Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Korea University Business School, Korea University, Anam-Dong, Seongbuk-Gu, Seoul 136-701, Republic of Korea
c
Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 25 March 2013
Received in revised form 11 January 2014
Accepted 7 March 2014
Available online 18 March 2014
Keywords:
Knowledge management
Knowledge management strategy
Knowledge management performance
Contingency perspective
Technologyorganizationenvironment
framework
Environmental knowledge intensity
Organizational IS maturity
1. Introduction
Developing a knowledge management (KM) strategy is important in effective KM. An appropriate KM strategy enables a firm to
create, acquire, access, and leverage knowledge in a timely
manner, thereby resulting in better performance [1]. Considering
this KM strategy impact, the knowledge-based view (KBV) of the
firm has extended the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm,
which contends that organizational resources should be valuable,
rare, and appropriable to generate a competitive advantage and be
sustainable over time because of their low substitutability, low
mobility, and low imitability. That is, the KBV contends that
organizational knowledge is the primary resource for creating and
sustaining competitive advantage [2].
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant
funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A5A2A01014969).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 3290 2812; fax: +82 2 922 7220.
E-mail addresses: thkim@broad.msu.edu (T.H. Kim), isjnlee@korea.ac.kr
(J.-N. Lee), juchun@korea.ac.kr (J.U. Chun), izak.benbasat@sauder.ubc.ca
(I. Benbasat).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.03.001
0378-7206/! 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
AlthoughpriorstudiesonKMhaveimprovedourunderstandingof
KM strategy, its roles and impact are fragmented for several reasons.
First, studies on KM strategy have primarily adopted the universalistic perspective under the assumption that certain KM strategies are
consistently effective regardless of their organizational contexts
[3,4]. However, overlooking contextual factors creates a vulnerability
to contingencies under certain conditions because the effects of
different KM strategies on knowledge management performance
(KMP) are themselves affected by a firms external and internal
contexts. Nonetheless, the alignment of KM strategy with organizational contexts has not been fully addressed in the KM literature [5,6].
Second, the KBV has devoted substantial attention to KM strategy
analysis by identifying two major dimensions at the firm level: (1) the
extent to which knowledge is accumulated by a person or a system
(knowledge type) [7,8]; and (2) whether knowledge originates from
within or outside a firm (knowledge origin) [9,10]. However, previous
studies examining the effects of KM strategies on KMP have only
considered a single KM dimensioneither knowledge type (system/
person) or origin (external/internal)and have neglected the
possible combinations of these two dimensions [e.g., 4,6]. Therefore,
these studies do not elucidate the effect of KM strategies because of
399
400
Table 1
Review of key extant studies on knowledge management strategy.
Author(s)
Study dimensions
Theoretical
proach
ap-
Research
methodology
! RBV
! Universalistic
view
! 51 firm-level
data
Gammelgaard and
Ritter [20]
! System-oriented
! Human-oriented
! KBV
! Universalistic
view
! Conceptual
study
Leiponen [8]
! System-oriented
! Human-oriented
! KBV
! Universalistic
view
! 16 case studies
! 167 firm-level
data
! System-oriented
! Human-oriented
! KBV
! Contingency view
based on external
factors
! Survey data
from 80
functional-level
managers
! Complementary
view
! Contingency view
based on multiple
contexts
! 269
individual-level
data
De Clercq and
Dimov [18]
! External sourcing
! Internal sourcing
! KBV
! Universalistic
view
! Longitudinal
200 firm-level
data of venture
capital industry
! External sourcing
! Internal sourcing
! RBV
! Universalistic
view
! 111 firm-level
data
! External sourcing
! Internal sourcing
! RBV
! Contingency
perspective based
on internal
contexts
! Longitudinal
119 firm-level
data
401
Study dimensions
Theoretical
proach
ap-
Research
methodology
! 141 firm-level
data from
multiple raters
in organizations
Table 2
Two-dimensional classification of knowledge management strategies.
