chapter 6 references - dl.lib.uom.lk

CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES

Abrams, LC. Cross R l knowledge^,*,,

Alavi, M & Leidner, DE 1999 Proc H'zaissxssP ~ ££S5r,£sssr=37.

, vol. 53, no.

Alawi, AI, AI-Marzooqi, NY & Mohammed, YF 2007,’Organizational culture knowledge sharing: critical success factors’, Journal of Knowledge Management vol. 11. no.02, pp: 22-38.

and

Aurum, A, Daneshgar, F & Ward, J 2007,’ Investigating Knowledge Management practices in software development organizations - An Australian experience’, viewed 19 Jul 2012, DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2007.05.005,Science Direct One File Database.

Bakker, CR , 2011, Presented at the Dime-Druid Academy Winter Conference 2011, January 20 - 22, ’Understanding Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: Multi-Level Research Through Social Cognitive Perspective, Aalborg, Denmark.

‘Social Cognitive Theory. In: Analysis of Child Development’, Jai PressBandura, A 1989,Limited, Greenwich, CT, pp: 1-60.

‘Self-efficacy in changing societies’, Cambridge University Press, Britain,Bandura, A 1997, UK, pp: 8-20.

,, p or Thuraisiingham, B 2006, ‘Secure Knowledge

, , , Ouestion Structure when Sharing Knowledge , ElectronicBircham, H 2003, ‘The Impact of »Journal of Knowledge Management, vo). 1 Issue-pp

95

Blau, PM 1964,4 Exchange and Power in Socml Life’, Willey, New York, p. 352.

Bless, C & Higgon-Smith C 20nn jPerspective’, 3rd Edition, Lusaka: ]utFaUndamentais of Social Research Methods: An African

Borg, WR, Gall, JP & Gall MD 1993 ‘Am •Longman Publishing Group, New York, USA5™5 EduCatl0nal Research:: a Practical Guide’,

2W- R’pm "/fc P'°fM « -’ »■

same time’,

Chai, S, Das, S & Rao HR 2012,’ Factors Affecting Bloggers’ Knowledge Sharing: An Instigation Across Gender, Journal of Management Information Systems , vol. 28. no. 3, pp. 309-341.

Chen, CJ, & Huang, JW 2007, ‘How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management: the social interaction perspective’, International Journal of Information Management, vol. 27, pp. 104-18.

Chen, IYL, Chen, NS, Kinshuk 2009,’ Examining the Factors Influencing Participants’ Knowledge Sharing Behavior in Virtual Learning Communities’, Educational Technology & Society, vol. 12, no.01, pp. 134-148.

Chiu, CM, Hsu, MH & Wang ETG 2006, ’Understanding Knowldege Sharing in Virtual Communities: An Integration of Expectancy Disconfirmation and Justice Theories’, llth Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems, pp 1872-1888.

, Online

creation of human capital’, American Journal ofColeman, J 1988,’ Social capital in the Sociology, vol.94, pp 95-120.

Constant, D, Sproull, L ^

electronic weak ties for technical advice , Urgant-a

An organizational learning framework: fromvol. 24, pp. 522-37.

96

Factors With , Transylvanian Review

Davenport, TH and Prusak, L School Press, pp. 3-6. 1998,’ Working Knowledge’, Boston MA, Harvard Business

[Available R 20' ail hun7/vvw.Tl / “lf!?'Sl in devel°Pment: ICTACEO’, The Island,

cat=article-details&page=article-aee

Social Networks, pp. 241-255. DOI: 10.4018/978-1 -4666-1815-2.ch014.

Eastin, MS, and La, RR 2005, ‘Alt.support: modeling social support online’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 21 no. 6, pp. 977-92.

Fischer, F & Mandl, H 2005,’ Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: the role of external representation tools’, Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol.14, no.03, pp 405-441.

Friesl, M, Sonja, AS & Sebastian, K 2011, Knowledge sharing in new organizational entities’,10.1108/13527601111104304.

DOIManagement,vol 18,no. 1 ,pp.71 -86,CulturalCross

Holste, JS & Fields, D 2010,’ Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and Knowledge Management, Emerald Database, voU4,no.01,pp.l-S-140,10.1108/13673271011015615.

Gibbons DE 2004,’ Friendship and Advice Network^ in the^ Context of Changing

3£S£ ms1"w-SK,«"«"—Mno.06, pp: 1360-1380.

Effect of expected benefit and perceived cost bt F in India’, OrganizationsGupta, B, Joshi, S, & Agrawal, ^1’avfora 1^study of IT employees

on employee’ knowledge sharmg behavioral stu°>and markets in emerging economics, vo . ,

97

‘Knowledge flows within ^i.no. 4, pp. 473-96. multinational corporations’,

Of the annual Meeti^fo^Soyatco^ 7* PUbl'C P°'icy: What’sJ Royal Economic Society, Nottingham, U.K. new?’, Proceeding

Knowledge sEng ]£, fL£ p^MOO^" *

Herzberg, F 1987,’One Review, vol 65, no 5, pp. 109-120.

time-how do you motivate employees? ‘ Harvard Businessmore

Ho, LN, Kuo, TH & Lin, B 2012, How social identification and trust influence organizational online knowledge sharing, vol. 22 no. 01, pp. 4-28. DOl 10.1108/10662241211199942

Hrastinski,S 2009 , ‘A Theory of Online Learning As Online Participation’, ScienceDirect Database, DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.009

Inkpen AC & Tsang EWK 2005, ‘Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 146.

Kelman, HC 1958, ‘Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 2 ,no. 1, pp. 51-60

Lam, A 2000, ‘Tacit Knowledge Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework’, Organization Studies, vol.21,no.03, pp: 487 -513.

