets f rganizatinal peribrmane suh as rganizatinal effetiveness, survival, imprvement, r innvatin. rganizatinal perfrmane an be thught f as the utput f a press that enuges reativity [97]. Thus, imprvements f reativity might lead t better rganizatinal perfrmane [18, 88, 12]. We hypthesize that: H9: There is a psitive relatinship between rganizatinal reativity and rganizatinal perfrmane. Sample and Measures SAMPLES WERE RESTRICTED T THE LISTED MPANIES in rder t inlude majr mpanies in Krea. Annual Crptin Reprts by Maeil Business Newspaper [75] is the sure fr sampling beause it analyzes all listed mpanies in the Krea Stk Exhange. Therefre, the unit f analysis in this study is the rganizatin. We adpted bth interviews and mail surveys. Interviews were used t investigate the urrent detailed status f knwledge management. This investigatin inluded knwledge management pties suh as the number f mmunities f ptie, the te f use f tbe knwledge management system, and the st f investment in knwledge management ativities. Althugh interview data is nt analyzed statistially, they were valuable fr ur interpretatin. After the interview, a questinnaire-based survey was nduted. Questinnaires were administered t a ttal f 1,425 middle managers in 147 rganizatins. Depending n eah individual firm's size, five t 15 middle managers were surveyed frm eah firm. Middle managers were reahed thrugh their CEs r CIs. A typial jb title f a middle manager was department hief. Middle managers were surveyed

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES. AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 195 beause they played key rles in managing knwledge. Middle managers are psitined at the intersetin f the vertial and hrizntal flws f knwiedge. Thus, they an synthesize the tait knwledge f bth tp managers and frntline emplyees, make it expliit, and inrpte it int new prduts and servies [82. A multiple-item methd was used t nstrut the questinnaires. Eah item was based n a six-pint Likert sale, frm "very lw" t "very high." Likert sales as genelly used tend t underestimate the extreme psitins [3]. Respndents are relutant t express an extreme psitin even if they have it. They tend t please the interviewer, appear helpful, r respnd in what they pereive t be a sially aeptable answer. Resrting t a sale withut a midpint seems t help mllify this sial desibility bias withut hanging the diretin f pinin [32]. The six-pint Likert sale avids a midpint, whih prevents respndents frm using a neutl default ptin [5]. The questinnaires were written in Krean. Researh nstruts were petinalized n the basis f related studies and pilt tests. The petinal definitins f instruments and their related liteture are summarized in Appendix A. Mst f the researh nstruts have already been validated and used fr ther studies n knwledge management, rganizatinal design, learning, r IT management. Fr example, frmalizatin items have already been validated and used by Caruana et al. 114] and Rapert and Wren [89]. Self-reprted items have been used t assess rganizatinal perfrmane [22, 25]. Althugh these items d nt pre.sent a fully balaned sreard, they are effetive fr mparing business units and industries [25]. Questinnaire items fr the knwledge reatin press, whih were used in this study, had been validated and used by Nnaka et al. 183]. Analysis Sample Chateristis IN TTAL, 451 QUESTINNAIRES FRM 63 ut f 147 firms were returned (43 perent respnse te). The tes frm individual firms nged frm 23 t 1 perent. Due t inmplete data, 25 respnses frm five tirms were eliminated. Cnsequently, 426 respnses frm 58 firms were analyzed. Table 2 summarizes the respndent hateristis in terms f industry type, departments, ttal sales revenue, and number f ttal emplyees. Samples are divided int three industry types: manufaturing, servie, and finanial business (banking, finane, insune). The majrity f these firms are in the servie industry. Thirty-tw firms have annual ttal sales revenue f $1 billin r mre, and 31 firms have 1, emplyees r mre. As mentined previusly, samples were lleted frm varius middle managers. Reliability and Validity Analysis Table 3 presents the results f reliability and validity tests. An analysis was perfrmed n the 36 items that measured the mpnents f knwledge enablers; ther analyses

196 t in r^cm CD ) CD T- 1- -1- T- J CJ J * I ^ ffi J X) 3.9 5) =. 'is ffl 3 T3 C ^ "- E E ^ CD n t^ CD jr U 1) - a. S r4 3 T3 3 a. C

- ^ u r-; vi l d r-; C\J ) irj TT B 6 in ill E L ffl ssthi millin illi illi billi billi g 1 q E % u ** e T 1 billi Ilin lillin ffi ) in ; in g ),Q ^ E T u d) g B billi tai L ^, s "aj CU _l L PJ Lfi,, 3, $ CD.Q CD a> T3 C " t

198 C a > r^ ^ 1- r- n in > Cl C r3 fj "^ Q > b H CJ> r-.. ^ ^ t^ fv. <6 <D <D <D j j ^ j r C M t~-cc\jccd'-cc t C n -- y =^U * t CD CD <* h- CJ 1- in en en ) d d d < d N Q 1 ^ CJ d d T 3 d N. l -- N <p W (N J 5 8 t: gy -^ * I i ( I I a. ( lii _ q ^ q ^ p ^ ^ ^ 3 CC 3 J3 B S B CD = ^ r-. B C Q X t;

199 ddddddddddddddddddddddddd vj CD 1-1- d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d Eg CVJ Lfi d in LU CC LL 2 E

2.E ^ B 3 Q n is _ 3 tj s *- ' j in 1-1- ) <- S i t- r>- t~-; d d d d> d CR in CM h- in CD N- h-; CC) j r^ d d d d d * fh Uj > f E S " " q- r- "^ -I- 51- CM "^ CM r- CD ^ r^ r^ r^ CD d d d d d en CM CD 1 h- Ln IN h- If) h- h- d d d d d SI 2 U CD n j i E.^. : tu.9 6 Q U E t (DQ.

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES, AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 21 were perfrmed n the 2 items fr the knwledge reatin presses, n the five items fr rganizatinal reativity, and n the six items fr rganizatinal perfrmane. Crnbah's alpha is used fr examining the reliability f the instruments. A higher utff value f.7 may be used beause these instruments have been adpted previusly [84]. All nstruts had higher than.7 utff alpha value, nging frm.839 t.923. Fr nvergent validity, items having item-t-ttal rrelatin sres lwer than.4 were drpped frm further analysis. ne item relating t rganizatinal perfnnane had an item-t-ttal rrelatin f less than.4 and thus was eliminated frm further analysis. Fatr analysis is used t hek disriminant validity [64]. Beause eah variable was measured by multi-item nstruts, fatr analysis with varimax was adpted t hek the unidimensinality amng items. Items with fatr lading values lwer than.5 were deleted. There was ne item with fatr lading f lwer than.5 fr the knwledge reatin presses. A fatr analysis fr the knwledge enablers and knwledge reatin presses is shwn in Table 4. Relatively high values f reliability and validity imply that the instruments used in this study are adequate. All the measures used in this study are reprted in Appendix B. Inter-Rater Reliability atid Agreement Atialysis Whereas the unit f analysis in this study is the rganizatin, the questinnaire was distributed t rganizatinal members t measure hateristis f their rganizatins. Therefre, answers frm the same rganizatin shuld be aggregated and used as an rganizatinal indiatr. Given the pereptual nature f the measures and the nversin f individual respnses int rganizatinal indiatrs, inter-ter reliability and agreement analysis are neessary [118]. Inter-ter reliability is defined as an index f nsisteny, whih represents nsisteny f variane amng ters [66J. In ntst, agreement is defined as the interhangeability amng ters, whih addresses the extent t whih ters make the same tings f58]. The inter-ter reliability was as.sessed by the use f the interlass rrelatin effiient (ICC). Beause eah mpany was ted by a different ter and their tings were aveged, ICC {I,k) was apprpriate. ICC (i,k) is alulated by ne-way analysis f variane (ANVA) [13]. James et al. f58 develped indies apprpriate fr within-grup agreement fr a set f ters ting a single target with a single item t^gn) r multiple-item sale (r^^y,)- Fr ur study, r^.g^j^ is adpted. Table 5 summarizes the results f inter-ter reliability and agreement. A number f management studies suggest that ICC nging frm. 512 t.991 and r,^,_ nging frm.69 t.96 [5,46] are apprpriate. ur results are nsistent with these ICC and r^.^,j, nges, and thus inter-ter reliability and agreement may be guanteed. Regressin Analysis A multiple regressin analysis tests ur hyptheses. Fr eah hypthesis, mdels were nm fr eah f the dependent variables sepately as shwn in Figure 4. ur mdel is