KM Strategy type
External codification
strategy
KM strategic dimensions
Motivation
Knowledge type
Knowledge origin
! Codifying organizational
knowledge through formal
information systems
! Personalizing knowledge
through informal human
networks
Internal personalization
strategy
! Personalizing knowledge
through informal human
networks
Results
402
Table 3
Review of key extant studies on external and internal contexts in strategic knowledge management.
1. Environmental knowledge intensity as external context
Author(s)
Theory/Method
Constructs of interest
External context
Internal context
Alvesson [36]
! KBV
! Theoretical
study
! Knowledge-intensive
characteristics
! Personnel loyalty
! Knowledge
intensiveness
! N/A
! KBV
! Empirical
study
! Knowledge sharing
! Absorptive capability
! Strategic advantage
! Knowledge-intensive
industries
! Innovation
capability
Nonaka and
Takeuchi [22]
! KBV
! Theoretical
study
! KM processes
! Knowledge creation
! Knowledge density
! N/A
! KBV
! Empirical
study
! Innovation process
! Innovation
! Knowledge-intensive
sectors
! N/A
Theory/Method
Constructs of interest
External context
Internal context
! RBV
! Empirical study
! Organizational learning
intensity
! Strategic advantage
! N/A
! IT capabilities
! Contingency
! Empirical study
! Best practices
! Service/business
performance
! Services
sector
! IT sophistication
Drucker [31]
! KBV
! Theoretical study
! Information-oriented
firms characteristics and
requirements
! Knowledge-intensive
environment
! IS in a firm
! A firms structure
403
Theory/Method
Constructs of interest
External context
Internal context
Raymond [35]
! Contingency
! Empirical study
! Organizational contexts
! IS success
! N/A
! IS sophistication
404
provides high-quality, reliable, and fast KM systems by encouraging organizational workers to rely on codified knowledge in a
reuse economy, in which investing once in a knowledge asset
and recursively using it are required. On the other hand, low
organizational IS maturity generates competitive advantages by
reducing unnecessary investments in KM systems and facilitating
conversations and exchanges of tacit knowledge. Regardless of the
level of organizational IS maturity, individual expertise channels
can provide a firm with creative, analytically rigorous advice about
and highly customized solutions to its unique tasks, thereby
yielding substantial profits with competitive advantages. Our
consideration of IS maturity as a key internal context reflects the
contingent relationship between a firms KM strategy choices and
its IS resource endowments. That is, successful KM is only partially
dependent on IS maturity, which indicates IS-oriented resources
and capabilities [41]. This implies that a firms best KM strategy for
KMP improvement depends on its IS maturity level.
4. Contingency hypothesis development
Our contingency perspective on the best choice of KM strategy
theoretically relies on the TOE framework, which explains the
successful adoption of KM systems and practices in organizations
[12]. Simultaneously dealing with knowledge intensity from firms
environments and achieving an appropriate level of IS maturity is
important for firms to be competitive in KM. Both contexts must be
considered in developing a contingency model to suggest the best
KM strategies across internally and externally different situations.
The research model proposed in this study is represented with
contingent expectations for each of the four KM strategies with
different levels of environmental knowledge intensity and
organizational IS maturity, as depicted in Fig. 1.
4.1. High knowledge intensity and high IS maturity: Cell 1
External codification strategy refers to a firms attempt to
access specialized and standardized external codified learning
sources, such as technical reports, trade journals, patents, and
other sources [25]. This strategy provides opportunities for a firm
to improve its competitiveness by benchmarking other successful
firms and conveying stories about best practices to its employees
[46]. Such standardized codified knowledge is usually less
sensitive to space than is tacit knowledge that is embedded in a
person. Thus, a firm can easily adopt external codified knowledge
and assimilate it into other activities and processes to create new
knowledge.
An organization with high knowledge intensity relies heavily on
external knowledge sources [30]. Such an organization is more
405
5. Research methodology
5.1. Sample and procedure
Data for empirical examination were obtained through a survey
conducted in Korea. For the representativeness of the study sample
and the generalizability of the results, we first referred to the ninth
edition of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification [56] to
select an initial sample of 154 firms whose industrial composition
was proportional to that in Korea. In this sampling phase, we
ensured that the selected firms had implemented KM initiatives
because it would have been impossible to examine the contextual
relationships between KM strategies and KMP by sampling firms
that had never attempted KM and thus would have had had no
records of KMP. We communicated with the managers in charge of
KM at the 154 selected firms. We explained the purpose of this
study and the contents of the questionnaires, and then asked the
managers to select 510 employees with backgrounds that would
make them eligible to answer the survey questions. We asked the
managers to choose multiple respondents because KM strategies
and KMP are firm-level phenomena that are better assessed by
multiple raters across different ranks, functions, ages, gender,
organizational tenures, and years in the focal industries [57]. We
then visited the headquarters of the selected firms, personally
distributed 738 survey questionnaires, and collected data on site.
To ensure confidentiality and minimize socially desirable
responses, enclosed with each questionnaire was a joint researcher-company cover letter stating that respondents should correspond only with researchers when returning the survey, that the
employees firms would not have access to individual ratings, and
that aggregated results without firm identification would be
reported.
Of the 738 survey questionnaires collected from the 154 firms,
we filtered out 78 responses from 13 firms, which either contained
unreasonable numbers of missing values for key study variables or
failed to meet the adequate level of index for interrater reliability
within the firm, rwg(j) [58], yielding a total of 660 survey sets from
141 firms for hypothesis testing (raters per firm: M = 4.68,
SD = 1.09, min = 2, max = 10). KM strategies and KMP are firmwide decisions, practices, and outcomes. Thus, the unit of analysis
for examining the KM strategy-KMP relationship in specific
contexts was placed at the firm level. In addition, multiple
individual ratings on a study variable in each firm were aggregated
to obtain an average score to represent firm-level properties.
Details on the size and age of the 141 firms and demographic
information for the 660 respondents are presented in Table 4.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences in
study variables based on the number of raters in each firm across
respondents rank, age, gender, organizational tenure, and years in
the industry. All of the final data were pooled for analysis.
5.2. Measurement
An initial version of the survey instrument was vetted through a
series of personal interviews with five academic experts in KM. As
a pilot test, the survey instrument was then administered to 56
graduate students in Master of Business Administration programs
at two top-tier universities in Korea. The respondents had at
least three years of KM-related work experience. The multiphase development of the instrument resulted in a number of
406
Table 4
Profile of companies and respondents.
(a) Number of employees
Range
Frequency
Fewer than 50
51100
101500
5011000
10015000
500110,000
10,001 and above
Total
Percent
19
7
25
15
48
10
17
13.5
5.0
17.7
10.6
34.0
7.1
12.1
141
100.0
Year
Frequency
Less than 10
1120
2130
3140
4150
51100
101 and above
Total
Percent
19
22
20
25
25
24
6
13.5
15.6
14.2
17.7
17.7
17.0
4.3
141
100.0
Items
Freq.
Percent
Measure
Items
Freq.
Percent
Gender
Male
477
72.3
Gender
Female
183
27.7
Position
Staff members
Assistant managers
General managers and above
Others: Experts/researchers
270
244
113
33
40.9
37.0
17.1
5.0
Age
2130
3140
4150
51 and above
283
296
71
10
42.9
44.8
10.8
1.5
Fewer than 5
610
1115
1620
21 and above
320
175
92
52
21
48.5
26.5
13.9
7.9
3.2
Organizational tenure
Fewer than 5
610
1115
1620
21 and above
430
142
46
30
12
65.2
21.5
7.0
4.5
1.8
rwg
h2
ICC(1)
ICC(2)
External codification
Internal codification
External personalization
Internal personalization
IS maturity
KM performance
0.812
0.818
0.835
0.844
0.987
0.949
0.477
0.528
0.442
0.482
0.520
0.442
0.336
0.401
0.291
0.343
0.392
0.293
0.703
0.758
0.658
0.710
0.751
0.660
3.370**
4.136**
2.922**
3.440**
4.014**
2.939**
**
p < 0.01.