22 Fatr 7 CDCDCSIint l ^ C) Q) ^^ 1^ ^ t- ^ > t If) ddddddd ^^ r^ ( r^ f^ d d tr 6 a a. dddddddd d ddddd LL dddddddddddddddd u 2 P- dddddddddddddddd -in : X 6 s tnxes 1 lers 42 V e led items u _^ ent fr I rix E Fa "" Fai tn u u, 1-1 n Variabi dddddddddddddddd dddddddddddddddd ^ ^ p ^ ^ q q q dddddddddd p

23 ^ N. t D i - > C N i - C C D C D > ^ r - C - i - C D ) a CM ^ T CM'""' C M ^ ^ ^ T r ddddpdddddddpdddd g Q Q ^ q q q q j q q dddddddiiddddddddddd 3> l > m h* T t ify ^ CM ^ J ^ L t - - C m l C D ' CM"* l l f l t D i [ ^ C C ' ' ^ C ^ CM C\J '^ C M T C M ^ ^ T C M C ^ J J ^ ppdaiidddddddddddd s q ; q q q q jjaddddddcdddddd 'nin^idcmnmmifiiee'jh- qqmi-pqq-i-qqmeqtdeqh- ddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddddd LLLJiilLrirKKKHKbbbbb

24 ^ q p p q q ddddd u a. E3 u C p q ddddddddddddddddd em D 1 CN ddddddddddddddddddd 3 C ^j(dcntiftur>^ifi' '^in'^'^ ddddddddddddddddddd U CnLULULJJUJUJII^y^H U

KM ENABLERS, PRCESSES. AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 25 Table 5. Results f Inter-Rater Reliability and Agreement Variables Indies ICC(l,k) Knwledge reatin press Knwledge management enablers rganizatinal reativity Sializatin Extemalizatin Cmbinatin Internalizatin Cllabtin Trust Learning Centlizatin Frmalizatin T-shaped skills IT supprt rganizatinal perfrmane.6627.6468.5252.5285.681.837.6863.5632.6983.5236.7515.739.8397.8138.8815.8522.8633.8691.8929.8927.8426.8393.823.846.8552.861 nt meaningful if the rrelatin between enablers and the knwledge reatin press is nt signifiant. Therefre, the knwledge reatin press is nsidered as an aggregated variable, and its rrelatin is mputed. We then test eah hypthesis t fmd whih enablers are mre imprtant fr knwledge reatin and whih presses are mre imprtant fr rganizatinal perfrmane. T meet the assumptins f regressin analysis, we examined Ihe linearity, nstant variane, and nrmality 42]. Beause the satterplts f individual variables d nt indiate any nnlinear relatinships, the linearity is guanteed. Pltting the studentized residuals against the predited value shws that n variable vilates the nstant variane. The result frm the nrmal prbability plt and Klmgrv-Smimv tests indiates n vilatin f nrmality (statisti =.5 -.96. p >.2). The vell regressin mdel (fr fmding the relatinship between the knwledge reatin press and enablers) is signifiant [F = 51.771,/7 <.). R- (.879) suggests that 87.9 perent f the variane is explained by seven variables. The result f the llinearity test (VIF = 1.429-3.725) shws n multillinearity prblem. Atialysis Results TABLE 6 SUMMARIZES UR REGRESSIN RESULTS. In rder t prvide a better presentatin f signifiant relatinships. Figure 5 has been prvided. Cllabtin, trust, learning, and entlizatin are fund t be relatively signifiant preditrs fr knwledge reatin. rganizatinal ulture variables are fund t be essential fr knwledge reatin. Cllabtin is psitively related with sializatin, extemalizatin, and intemalizatin, whereas it des nt affet the mbinatin mde. In partiular, trust is a signifiant preditr f all knwledge reatin mdes. Centlizatin is negatively related with sializatin, extemalizatin, and internalizatin while it is nt signifiantly related with mbinatin. By ntst, frmalizatin and T-shaped skills f members

26 LEE AND CHI Knwledge Management Enahlers Culture Sial perspetive Cllabtin (L) Tst (TRU) LainR(LEA) Struture Centlizatin {CEN) Frmalizatin (FR) Peple Knwledge Creatin Knwledge Management rganizatinal Press (KCP) Intermediate utme Perfrmane Saialiutin (KCS) ExtemalizaiiD (KCE Cmbinatin (KCC) IniemalizauD (KCl)» rganizatinal reaiivity (C) ^ rganizatinal perfrmane (P) T shaped skills (TSK) Infmiatin Tehnlgy IT Supprt (rrs) (a) Between Ihe ktiwledge reatin presses and knwledge management enablers KCP = a+ p, L + p, TRU + % LEA + p, CEN + % FR + &, TSK + p, ITS + E KCS = a+ p, L + ^'TRLI + p, LEA + p, CEN + ft FR + ^ TSK + p, ITS + E KCE - a+ p, L + ^ TRU + ^ LEA + p., CEN + ft FR + ft TSK + ft ITS + e KCC = a+ ft L + ft TRU + ft LEA + ft CEN + ft FR + ft TSK + ft ITS + E KCl = a+ ft L + ft TRU + ft LEA + % CEN + ft FR + ft TSK + ft ITS + e (b) Between rganizatinal reativity and knwiedge reatin presses C = a+ p, KCP+ e C = a+ p, KCS + P, KCE + ft KCC + ft Ka + e () Between rganizatinal perfnnane and rganizatinal reativity P = a+ PI C + E Figure 4. Regressiti Equatins d nt sigtiifiantly affet knwledge reatin. IT supprt is signifiantly related with knwledge mbinatin nly. Knwledge reatin is psitively related with rganizatinal reativity, whih is psitively related with rganizatinal perfrmane. This finding nfirms that an rganizatin an ahieve sttegi benefits f knwiedge management thrugh effetive knwledge reatin. Disussin Limitatins THE FINDINGS F THIS STUDY ARE INTERESTING, but they shuld be nsidered in light f its inherent limitatins. First, this study presents a snapsht researh that des

2G7 S "* W.1 ^ a: II II CQ. *M II 7\ II «9;j T-; 4M r >4w * * ^ "^ 2 T T JLii il II P q PCVJ d ^ d * ) L ^ -^ "14: ^ T^ «i CD d ~ I I ( d II II ) T J n hi CQ. -^ = g 1- m II 11 < T " g '- CN " d (\j ^j \i T I T I II II C Q. *.. 6 H U l i t k. 285 491 II 3525 597 2138 2498 ti C II II II II II *. CQ.*>. *.23 i T II ^ ( 1 T II II nr ^^ 1 llabi j" X ist(l 3 x_ d arnii <u X tin N i^ " u in X tin f N l E LJ. tn tn TS CD Q. sz tn

28 U 6 ( I II CM ( d w II It. *- Xi e U a^ <D t S d CM II II. - S? "> t '-; t W II II N t-- X. ^ ^ Ii a^ CM ^ ^ ^ CM tl. II * i-i ^ ^ q 2 m i CM esi II II -a <U Q. 5 r- f il - T" ) a II II I' II ax. *. a U X) 2 b If ;i ^6? ^ X Q. II LL