significance levels derived from ANOVA, were also used supplementarily [57].
h2 is an estimation of the relative amount of between-unit
versus within-unit variance across an entire sample of units. The
greater the between-unit variance relative to the within-unit
variance, the higher h2 will be. Bliese [63] notes that h2 is
influenced by unit size (the number of raters in the unit); the
smaller the unit, the higher the obtainable h2 value. ICC(1) provides
an estimate of the proportion of total variance of a measure
accounted for by unit membership. Unlike h2, this index is not
influenced by unit size [63]. A significant F-test and the suggested
acceptable range of 0.050.50 are often used to determine whether
unit-level property exists in individual responses [57]. ICC(2)
estimates the reliability of unit mean values and is a function of
ICC(1) and unit size [63]. The greater the ICC(1) or unit size, the
higher the obtained ICC(2) value. Like other reliability measures,
ICC(2) values are commonly considered to be acceptable for
aggregation if they are equal to or exceed 0.70 [57].
Table 5 shows adequate levels of interrater reliability indices for
the single-item measures of KM strategies. These indices support
the aggregation of individual ratings into firm-level average scores.
These estimates of within-firm agreement and between-firm
variance prove the reliability of the single-item measures,
indicating that respondents within a firm had similar understandings of the single-item measures and answered accordingly.
Although reliability does not guarantee the validity of these
measures, shared understandings among multiple raters and the
407
Table 6
Sector-specific classification of environmental knowledge intensity.
Industries
Manufacturing (N = 24)
!
!
!
!
!
Services (N = 117)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
N = 10
Telecommunications (N = 3)
Non-life insurance: reinsurance, fire insurance (N = 2)
Security-dealing activities (N = 2)
Public administration and defense; compulsory social security (N = 13)
Computer and related activities (N = 15)
Research and development (N = 1)
Other business activities
- Legal activities (N = 2)
- Accounting (N = 2)
- Market research and public opinion polling (N = 2)
- Business/management consultancy activities (N = 8)
! Education (N = 1)
! Hospital activities (N = 1)
N = 52
N = 14
Construction (N = 8)
Wholesale household goods (N = 1)
Non-specialized retail trade in stores (N = 15)
Monetary intermediation (N = 14)
Life insurance (N = 6)
Activities auxiliary to financial intermediation (N = 19)
Other service activities (N = 2)
N = 65
408
key internal organizational context, which is neither an antecedent nor an outcome of KM strategies and KMP. The results of our
factor analyses show that the 10 items from Kumars [67] criteria
are not cross-loaded on the measures of KMP. A sample item reads,
The IS in my company provides a user-friendly interface.
Aggregation of multiple ratings on the organizational IS maturity
within a firm is supported by rwg(j) = 0.99, h2 = 0.52, ICC(1) = 0.39,
ICC(2) = 0.75, F(140, 519) = 4.01, p < 0.01, as shown in Table 5. The
internal consistency reliability estimate of Cronbachs alpha for
this measure is 0.98.
5.2.4. Knowledge management performance
Chong et al. [21] has proposed a comprehensive set of 38 items
that measures KMP and that represent the effectiveness of KM in
five areas: systematic knowledge activities, employee development, customer satisfaction, external relationships, and contribution to organizational success. Of the 38 items, we used five items
that represent each of the five dimensions but are distinct from
overall firm performance. To capture the effectiveness of KM on
these dimensions while ruling out compounding with general
organizational performance, we specified the referent as KM in
my company in the question items, as shown in Appendix. A
sample item states, KM in my company is effective in enhancing
the value of products and services. Multiple individual ratings on
KMP within a firm were aggregated based on rwg(j) = 0.95, h2 = 0.44,
ICC(1) = 0.29, ICC(2) = 0.66, F(140, 519) = 4.01, p < 0.01, as presented in Table 5. Cronbachs alpha for this measure is 0.94.
5.2.5. Control variables
Firm size and age were controlled in the analyses because of
their potential effects on KMP [38]. To measure firm size, we used
the natural logarithm of the number of employees to correct the
diminishing effect of firm size, given the wide variation in the
number of employees in the study sample [68]. We also controlled
the effect of firm age, which was estimated by the number of years
that a firm had existed. Firm age manifests a firms external
legitimacy of existence in its relationships with other firms, its
staying power, and the pervasiveness of internal routines that
influence its overall performance [19].
6. Analysis and results
Means, standard deviations, and correlations of variables
included in this study are presented in Table 7. A review of the
correlations shows that KMP is significantly and positively related
to external codification (r = 0.481, p < 0.01), internal codification
(r = 0.561, p < 0.01), external personalization (r = 0.270, p < 0.01),
and internal personalization (r = 0.382, p < 0.01) strategies. We
conducted two sets of multiple regression analyses. One set tested
the effects of KM strategies on KMP without considering the
contextual effects of both environmental knowledge intensity and
organizational IS maturity. Another set tested the effects of KM
strategies on KMP contingent on the four contexts.
6.1. Hypothesis test
The first set of regression analyses revealed that all four KM
strategies explained the additional 44.1% of the total variance in
KMP as a variance accounted for by firm size and age (DR2 = 0.441,
DF (4, 134) = 27.261, p < 0.01). Specifically, except for the internal
personalization strategy (b = 0.045, ns), the external codification
(b = 0.158, p < 0.05), internal codification (b = 0.368, p < 0.01), and
external personalization (b = 0.186, p < 0.05) strategies were
significantly related to KMP.
However, these results for the main effects of KM strategies on
KMP simply represent the weighted average effects across the four
409
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
0.494**
0.250**
0.362**
0.020
0.035
0.281**
"0.255**
0.128
6.787
2.164
Firm size
Firm age
External codification
Internal codification
External personalization
Internal personalization
IS maturity
Knowledge intensity
KM performance
Mean
SD
0.090
0.024
0.133
0.006
0.162
"0.233**
0.082
0.428**
0.391**
0.079
0.472**
0.073
0.481**
"0.091
0.479**
0.502**
0.105
0.561**
0.306**
0.048
"0.023
0.270**
0.136
0.045
0.382**
0.092
0.578**
36.369
24.167
4.414
0.749
4.846
0.838
4.405
0.664
4.871
0.695
0.500
0.500
"0.008
0.440
0.498
4.676
0.584
Note: IS maturity and knowledge intensity were dummy-coded: i.e., high IS maturity = 1; low IS maturity = 0; high knowledge intensity = 1; low knowledge intensity = 0.
N = 141.
**
p < 0.01.
contingency cells. For example, the significant positive relationship between external codification and KMP in Cell 1 (high in both
environmental knowledge intensity and organizational IS maturity) was most likely strong enough to compensate for the
insignificant effect of external codification on KMP in other cells,
resulting in an overall significant positive main effect. Thus,
whether a particular KM strategy is effective for a contingency cell,
for several cells, or for all cells remains unclear. Accordingly, we
conducted additional multiple regressions in which KMP was
regressed simultaneously on all four KM strategies in each cell.
These regression analyses allowed us to test whether a focal KM
strategy was significantly related to KMP in its hypothesized
context in the presence of other KM strategies.
To test the hypothesized contingency effects, we used a
median-split method to divide sample firms into high and low
organizational IS maturity groups (median = 4.63, SD = 0.81,
min = 1.60, max = 6.58). This procedure produced four distinctive
contingency cells: high environmental knowledge intensity and
high organizational IS maturity (Cell 1: N = 34), low knowledge
intensity and high IS maturity (Cell 2: N = 36), high knowledge
intensity and low IS maturity (Cell 3: N = 28), and low knowledge
intensity and low IS maturity (Cell 4: N = 43). As shown in Table 8,
in each of the four cells (except for Cell 4), the hypothesized KM
strategies had significant effects on KMP in the corresponding
context, whereas other KM strategies had no significant effect.
Specifically, the external codification strategy was significantly
related to KMP in Cell 1 (H1: b = 0.329, p < 0.05). However, other
KM strategies were not associated with KMP in this context.