29 i t I

2! LEE AND CHI nt nsider feedbak effets. A lngitudinal study t investigate the dynami features f knwledge management wuld prvide further rbust results. Send, it fuses n relatively large and prfitable firms. The results may differ in small r venture firms. Finally, tbe results are limited t Krean firms. Tbe genelizability frm a Krean setting t ther untries may be questinable. Impliatins ur results an belp managers establish distintive sttegi psitins. Knwledge management sttegies an be desribed alng tw dimensins t reflet knwledge management fus [45]. ne dimensin refers t knwledge sharing via interpersnal intetin. The ther dimensin refers t the apability t help reate, stre, share, and use an rganizatin's expliitly dumented knwledge. The frmer is mre affeted by sializatin, and the latter is mre affeted by mbinatin [16]. Knwledge management sttegists an sbarpen weak knwledge management dimensins n the basis f enablers mentined in ur study. Table 7 highlights tbese impliatins. The fllwing is a further disussin f these impliatins. ur findings nfirm that knwledge reatin is assiated with ultul fatrs suh as llabtin, trust, and learning. Fr instane, grups are mst reative when their members llabte; members stp hlding bak when they have mutual trust [54]. Shaping ultul fatrs is ruial fr a firm's ability t manage its knwledge effetively [15,2. 35,71]. Frexample,ur interview witb an exeutive f a nfetinery mpany highlights this pint. Tbe exeutive pinted ut that their emplyees did nt just use tbe manual r tber dified supprts. It was nted that they preferred t depend n their wn experienes and netwrking relatinships. A trust-based ulture is the fundatin fr their knwledge management initiative. Hwever, many knwledge management prjets, in reality, fus n IT [19, 35, 111]. An rganizatin may fae diffiulties in building its knwledge reating envirnment due t the lak f adequate ulture despite its well-nstruted IT [23, 72]. Stein and Zwass [ 17[ insisted that suessful infrmatin systems shuld be nditined by a number f ultul fatrs suh as rganizatinal values and apprpriate learning methds. Initiating knwledge management nly thrugh IT an be a risky prpsitin [19]. ur analysis nfirms that IT supprt affets mbinatin. There are sevel resurees fr a sund understanding f the impat f IT n knwledge mbinatin [82,11. Tbis finding highlights tbe hateristis f knwledge mbinatin. IT is ritial fr difying expliit knwledge: it prvides fast feedbak fr expliit knwledge [69,12]. In rder t supprt knwledge mbinatin, the questin is nt whether t deply IT, but bw t deply it. Interestingly, ur analysis als reveals that trust affets mbinatin. Tbis result implies tbat simply imprving the IT infstruture des nt prvide a mpetitive advantage fr knwledge mbinatin. Thrugb interviews witb exeutives in the disk industry in the United States. Stt [1] fund that mmuniatin f even expliit knwledge is diffiult withut a slid funda-

211 Q. E dge trs is CIruial tul lent; T C lapi C/) f ) E T lythr e managtjment nlgy a T 1 2 T C itiati ' sit ers Q. pr T TD establish nsidering eed if.9.q T Iture. ;difi 3 '-' firm's E) T E T itial f igy is r ati b' a lwli 1. T mle mpf tin; he infrmatin es nt pnvide lwledge mb )ay areflj atte f infrm.atin iinatin IA'ith thi trust in a firm. _.E tive mpl infr. T " T t 3 T C Cu US > Q. lure : > _ hul inl ers ntia 1 itin iide.nimu "S 1 en Q. Sif ( jn T a G tl- i a. -a X) CD

212 E Q f frmlalizati inhibit t:ait-re ige ex tfl ped r fereni laliza ities, 1 ities); expl( alizati > F "D >. r t T3 etate Q. 3jnus (BLU J3.> _> ts t) tu nship 1 nwledge ere hasis f exter, externalizatii :ed with frma :ess r its te rnalizat in is ( ffet externali 9 " " tin and CD r\ tu.^ Zi LL tfl r E t lizatin i Q. E C. >^ r E fl) ledg si; it kn tively r in; if g "S N 1^ r tfl r sz li CT "si jaau T3 asize ) X " > t tu Q. tin r N an a E '^ ^ is Q- l a u r N ali. p between dge reati may tend t n and exter iailitates lizatin. atin knwi lizati aliza reas inter iz ) libi ati E "T 9 CD XI E - 5 CD "a r a. -a U a a: l

213 N CD P 2 11 w g inizi E -ig ) b : > ^^ X ^.-; t.. r "> B =.;=:> =5 > CD i r ^ -..- ' >3 -Q B -^ t Q. r m Q) s 11 5 ^ x> E? k - ^ ' Q. - ) 5: C CD r '5 is >- -.= t t " II 'J r r.9 -; ^ 9 '",9 " N r 5 I r -a CD = r ] Q. > X, b J3

214 LEE AND CHI tin f trust. Managers shuld pay areful attentin t the ptential impat f IT n knwledge mhinatin with the nsidetin f trust in a firm. The nnsignifiant findings in this study als bear sme impliatin. Sevel studies have me t the nlusin that frmalizatin weakens knwledge management [57, 16]. In ntst, ur study shws n relatinship between frmali/atin and knwledge reatin. This ther intriguing result reflets the tw different aspets f frmalizatin. Arding t the ambidextrus mdel, whih is based n the distintin between the initiatin and implementatin stages f innvatin [26.94], frmalizatin may inhibit tait-related ativities suh as sializatin ([i = -.52) and externalizatin {p = -.1165), but may enuge expliit-related ativities suh as mbinatin (P=.18) and internalizatin (p=.i 152). Hwever, this interpretatin needs further expltin beause ail [i values are nt statistially signifiant. In partiular, a mre areful investigatin f externalizatin is f interest. Externalizatin invlves the expressin f tait knwledge [8]. Frm this perspetive, a frmal rganizatinal struture may inhihit spntaneity and freedm f expressin neessary fr externalizatin [1]. In ur study, Ihe emphasi.s f externalizatin is n tait knwledge, and thus externalizatin is negativeiy assiated with frmalizatin. Hwever, extemalizatin may als invlve nversin f tait int expiiit knwledge [8]. The frmal struture an failitate the pid and ntinuus nversin f tait int expliit knwledge [37]. If the nversin press r its tehnigy perspetive f externalizatin is emphasized like Beer-Femandez and Sahherwal [8], we may speulate that fumializatin an affet extemali/atin psitively. Many studies suggested that T-shaped skills psitively influene knwledge reatin [6, 7, 74). Hwever, ur study shws n relatinship between T-shaped skills and knwledge reatin. This ntditin may reflet the imprtane f T-shaped management systems. T-shaped management systems attempt t break ut fthe tditinal rpte hierhy and enuge peple t share knwledge 144]. Hwever, mst urrent frmal rganizatinal inentives enuge l-shaped skills (the deep funtinal experti.se) in islatin [7[. Withut an envirnment in whih T-shaped skills flurish, peple with T-shaped skills will nt attempt t reate new knwledge. It implies that a ruial element f suessful knwledge management is nt T-shaped skills themselves, but the systemati management f these skills. It wuld be expeted that tehnlgies uld failitate knwledge reatin. Hwever, ur result shws that IT supprt is nt signifiantly related with knwledge reatin exept fr mbinatin. It seems that IT des nt supprt all mdes f knwledge reatin diretly. Althugh grupware, intnet, r videnferening an help llabtive wrks, this tehnlgially failitated mmuniatin annt replae faet-fae ntat fr tait-t-tait knwledge tnsfer [53]. Aessing the tait knwledge suh as knwledge inside emplyees' heads is nt pssible simply by an intnet r a datahase 23]. That is, the urrent state f IT may nt affet sializatin, externalizatin, r internalizatin diretly. ur study shws that rganizatinal reativity affets rganizatinal perfrmane (P =.6338, p <.1). This resuu is in line with previus studies [73, 121. Fr example, Shani et al. 112J prvided a fmewrk linking rganizatinal perfrmane