Likewise, the internal codification strategy was significantly
associated with KMP in Cell 2 (H2: b = 0.621, p < 0.01). The
external personalization strategy had a significant relationship
with KMP in Cell 3 (H3: b = 0.546, p < 0.01). However, the internal
personalization strategy was not related to KMP in Cell 4 (H4:
b = 0.040, ns). In summary, except for the internal personalization
strategy in Cell 4, in which both environmental knowledge
intensity and organizational IS maturity were low, all of the other
KM strategies were significantly associated with KMP in their
hypothesized contexts, thus initially supporting H1, H2, and H3.
6.2. Robustness check
The aforementioned tests for contingency effects were based on
a relatively small sample size that ranged from 28 to 43 firms in
each context. A recommended statistical remedy for dealing with
small sample sizes is the bootstrapping method, which does not
assume sampling distribution. Although bootstrapping is by no
means a substitute for inference drawing based on parametric
410
Table 8
Regression results for knowledge management strategies and their effects in each context.
Variables
Cell 2 (N = 36)
Low in KI/High in ISM
Cell 1 (N = 34)
High in KIa/High in ISMb
Model 1
Model 2
**
**
Intercepts
Firm age
"0.090*
(0.037)
"0.003
(0.003)
"0.106*
(0.040)
0.001
(0.003)
0.216
4.274*
2, 31
0.216
0.166
4.274*
2, 31
0.329*
(0.146)
0.138
(0.116)
"0.079
(0.135)
0.222
(0.115)
0.288
3.925*
4, 27
0.504
0.394
4.579**
6, 27
Main effects
External codification
Internal codification
External personalization
Internal personalization
DR2
DF
df
R2
Adjusted R2
Overall F
df
2.555
(0.874)
Model 4
Upper
BCa 95% CI
at model 4
Lower
**
Model 5
Model 6
**
**
Upper
BCa 95% CI
at model 6
Lower
0.389
4.199
4.811
(0.397)
0.827
(0.845)
"0.580
2.592
4.203
(0.229)
2.133
(0.703)
"0.201
"0.019
0.094
0.010
"0.016
(0.045)
0.001
(0.003)
"0.107
"0.008
0.027
(0.058)
0.002
(0.004)
"0.005
0.007
0.019
(0.043)
0.003
(0.005)
0.101
0.585
"0.291
0.223
"0.196
0.667
0.305
0.871
"0.475
0.425
"0.045
0.618
"0.051
0.420
"0.345
0.381
0.031
0.526
2, 33
0.031
"0.028
0.526
2, 33
"0.031
(0.133)
0.621**
(0.146)
0.288
(0.163)
"0.012
(0.162)
0.518
8.329**
4, 29
0.549**
0.456
5.883**
6, 29
0.031
0.398
2, 25
0.031
"0.047
0.398
2, 25
Note: Unstandardized regression coefficients are presented with standard errors in parenthesis.
a
KI, Environmental Knowledge Intensity.
b
ISM, Organizational IS Maturity.
c
BCa 95% CI, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% confidence interval from bootstrapping with N = 1000.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
Cell 4 (N = 43)
Low in KI/Low in ISM
Model 7
Model 8
**
**
Upper
BCa 95% CI
at model 8
Lower
0.520
3.364
4.351
(0.273)
2.084
(0.667)
"0.015
(0.040)
0.002
(0.004)
"0.120
0.060
"0.007
0.010
0.021
(0.045)
"0.005
(0.005)
"0.204
(0.132)
0.377
(0.181)
0.546**
(0.135)
"0.203
(0.133)
0.454
4.629**
4, 21
0.485*
0.338
3.296*
6, 21
"0.480
0.203
"0.145
0.782
0.110
0.802
"0.517
0.276
0.026
0.527
2, 40
0.026
"0.023
0.527
2, 40
Upper
0.180
3.902
"0.051
(0.041)
0.001
(0.004)
"0.130
0.022
"0.009
0.010
0.121
(0.147)
0.308
(0.167)
0.120
(0.136)
0.040
(0.172)
0.378
5.707**
4, 36
0.404**
0.304
4.063**
6, 36
"0.153
0.512
"0.069
0.587
"0.142
0.366
"0.334
0.608
Controls
Firm size
5.614
(0.253)
Model 3
Cell 3 (N = 28)
High in KI/Low in ISM
411
Hypotheses
Results
H1
When a firms organizational IS maturity and environmental knowledge intensity are both high, the external
Supported
H2
H3
H4
codification strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KM performance.