KM ENABLERS, PRCESSES, AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 215 and rganizatinal reativity thrugh a field study fthe Seagate Crptin. It implies that managers pay mre attentin t rganizatinal reativity in rder t imprve rganizatinal perfrmane. Althugh the relatinship is statistially signifiant, the perentage f ttal variatin f rganizatinal pertbrmane explained by rganizatinal reativity is relatively lw (R- =.42). This may reflet the reativity padx [116]. If reativity is enuged and reinfred at the expense f petinal behavirs, it may derease rganizatinal perfnnane. That is, rganizatinal reativity is valuable, but its verenugement may nt be always useful. Cnlusins UR STUDY IS F INTEREST FRM BTH theretial and ptial perspetives. Theretially, a fmewrk is prpsed fr empirial studies t link knwledge management enablers and presses with rganizatinal perfrmane. This study is prbably the first t establish this integtive view f knwledge management. We adpt a press-riented perspetive f knwledge by using Nnaka's reatin mdel [82]. ur fmewrk may be used as a stepping stne fr further empirial researh n knwledge management. T strengthen the feasibility f this fmewrk, we an larify the rle f knwledge reatin press (see Appendix C) and intermediate utme (see Appendix D). Frm a ptial pint f view, the relatinships amng knwledge reatin, rganizatinal reativity, and rganizatinal perfrmane may prvide a lue as t hw firms an adjust knwledge reatin presses t sustain their perfrmane. Furthermre, managers will he better able t find whih enablers are ritial fr knwledge reatin. Beause firms may nt manage all mdes f knwledge reatin, they may need rbust sttegies that invlve tde-ffs. The urrent findings f this study may indiate the fllwing avenues fr further researh. First, an analysis f different fatrs suh as dmain knwledge [11] r ther types f knwledge press may lead t interesting impliatins. Fr example, an interesting andidate is Szulanski's knwledge tnsfer mdel, whih is made up f fur presses initiatin, implementatin, mp-up, and integtin [114]. Send, ur study shws whih knwledge enablers an enhane a firm's apability t manage knwledge. Apprpriate knwledge management sttegies may be ahle t failitate these enablers. Finding these sttegies may be f interest. Third, what is the effet f ur fmdings n eletrni mmere? Eletrni mmere is hanging the business wrld pidly. The quality f knwledge management may determine a suess template fr eletrni mmere. Fr example, Hlsapple and Singh [5] prpsed the ptential benefits f applying knwledge management priniples t eletrni mmere. Finally, ther types f perfrmane measures may sharpen the results f ur study. RP (return n ideas, return n infrmatin, and return n investment) [73] r a sttegy map [63] is a gd alternative. Aknwledgments: This wrk was supprted in part by a gntfrmksef (98-12-8-1-3).

216 LEE AND CHI REFERENCES 1. Adler. P.: Gldftas, B.; Levine, D. Flexibility versus effiieny? A ase stiidy f mdel hangevers in the Tyta prdutin system. rganizatin Siene, 1, 1 (1999). 43-68. 2. Alavi. M.. and Leidner. D.E. Review: Knwledge management and knwledge management systems: Cneptual fundalins and researh issues. MIS Quarierlw 25, I (21) 17-136. 3. Albaum. G. The Likert sale revisited: An alternative versin. Jurnai f the Market Researh Siety, 39, 2 (1997), 331-348. 4. Amabile, T.M. A mdel t reativity and innvatin in rganizatins. In B.M. Staw and L.L. Cummings (eds.). Researh in rganizatinal Behavir, vl. 1. Greenwih. CT: JAI Press. 1988. pp. 123-167. 5. Amabile, T.M.; Cnti. R.; Cn. H.; Lazenby, J.; and Herrn, M. Assessing the wrk envirnment Tr reativity. Aademy f Management Jurnal, 39, 5 (1996). 1154-1184. 6. Appleyard. M. Hw des knwledge tlw? Intertlrm patterns in the semindutr indufilty. Slnite^UManai-ernent Jurnal. 17, 1 (Winter 1996). 137-154. 7. Barn. R.M.. and Kenny. D.A. The mdetr-mediatr variable distintin in sial psyhlgial researh: Cneptual, sttegi, and statistial nsidetins. Jurnal f Persnality and Sial Psyhlgy, 51, 6 (1986). 1173-1182. 8. Beer-Fernandez. I., and Sabherwal. R. rganizatinal knwledge management: A ntingeny pempttive. Jurnal f Management Infnnatin Systems, 18. 1 (Summer 21), 23-55. 9. Bekman. T. The urrent state f knwledge management. In J. Liebwitz (ed.). Knwledge Management Handbk. Ba Ratn. FL: CRC Press. 1999. pp. 1-1-1-22. 1. Bennett. R., and Gabriel. H. rganizatinal fatrs and knwledge management within large marketing departments: An empirial study. Jurnal f Knwledge Management, 3. 3 (1999). 212-225. 11. Bierly. P., and Chakbarti. A. Generi knwledge sttegies in tbe U.S. pharmaeutial industry. Sttegi Management Jiimat, 17. 1 (Winter 1996). 123-135. 12. Bstrm. R., and Heinen. J. MIS prblems and failures: A sei-tehnial perspetive. MIS Quarterly, /. 3 (1977). 17-32. 13. Brwn, J.. and Eisenhardt. K. Prdut develpment: Past researh, present fmdings, and fulure diretins. Aademy f Management Review, 2, 2 (1995). 343-378. 14. Caruana. A.; Mrris, M.H.; and Vella. A.J. The effet f entlizatin and frmalizatin n entrepreneurs hip in exprt firms. Jurnal f Small Business Management, 36, I (1998), 16-29. 15. Chase. R. The knwledge-based rganizatin: An internatinal survey. Jurnal f Knwledge Management. J. 1 (1997). 38^9. 16. Chi. B., and Lee. H. Knwledge management sttegy and its link t knwledge reating press. Expert Systems with Appliatins, 23, 3 (22), 173-187. 17. Damanpur. P. rganizatinal innvatin: A meta analysis f effets f determinants and mdelrs. Aademy f Mmagenient Jurnal, 34, 3 (1991). 555-59. 18. Davenprt, T.H. Knwledge management and the bder firm: Sttegy, advantage, and perfrmane. In J. Liebwitz (ed.). Knwledge Management Handbk. Ba Ratn. FL CRC Press, 1999. pp. 2-1-2-11. 19. Davenprt. T.H.. and Prusak. L. Wrking Knwledge. Bstn: Harvard Business Shl Press, 1998. 2. Davenprt.T.H.; Lng, D.; and Beers. M.C. Suessful knwledge management prjets. Slan Management Review, 39, 2 (Winter 1998). 43-57. 21. Demarest. M. Understanding knwledge management. Lng Range Planning, 3, 3 (1997). 374-384. 22. Deshpande. R.; Jarley, U.; and Webster, F Crpte uiture, ustmer rientatin, and innvaliveness in Japanese firms: A quadd analysis. Jurnal f Marketing, 57, 1 (January 1993). 23-37. 23. DeTienne, K.B., and Jaksn. L.A. Knwledge management: Understanding thery and develping sttegy. Cmpelitivene.ss Review, Ii, 1 (21), 1-11.

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES, AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 217 24. Dugherty, D., and Crse, S.M. When it mes t prdut innvatin, what is s bad abut bureauy? Junml fhif^h Tehnlgy Manu^ernent Researh. 6, ] (1995). 55-76. 25. Drew, S. Frm knwledge t atin: The impat f benhmarking n rganizatinal perfrmane. Ln^ Range Planning, 3. 3 (1997). 427^41. 2f). Dunan. R.B. The ambidextrus rganizatin: Designing dual strutures fr innvatin. Iti R.H. Kilmann. L.R. Pndy. and D.P. Slevin (eds.). The Management f rganizatin: Sttegy and Implementatin. New Yrk: Nrth-Hlland. 1976. pp. 167-188. 27. EIn-Dr. P., and Segev, E. rganizatinal ntext and MIS struture: Sme empirial evidene. MIS Quarterly, 6. 3 (1982), pp. 55-68. 28. Elenkv. D.S. Effets f leadership n rganizatinal perfrmane in Russian mpanies. Jurnal f Business Researh, 55. 6 (2(X)2). 467^8. 29. Eppler. M.J., and Sukwski.. Managing team knwledge: Cre presses, tls and enabling fatrs. Eurpean Management Jurnal. 18, 3 (2(XX)). 334-341. 3. Fahey, L.. and Prusak. L. The eleven deadliest sins f knwledge management. Califrnia Management Review, 4. 4 (1998), 265-276. 31. Galliers. R.D.; Newell, S.; Huang. J.C; and Pan. S.L. Implementing enterprise resure planning and knwledge management systems in tandem: Fstering effiieny and innvatin mplementarity. Infrmatin ami rganizatin, frthming 23. 32. Garland. R. The mid-pint n a ting sale: Is it desible? Marieting Bulletin. 2 (May 1991), 66-7. 33. Ghemawat, P., and Csta, R. The rganizatinal tensin between stati and dynami effiieny. Sttegit Management Jurnal, 14, 8 (Winter 1993). 59-73. 34. Glynn, M. Innvative genius: A fmewrk fr relating individual and rganizatinal intelligene t mnvdun. Aademy f Management Review, 21, A (1996), 181-1111. 35. Gld, A.H.; Malht, A.: and Segars, A.H. Knwledge management: An rganizatinal apabilities perspetive. Jurnal f Management Infrmatin Sxstems. 18. 1 (Summer 2(K)I). 185-214. 36. Gttshalk, P. Sttegi knwledge netwrks: The ase f IT supprt fr Eurjuris law firms in Nrway. Internatinal Review f Law Cmputers & Tehnlgy. 14. I (2()(X)). 115-129. 37. Gham. A.B., and Pizz, V.G. A questin f balane: Case studies in sttegi knwledge management. Eurpean Management Jurnal, 14, 4 {i996). 338-346. 38. Grver, V., and Davenprt, T.H. Genel perspetives n knwledge management: Fstering a rese;irh agenda. Jurnal f Management Infnnatin Systems, 18, I (Summer 2(X)1). 5-21. 39. Gupta, A.K., and Gvindajan. V. Knwledge management's sial dimensin: Lessns frm Nur steel. Slan Management Review. 42. 1 (Fall 2). 71-8. 4. Gurteen. D. Knwledge, reativity and innvatin. Jurnal f Knwledge Management. 2. 1 (1998), 5-13. 41. Hakerman, J., and Mrris, C. Grup tasks, grup intetin press, and grup perfrmane effetiveness: A review and prpsed integtin. In L. Berkwitz (ed.). Grup Press. New Yrk: Aademi Press. 1978, pp. 1-15. 42. Hair. J.F.; Andersn. R.; Tatham, R.; and Blak. W. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. Englewd Clifls. NJ: Prentie Hall. 1995. 43. Hansen, M.T. The searh-tnsfer prblem: The rle f weak ties in sharing knwledge arss rganizatin subunits. Administtive Siene Quarterly. 44. I (1999). 82-111. 44. Hansen. M.T. and etinger, B. Intrduing T-shaped managers: Knwledge management's next genetin. Harvard Busines.s Review. 79, 3 (Marh 21), 17-116. 45. Hansen. M.T; Nhria, N.: and Tiemey, T. What's yur sttegy fr managing knwledge? Warvatt/BH^WAICT.^ Wfv/vw; 77, 2 (Marh-April 1999). 16-116. 46. Hater, J.J., and Bass. B.M. Superirs" evaluatins and subrdinates pereptins f tnsfrmatinal and tnsatinal leadership. Jurnal fapplied P.syditgy, 73, 4 (1988). 695-72. 47. Hedlund. G. A mdel f knwledge management and the N-frm rptin. Sttegi Management Jurnal. 15, 5 (1994), 73-9. 48. Herbld. R.J. Inside Mirsft: Balaning reativity and disipline. Harvard Business Review. H, 1 (January 22), 72-79. 49. Hlsappie. C.W.. and Jshi, K.D. rganizatinal knwledge resures. Deisin Supprt Systems. 31. 1 (21), 39-54.

218 LEE AND CHI 5. Hlsapple. C.W.. and Singh, M. Eletrni mmere: Frm a definitinal taxnmy tward a knwledge-management view. Jurnal f rganizatinal Cmputing and Eletrni Cmmere, HI 3 (2). 149-17. 51. Hlsappie, C.W., and Singh. M. The knwledge hain mdel: Ativities fr mpetitiveness. Expert Sy.stems with Appliatins, 2. I (2(X) 1), 77-98. 52. Hpper, M.D. Rattling SABRE-new ways t mpete n infrmatin. Harvard Business Review, 68. 3 (May-June 199). 118-125. 53. Hwells, J. Knwledge, innvatin., and latins. In J.R. Brysn, P.W. Daniels, N.D. Henry, and J.S. Pllard (eds.). Knwledge, Spae, Enmy. Lndn: Rutiedge. 2. pp. 5-62. 54. Huemer, L.; Krgh.G.; and Jhan. R. Knwledgeand the nept f trust. lng. Krgh. J. Rs, and D. Kleine (eds.). Knwing in Firms. Thusand aks. CA: Sage, 1998. pp. 123-145. 55. Hurley. R.. and Hult. T. Innvatin, market rientatin, and rganizatinal leaming: An integtin and empirial examinatin. Jurnal f Marketing. 62. 3 (1998), 42-54. 56. lansiti. M. Real-wrld R&D: Jumping the prdut genetin gap. Harvard Business Review, 71. 3 (1993), 138-147. 57. Ihij. K.; Krgh. G.: and Nnaka, I. Knwledge enablers. In G. Krgh, J. Rs. and D. Kieine (eds). Knwing in Firms. Thusand aks. CA: Sage. 1998. pp. 173-23. 58. James, L.R.; Demaree. R.G.; and Wlf, G. rwg: An assessment f within-grup interter agreement,.lurnal f Applied Psyhlgy. 78, 2 (1993), 36-39. 59. Jarvenpaa. S.L.. and Staples, D.S. The use f llabtive eletrni media fr infrmatin sharing: An expltry study f determinants. Sttegi Infrmatin Svstems, 9. 2-3 (2), 129-154. 6. Jhannenssen, J-A.; lsen, B.; and laisen, J. Aspets f innvatin thery based n knwledge management. Internatinal Jurnal f Infrmatin Management, 19, 2 (1999). 121-139. 61. Junnarkar. B. Leveging iietive intellet by building rganizatinal apabilities. Expert Sy.stems with Appliatins. 13. I (1997). 29^. 62. Kanevsky, V. and Husel, T. The leaming-knwledge-value yle. In G. Krgh, J. Rs, and D. Kleine (eds.). Knwing in Firms. Thusand aks, CA: Sage, 1998, pp. 269-284. 63. Kaplan, R.. and Nrtn, D. Having truble with yur sttegy? Then map it. Harvard Bu.\iness Review, 78. 5 (September-tber 2(X)), 167-176. 64. Kerlinger, F.N. Fundatin f Behavil Researh. 3d ed. Frt Wrth, TX: Hlt, Rinehart and Winstn, 1986. 65. Kh. A.T. Linking learning, knwledge reatin, and business reativity: A preliminary assessment f the East Asian quest fr reativity. Tehnlgial Freasting and Sial Change, 64. I (2). 85-1. 66. Kzlwski, W.. and Hattnip, K. A disagreement abut within-grup agreement: Disentangling issues f nsisteny versus nsensus. Jurnal f Applied Psvlwtgv, 77, 2 (1992), 161^167. 67. Kreitner, R., and Kiniki, A. rganizatinat Behavir. Hmewd. IL: Rihard D Irwin. 1992. 68. Krgh, G.Care in the knwledge reatin. Califrnia Management Review, 4, 3 (1998) 133-153. 69. Krgh. G.; Nnaka. 1.; and Aben, M. Making the mst f yur mpany's knwledge: A sttegi fmewrk. Umg Range Planning. 34, 4 (21). 421-439. 7. Lenard-Bartn. D. Welt.springs fknwtedge: Building and Sustaining the Sures f Innvatin. Bstn: Harvard Business Shl Press, 1995. 71. Lng, D.D. Building the knwledge-based rganizatins: Hw ulture drives knwledge behavirs. Wrking Paper f the Center fr Business Innvatin, Emst & Yung LLP Cambridge. MA, 1997. 72. Lubit. R. Tail knwiedge and knwiedge management: The keys t sustainable mpetitive advantage. rganizatumal Dynamis, 29. 4 (21). 164-178. 73. Lush. R.F.; Harvey. M.; and Speier. C. RI3: The building blks fr suessful glbai rganizatins in the 21 st entury. Eurpean Management Jurnal. /6. 6 (1998). 714-728. 74. Madhavan, R., and Grver. R. Frm embedded knwledge t embdied knwledge: New prdut develpment as knwledge management. Jurnal f Marketing, 62, 4 (1998) 1-12.