When a firms organizational IS maturity is high and its environmental knowledge intensity is low, the internal
codification strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KM performance.
When a firms organizational IS maturity is low and its environmental knowledge intensity is high, the external
personalization strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KM performance.
When a firms organizational IS maturity and environmental knowledge intensity are both low, the internal
personalization strategy is the most effective way to improve that firms KM performance.
Supported
Supported
Not supported
412
413
414
Dimension
Component
Specific examples
Component 2-1: Accessing external sources Example G: Sourcing knowledge through strategic alliances, benchmarking, outsourcing,
(inter-firm) for organizational knowledge consulting services, and external professional conferences
Example H: Sourcing knowledge from esteemed journals and newspapers, external
technical reports, and publications of external consultative bodies
Example I: Sourcing knowledge using feedback from suppliers, customers, and competing
and cooperating firms
Example J: Sourcing knowledge from internal experts, predecessors, and pedestal workers
Component 2-2: Developing internal
sources (intra-firm) for organizational
Example K: Sourcing knowledge through intra-firm training and development programs,
knowledge
along with internal R&D projects
Example L: Sourcing knowledge from company bulletins, internal conferences and
seminars, and internal technical reports
References
[1] P.H. Gray, D.B. Meister, Knowledge sourcing effectiveness, Management Science
50, 2004, pp. 821834.
[2] R.M. Grant, Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management
Journal 17, 1996, pp. 109122.
[3] B. Choi, H. Lee, An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on
corporate performance, Information and Management 40, 2003, pp. 403417.
[4] S. Nevo, M.R. Wade, W.D. Cook, An examination of the trade-off between internal
and external IT capabilities, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 16, 2007, pp.
523.
[5] B. Cassiman, R. Veugelers, In search of complementarity in innovation strategy:
internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition, Management Science 52, 2006,
pp. 6882.
[6] E. Revilla, I.M. Prieto, B.R. Prado, Knowledge strategy: its relationship to environmental dynamism and complexity in product development, Knowledge and
Process Management 17, 2010, pp. 3647.
[7] M.T. Hansen, N. Nohria, T. Tierney, Whats your strategy for knowledge management? Harvard Business Review 77, 1999, pp. 106116.
[8] A. Leiponen, Managing knowledge for innovation: the case of business-to-business services, Journal of Product Innovation Management 23, 2006, pp. 238258.
[9] T. Menon, J. Pfeffer, Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: explaining the
preference for outsiders, Management Science 49, 2003, pp. 497513.
[10] V.L. Mitchell, Knowledge integration and information technology project performance, MIS Quarterly 30, 2006, pp. 919939.
[11] B. Choi, J.-N. Lee, Complementarities and substitutabilities among knowledge
sourcing strategies and their impact on firm performance, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 13, 2012, pp. 498545.
[12] L.G. Tornatzky, M. Fleischer, The Processes of Technological Innovation, D.C.
Heath & Company, Lexington, MA, 1990.
[13] V. Sambamurthy, R.W. Zmud, Arrangements for information technology governance: a theory of multiple contingencies, MIS Quarterly 23, 1999, pp. 261290.
[14] O.A. El Sawy, A. Malhotra, Y. Park, P.A. Pavlou, Research commentary: seeking the
configurations of digital ecodynamics: it takes three to tango, Information
Systems Research 21, 2010, pp. 835848.
[15] H.P. Andres, R.W. Zmud, A contingency approach to software project coordination, Journal of Management Information Systems 18, 2002, pp. 4170.