KM ENABLERS, PRCESSES, AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 219 75. Maeil Business Newspaper. Annual Crptin Reprts CD-RM. Maeil Business Newspaper Cmpany. Seul. Krea, 2. 76. Markus, M.L. Tward a theiy f knwledge reuse: Types f knwledge reuse situatins and fatrs in reuse suess. Jurnal f Management Infrmatin Systems, 18, 1 (Summer 21), 57-93. 77. Menn, A., and Vadajan. R. A mdel f marketing knwledge use within firms, Jurnal f Marketing, 56, 4 (1992). 53-71. 78. Miller, D.A. A prelimin;iry typlgy f rganizatinal leaming: Synthesizing the liteture. Jurnal f Management. 22. 3 (1996). 484-55. 79. Nahapiet. J., and Ghshal. S. Sial apital, intelletual apital, and the rganizatinal advantage. Aademy f Management Review, 23, 2 (1998). 242-266. 8. Ndlela, L.T.. and Tit, A.S.A. Establishing a knwledge management prgmme fr mpetitive advantage in an enterprise. Internatinal Jurnal f Infrmatin Management, 21, 2(21). 151-165. 81. Nelsn. K.M.. and Cprider. J.G. The ntributin f shared knwledge t IS grup perfrmane. MIS Quarterly, 2, 4 (1996), 49-429. 82. Nnaka. I., and Takeuhi, H. The Knwledge Creating Cmpany. New Yrk: xfrd University Press, 1995. 83. Nnaka, 1.; Bysiere, P.; and Knn, N. rganizatinal knwledge reatin thery: A first mprehensive test. Internatinal Business Review, 3. 4 {\994). 337-351. 84. Nunnally, J.C. Psyhmetri Tlieiy, 2d ed. New Yrk: MGw-Hill. 1978. 85.'Dell, C. and Gysn. J. Knwledge tnsfer: disver yur value prpsitin. Sttegy & Leadership. 27. 2 (Marh-April 1999), 1-15. 86. Pan, S.. and Sarbrugh, H. A si-tehnial view f knwledge-sharing at Bukman labtries. Jurnal f Knwledge Management, 2. I (1998). 55-66. 87. Parent, M.; Gallupe, R.B.; Salisbury, W.D.; and Handelman. J.M. Knwledge reatin in fus grup: Can grup tehnlgies help?//j/rmnr/(9/( & Management, 38. I (2), 47-58. 88. Quinn, J.B.: Andersn. P.; and Finkelstein. S. Leveging intellet. Aademy f Management Exeutive, 1, 3 (1996), 7-27, 89. Rapert. M., and Wren. B. Rensidering rganizatinal struture: A dual perspetive f fmewrks and presses. Jurnal f Manageriat Issues, 1. 3 (1998). 287-32. 9. Raven. A., and Psser. S.G. Infrmatin tehnlgy supprt fr the reatin and tnsfer f tait knwledge In rganizatins. In R. Ramswer (ed.). Assiatin fr Infrmatin Systems 1996 Amerias Cnferene. Phenix: CAIS. 1996 (available at hsb.baylr.edu/ mswer/ais.a.96/papers/raven.htm). 91. Riggins. F.J., and Rhee, H. Develping the leaming netwrk using extnets. Intematinat Jurnal f Etetrni Cmmere, 4, 1 (Fall 1999). 65-83. 92. Rberts. J. Frm knw-hw t shw-hw? Questining the rle f infrmatin and mmuniatin tehnlgies in knwledge tnsfer. Tehnlgy Analysis & Sttegi Management. 12. 4 (2{X)), 429^43. 93. Rbinsn, A.G.. and Stem, S. Crpte Creativity: Hw Innvatin and Imprvement Atually Happen. San Fnis, CA: Berrett-Kehler. 1997. 94. Rgers. E. Diffusin f Innvatins, 3d ed. New Yrk: Free Press, 1983. 95. Rubenstein Mntan, B.; Liebwitz, J.; Buhwalter. J.; MCaw, D.; Newman. B.; and Rebek. K. The knwledge management methdlgy team: A systems thinking fmewrk fr knwledge management. Deisin Suppn Systems. 31, 1 (21). 5-16. 96. Sarvary. M. Knwledge management and mpetitin in the nsulting industry. Califrnia Management Review, 41, 2 (1999), 95-17. 97. Sawhney. M., and Pndelli. E. Cmmunities f reatin: Managing distributed innvatin in turbulent markets. Califrnia Management Review, 42, 4 (2), 24 54. 98. Sharmer.. i^anizing arund nt-yet-embdied knwledge, in G. Krgh. I. Nnaka. and T. Nishiguhi (eds.), Knwledge Creatin: A Suive f Value. New Yrk: St. Martin's Press, 2, pp. 36-6. 99. Stt, J.E. rganizatinal knwledge and the internet. Deisin Supprt Systems, 23, 1 (1998), 3-17. 1. Stt. J.E. Failitating interrganizatinal leaming with infrmatin tehnlgy. Jurnal f Management Infrmatin Systems, 17,2 (Fall 2), 81-113.

22 LEE AND CHI 11. Shaft, T.M., and Vessey, I. The relevane f appliatin dmain knwledge: Chaterizing the mputer prgm mprehensin press. Jurnal f Management Infrmatin System.s, 15, ] (Summer 1998). 51-78. 12. Shani. A.B.; Sena. J.A.; and Stebbins. M.W. Knwledge wrk teams and grupware tehnlgy: Learning frm Seagate's experiene. Jurnal f Knwledge Management. 4. 2 (2), 111-124. 13. Shrut, P.E.. and Fliess, J.L. Interiass rrelatin: Uses in assessing ter reliability. Psyhlgial Buttetin, 86, 3 (1979). 42-428. 14. Simnin, B. The imprtane f llabtive knw-hw: An empiriai test f the learning rganizatin. Aademy f Maruigement Jurnat. 4, 5 (1997). 59-533. 15. Spek, R., and Spijkervet. A. Knwledge management: Dealing intelligently with knwledge. In J. Liebwitz, and L. Wilx (eds.), Knwtedge Management and Its Integtive Elements. Ba Ratn, FL: CRC Press. 1997, pp. 31-59. 16. Starbuk. W.H. Learning by knwledge-intensive firms. Jurnat f Management Studies, 29. 6(1992), 713-74. 17. Stein, E.W., and Zwass, V. Atualizing rganizatinal memry with infrmatin systems. Infrmatin Systems Researh, 6, 2 (1995). 85-117. 18. Stnehuse, G.H.. and Pembertn. J.D. Learning and knwledge management in the intelligent rganizatin. Partiipatin & Empwerment: An Internatinal Jurnat, 7, 5 (1999), 131-144. 19. Strk. J.. and Hill, PA. Knwledge diffusin thrugh "sttegi mmunities." Slan Management Review, 41. 2 (Winter 2). 63-74. 11. Sveiby, K. The New rganizatin Wealth: Management and Measuring Knwledge- Based Assets. San Fnis: Berrett-Kehler, 1997. 111. Swan. J.; Newell. S.; and Rbertsn, M. Limits f IT-driven knwledge management fr intetive innvatin presses: Twards a mmunity-based apph. In R.H. Spgue, Jr. (ed.). Preedings f ttie Thirty-Third Hawaii Intemannal Cnferene n System Sienes. Ls Alamits. CA: IEEE Cmputer Siety Press. 2, pp. 84-94. 112. Swap. W.; Lenard. D.; Shields. M.; and Abms, L. Using mentring and strytelling t tnsfer knwledge in the wrkplae. Jurnat f Management Infrmatin Systems. 18. I (Summer 21). 95-114. 113. Swieringa. J.. and Wierdsma, A. Beming a Learning rganizatin: Beynd the Learning Curve. Wkingham, UK: Addisn-Wesley, 1992. 114. Szuianski. G. Explring internal stikiness: Impediments t the tnsfer f best ptie within the finn. Sttegi Management Jurnal, 17, 1 (Winter 1996). 27-43. 115. Teee. D.J. Sttegies fr managing knwledge assets: The rle f lirm struture and industrial ntext. Umg Range Planning, 33, 4 (2). 35-54. 116. Thmpsn, K.R. Cnfrnting the padxes in a ttal quality envirnment. rganizatinal Dynamis. 23. 3 (1998). 62-74. 117. Tushman. M.L.. and 'Reilly, C.A. Winning Thrugh Innvatin. Bstn: Harvard Business Shl Press, 1997. 118. Venkatman. N., and Gnt, J.H. Cnstrut measurement in rganizatinal researh: A riiique dnd prpsal Aademy f Management Review, II, I (1986), 71-87. 119. Viari, S.. and Tril. G. rganizatinal reativity: A new perspetive frm gnitive systems thery. In G. Krgh. I. Nnaka, and T. Nishiguhi (eds.), Knwtedge Creatin: A Sure fvatue. New Yrk: St. Martin's Press, 2. pp. 63-88. 12. Weiser, M.. and Mrrisn. J. Prjet memry: Infrmatin management fr prjet teams. Jurnal f Management Infrmatin Systems, 14, 4 (Spring 1998), 149-166. 121. Wilkstrm. S.. and Nrman, R. Knwledge & Value: A New Perspetive n Crpte Tnsfrmatin. Lndn: Rutiedge. 1994. 122. Wdman, R.; Sawyer, J.; and Griffin, R. Tward a thery f rganizatinal reativity. Aademy f Management Review. 18. 2 (1993), 293-321. 123. Wright. P.. and Snell, S. Tward a unifying fmewrk fr explring fit and fiexibility in sttegi human resure management. Aademy f Management Review, 23, 4 (1998), 756-772. 124. Zander, D., and Kgut, B. Knwledge and the speed f the tnsfer and imitatin f rganizatinal apabilities: An empirial test. rganizatin Siene, 6. 1 (1995). 76-92.

KM ENABLERS, PRCESSES, AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 221 125. Zbaki, M. The rhetri and reality f ttal quality management. Administtive Siene Quarterly. 43. 3 (1998). 62-636. 126. Zuker, L.G.; Darby. M.R.: Brewer. M. B.; and Peng. Y. Cllabtin strutures and infnnatin dilemmas in bitehnlgy: rganizatin bundaries as trust prdutin. In R.M. Kmer and TR. Tyler (eds.). Tru.s'l in rganizatins: Fmntiers f Thery and Researh. Thusand aks, CA: Sage, 1996, pp. 9-113.

222 LEE AND CHI Appendix A. petinal Definitins and Related Liteture Variables petinal definitin Related liteture Cllabtin Trust Learning Centlizatin Frmalizatin T-shaped skills IT supprt Knwledge reatin Sializatin Extemalizatin Cmbinatin Internaiizatin rganizatinal reativity rganizatinal perfrmane Degree f ative supprt and helps in rganizatin Degree f reipl faith in thers' intentins, behavirs, and skills tward rganizatinal gats Degree f pprtunity, variety, satisfatin, and enugement fr learning and develpment in rganizatin Degree f authrity and ntrl ver deisins Degree f frmal rules, predures, and standard plies Degree f understanding his r her wn and thers' task areas Degree f IT supprt fr llative wrk, (r mmuniatin, fr searhing and aessing, fr simulatin and preditin, and fr systemati string Degree f sializatin, extemalizatin, mbinatin, and internalizatin Degree f tait knwledge aumulatin, ext-firm sial infrmatin lletin, int-firm sial infrmatin gathering, and tnsfer f tait knwledge Degree f reative dialgue, dedutive and indutive thinking, use f metaphrs, and exhanged ideas Degree f aquisitin and integtin, synthesis and pressing, and disseminatin Degree f persnal experienes, simulatin, and experimentatin Degree f belief that rganizatins is atually prduing reative (nvel/useful) ideas (servies/p rd uts) Degree f vell suess, market share, grwth te prfitability, and innvativeness in mparisn with majr mpetitrs [54,67,85, 1] [19,54,57,68,74, 81,85] [55,62,88,113] [14, 17.27,47,89, 115] [14,34,89, 16, 115] [56, 6, 7, 74] [2, 35, 87, 9, 99] [82, 83] [82, 83] [82, 83] [82, 83] [82, 83] [5,34.4,65, 119, 122] [22, 25]

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES. AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 223 Appendix B. Questinnaire (1) Knwledge management enablers Cnstrut Items Cllabtin (L; five items) LI: ur rganizatin members are satisfied by tbe degree f llabtin. i-2; ur rganizatin members are supprtive. CL3: ur rganizatin members are beipful. CL4: There is a wiilingness t liabte arss rganizatinal units within ur rganizatin. L5: There is a willingness t aept respnsibility fr failure. Trust ur mpany members... (TRU; six items) TRU1: are genelly trustwrthy. TRU2: have reipl faith in tber members' intentins and bebavirs. TRU3: have reipl faith in thers' ability. TRU4: have reipl faith in thers' behavirs t wrk tward rganizatinal gals, TRU5: have reipl faith in tbers' deisin tward rganizatinal interests than individual interests. TRU6: bave relatinships based n reipl faith. Learning ur mpany... (LEA; five items) LEA1: prvides varius frmal tining prgms fr perfrmane f duties. LEA2: prvides pprtunities fr infrmal individual develpment ther tban frmal tining suh as wrk assignments and jb rtatin. LEA3: enuges peple t attend seminars, sympsia, and s n. LEA4: prvides varius prgms sub as lubs and mmunity gatherings. LEA5: members are satisfied by tbe ntents f jb tining r self-develpment prgms. Centlizatin ur mpany members... {CEN; five items) CEN1: an take atin withut a supervisr (R). CEN2: are enuged t make tbeir wn deisins (R). CEN3: d nt need t refer t smene else (R). CEN4: d nt need t ask their supervisr befre atin (R). CEN5: an make deisins witbut apprval (R). Frmalizatin In ur mpany... (FR; five Items) FR1: there are many ativities tbat are nt vered by sme frmal predures (R). FR2; ntats witb ur mpany are n a frmal r planned basis. FR3: rules and predures are typially written. FR4: members an ignre the rules and reah infrmal agreements t handle sme situatins (R). FR5; members make tbeir wn rules n tbe jb (R).

224 Lffi AND CHI Cnstrut Items T-shaped skills ur mpany members... (TKS; five items) TSK1: an understand nt nly tbeir wn tasks but als thers' tasks. TSK2: an make suggestin abut tbers' task. TSK3: an mmuniate weil nt nly witb their department members but als witb ther department members. TSK4: are speialists in tbeir wn part. TSK5: an perfrm their wn task effetively witbut regard t envirnmental hanges. IT supprt ur mpany... (ITS; five items) ITS1: prvides IT supprt fr llabtive wrks regardless f time and plae. ITS2: prvides IT supprt fr mmuniatin amng rganizatin members. ITS3: prvides IT supprt fr searhing fr and aessing neessary infrmatin. ITS4: prvides IT supprt fr simulatin and preditin. ITS5: prvides IT supprt fr systemati string. "R" indiates that the item is atually measured in a reverse fashin. (2) Knwledge reatin presses* Cnstrut Sializatin (KCS; five items) Tait knwiedge aumulatin Tait knwledge aumulatin Ext-firm sial infrmatin lletin Int-firm siai infrmatin lletin Tnsfer f tait knwledge Externalizatin (KCE; five items) Dialgue Metapbr Metapbr Dialgue Dialgue Cmbinatin (KCC; five items) Aquisitin and integtin Syntbesis and pressing Items ur mpany stresses... KCS1: gathering infrmatin frm sales and prdutin sites. KCS2; sbaring experiene with suppliers and ustmers. KCS3: engaging in dialgue witb mpetitrs. KCS4; finding new sttegies and market pprtunities by wandering inside the firm. KCS5: reating a wrk envirnment that allws peers t understand tfie ftsmanship and expertise. ur mpany stresses... KCE1: reative and essential dialgues. KCE2: tbe use f dedutive and indutive thinking. KCE3: tbe use f metaphrs in dialgue fr nept reatin. KCE4: exhanging varius ideas and dialgues. KCE5: subjetive pinins. ur mpany stresses... KCC1: planning sttegies by using publisbed liteture, mputer simulatin and freasting, KCC2: reating manuals and duments n prduts and servies.

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES. AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 22.5 Synthesis and pressing Synthesis and pressing Disseminatin KCC3; buiiding databases n prduts and servie. KCC4: building up materials by gathering management figures and tebnial infrmatin. KCC5: tnsmitting newly reated nepts. tnternalizatin ur mpany stresses... (KCI; fur items) Persnal experiene KCI1; enative liaisning ativities with funtinal (knwledge aquisitin departments by rss-funtinal develpment frm real wrld) teams. Experimentatin {knwledge KCI2: frming teams as a mdel and nduting aquisitin frm virtual wrld) experiments, and sharing results with entire departments. Persnal experiene KCI3: searhing and sbaring new values and thughts. Persnal experiene KCI4: sfiaring and trying t understand management visins thrugh mmuniatins witb fellws. ) rganizatinal reativity Cnstrut Items Creativity ur mpany... (C; five items) CI: has prdued many nvel and useful ideas (servies/prduts). C2: fsters an envirnment tbat is ndutive t ur wn ability t prdue nvel and useful ideas (servies/prduts). C3: spends mub time fr prduing nvel and useful ideas (servies/prduts). C4: nsiders prduing nvel and useful ideas (servies/prduts) as imprtant ativities. C5: atively prdues nvel and useful ideas (servies/prduts). (4) rganizatinal perfrmane Cnstrut Items rganizatinal Cmpared with key mpetitrs, ur mpany... perfrmane P1: is mre suessful. (P; five items) P2: bas a greater market sbare. P3: is grwing faster. P4: is mre prfitable. P5: is mre innvative. Nte: * Linkage between knwledge reatin nstruts and ur questinnaire items. Questinnaire items fr the knwledge reatin press, wbib were used in this study, had been validated and used by Nnaka et al. [83]. They nduted a nfirmatry fatr analysis t test Nnaka's 82] rganizatinal knwledge reatin mdel with data lleted frm 15 Japanese middle managers. Results f the study suggest that the nstrut f knwledge reatin nsists f fur knwledge nversin presses; sializatin, externalizatin, mbinatin, and internalizatin. All fur knwledge nversin presses explain a high amunt f variane in the knwledge reatin

226 LEE AND CH! nstrut. Fur fatrs nstitute the press f nverting tait t tait knwledge; aumulatin f tait knwledge, ext-firm sial infrmatin gathering ativities, int-firm sial infrmatin gathering ativities, and tnsfer f tait knwledge frm the master t the different team members. Externalizatin press is made up f ne fatr. This result differs frm Nnaka's thery that hypthesized that metapbr and dialgue wuld be retained. Cmbinatin press nsists f three fatrs that represent a three-step sequene f data pressing: aquisitin and integtin f infrmatin, synthesis and pressing f infrmatin, and disseminatin f infrmatin. Expliit knwledge in the rganizatin may be nverted int tait knwledge (internalizatin) in tw different ways; persnal experiene in whih knwledge is aquired frm real wrld, and simulatin and experimentatin in whih knwledge is aquired frm tbe virtual wrld.

KM ENABLERS. PRCESSES. AND RGANIZATINAL PERFRMANCE 227 Appendix C. Mediating Effet f Knwledge Creatin Press UR STUDY HINTS THAT KNWLEDGE CREATIN press mediates between enablers and rganizatinal reativity. Hwever, sme reent studies regard bth knwiedge enablers and knwledge reatin press as anteedents f rganizatinal perfrmane [8, 35]; that is. bth f them are independent variables f rganizatinal perfrmane. Therefre, in rder t test the mediating effet f knwledge reatin press, the Barn and Kenny 7 predure is adpted. Table Al shws this analysis result. This results in the mediatin effet beause tbe fllwing three nditins hld. First, ktiwledge enablers affet knwledge reatin press signifiantly. It has been nted that llabtin, trust, leaming. and entlizatin affet reatin. Hwever, tbis is nt the ase with frmalizatin. T-shaped skills, and IT supprt; we uld nt assess the mediating effet fr these three enablers. Send, llabtin, trust, leaming. and entlizatin affet rganizatinal reativity. Tbird. knwledge reatin press affets reativity (p =.742) while the effets f the previus fur enablers are redued. Fr example, in the ase f llabtin, its beta value is redued frm.2144 t.1316. In sum, we may pint ut that knwiedge reatin press mediates between the fur enablers (llabtin, trust. learning, and entlizatin) and rganizatinal reativity. Table Al. Mediatin Analysis Result Cllabtin Trust Learning Centlizatin Prmalizatin T-shaped skills IT supprt Knwledge reatin ***/)<.1. **/j<(),5. Knwledge reatin (beta values).285".3525"*.2138" -.23" -.13.443.611 *p<.l. rganizatinal reativity (beta values).2144'.3916"*.215* -.188' -.39.1682".949 rganizatinal reativity (beta values).1316.1353".1291 -.147 -.296.1514".493.7442*"

228 LEE AND CHI Appendix D. Mediating Effet f Intermediate utme IN RDER T VALIDATE WHETHER an intemiediate utme is an imprtant preditr f knwledge management r nt, antber mdel withut rganizatinal reativity is built t explre the diret relatinship between knwledge reatin and rganizatinal perfnnane. Testing tbis diret relatinship indiates n signifiant relatinships exept fr sializatin (p=.54, p <.5). This result is nsistent with the previus study [ 181. lt implies that the intermediate utme an help build a hain f redibility between knwledge reatin and rganizatinal perfrmane. Althugh nt the fus f this study, it is f interest t nte an altemative nurrent mdel in rganizatin thery. Tbis mdel wuld psit that effiieny and bureauti (r mehanisti) strutures wuld hain thrugh t iganizatinal perfrmane. Fr example, entlizatin an lead t effiieny beause it prevents a sttegi vauum f rganizatins and enables tbe develpment f preise ntrl prtxredures 13]. In additin, frmalizatin has been fund t lead t effiieny beause it may failitate the pid and ntinuus tnsfrmatin f ideas int superir prduts and servies and enhane mmuniatin flw thrugh tbeir extensive mnitring and reprting requirements r36. Similarly, standardizing business pties may enuge effiieny 148]. Related t an interplay between reativity (flexibility) and effiieny, it bas been assumed tbat a firm must either fus n effiieny r flexibility [33, 123]. That is. flexibility (r effiieny) an nly be ahieved at the st f effiieny (r flexibility). Therefre,.sme researhers have nentted n imprving effiieny [ 125] whereas thers bave fused n bw t imprve flexibility and reativity [13]. Hwever, there are nw a few studies that have suggested that it is pssible t be simultaneusly effiient and flexible 124, 3!]. rganizatins an btain their mpetitive advantages thrugh ahieving effiieny by emphasizing ntrl as well as flexibility (reativity) by reating knwledge [117]. Case studies suh as Mirsft 148], Unilever [691, and NUMMI (atyta subsidiary) [I] have shwn this simultaneus apph. These studies suggest that balaning between impsing disipiine fr effiieny and delegating authrity t enuge flexibility and reativity prvides tremendus benefits fr rganizatins. In summary,.sme studies insist that effiieny and flexibility are mutually exlusive, whereas thers argue that they are perfetly mpatible. ur study fuses n reativity (flexibility) nly. The interplay between these reativity fres and effiieny fres shuld be further investigated in the field f knwledge management. Fr example. Kigh et al. [69] indiated that knwledge management allws an rganizatin t imprve bth its effiieny and flexibility (innvatin) apabilities simultaneusly.