Lin, CP & Bhattacherjee, A 2009, ’Understanding online »c«j mmmj *mm+m* socio-cognitive model’. Journal of Social Sconce, vol.46 no. 4, pp. 7-4

Lin, N 1999,’Building a theory of social capital Connections’, vol.22, no. 1, pp- 28 51.

, ■ r>7 onm ’Nuturing Interpersonal Trust inLisa, CA, Cross, R, Lesser. E & Levl^° Executive, vol.l7,no.04,pP.64-74Knowledge-Sharing Networks, Academy of Managem

98

Liu, NC & Liu, MS 2011 ’ u

Lubit R 2001, 'Tacit knowled competitive advantage’, OrganillTal DyZS^ST^. IM-tT ‘° SUStainab,e

Mahmood, A, Qureshi, MA & Shahh n

organizations: a case study’, vol.l l,no.06,pp.l 10-

,vol. 32, no. 2, pp.344-354.

Mazzolini, M & Madison, S 2005, ‘When to jump in: The role of the instructor in online discussion forums ‘, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia

Miller, D & Shamsie, J 1996, ‘The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: the Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965’, Academy of Management Journal vol. 39 no. 3, pp. 519-543.

Mishra, J & Morrissey, MA 2000, “Trust in Employee/Employer Relationships. A Survey of West Michigan Managers, Saidman Business Review, vol.06,issue.01, pp 14-15.

Monnavarian , A & Amini ,A 2009, 'Do toeractions within net^0‘*a^^Businessmanagement?’,

DOI10.1108/17515630910956561

intellectual capital and the organizational ,’vol. 23, no. 2, pp.242-66.

of Organizational

Nahapiet, J & Ghoshal, S 1998, ‘Social capital Advantage’, Academy of Management Review

Knowledge Creation,Nonak., IH 1994.Organization Science,

99

Nonaka, IH & Takeuchi, KU 1 qck

SS"m,X ?ZT',hy and aZ"4-n™*^Nonaka, IH & Konno N Knowledge Creation’, C^m'a"iCS ForO’Reilly, T 2005, ‘What is Web 2 0- ri •generation of software”, O’Reillv Uodln ?a Pfe™S a"d business mode>s for the next ,[Accessed: 11-August-2012], ’’ Vauable at]: www.oreillynetcom/lpt/a/6228

Developing a Conc^tuS Tacit Knowledge Sharin8;

Paroutis, S & Saleh, AA 2009, ‘Determinants of Knowledge Sharing Using Web 2 0

lo“lKM3TO2iw7wnmK"°W“dS‘ TOl'tno.M, pp. 52-63. DOI

Podolny, JM & Baron, JN 1997,’ Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace’, American Journal of Sociology, vol.62, pp. 673-693.

Ranasinghe, G 2010, ‘Study of Knowldege Sharing Determinates in the Sri Lankan Software Industry’, Postgraduate Institute of Management, pp.250-255.

Rangachari, P 2009,’ Knowledge sharing networks in professional complex systems’, Journal of Knowldege Management, vol. 13 vo. 3, pp. 132-145.

Razmerita, L, Kirchner, K & Sudzina, F 2009, ‘Personal knowledge management: The role of Web 2.0 tools for managing knowledge at individual and organization levels, OnlineInformation Review, vol. 33 no. 6,1021-1039

must consider’, JournalRiege, A 2005,’ Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers of Knowledge Management, vol.9, no.3, pp.18-3

Rolland, N & Labbe, RK 2008,’ Networking knowledge sharing Journal of Business Stia gy

inside the organization: a case study on , vol.29, no.05, pp4-U.

in software engineering. IEEEKnowledge management

Rus, 1, & Lindvall, M 2002, Software, pp.26-38.

100

http://www.oreillynetcom/lpt/a/6228

Samarkoon, JL 2002 ‘j0hthe Software Development °f Knowledge Workers and r t •vol.07,nos .1&2 P Industry of Srilanka &•/ Z l t RetentI0n Strategies m

’ Lankan Journal of Management,

Shoshana, RD & Higgins MC 2005 ’ n longitudinal study «, Emerald Database, voT.To^Oe^r^seV-^15'0^53101131 : a

WorkforceSur,CT

PJ 2009,’ Influence on Willingness of Social Capital Theory and Habitual

Sun, SY Teresa, LJ, Chumg, HF, Wu, CY & Chao Virtual Community’s Knowledge Sharing: Based ’ Domain , World Academy of Science, pp 142-147.

on

Teiesa, LJ, Sun, SY, Chao, PJ & Wu, CY 2009,’ Knowledge Sharing Behavior in E- Communities: from the Perspective of Transaction Cost Theory’, World Academy of Science,vol.53 pp. 150-153

Tiwana, A 2003, ‘Knowledge partitioning in outsourced Software Development: a field study’, Conference proceeding of 24th International Information Systems, pp. 259-268.

Tohidinia, Z & Mosakhani, M 2010, ‘Knowledge sharing behavior and its predictors’, Industrial Management & Data Systems, vol. 110 no. 4, pp. 611-31.

Trochin , WMK 2000, Research Methods Knowledge Base. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Tsai, W & Ghoshal, S 1998, ‘Social capital and value creation: the role of intra-firm networks’, Academy of Management Journal, vol. 41 no. 4, pp. 464-/0.

no.2-3, pp.155-173

101

Wasko, MM & Farai cKnowledge Contribution Vei ’ ‘

cc,ro* ^ sg*Weber, B & Weber, C 2007 relational fit, social capital ’ Management, vol. 24,

anrU,0rP°r,ate Venture capital asa means of radical innovation:

Jou,7lal of Engineering & Technology

Whittaker, J, Burns, M & Beveresocial capital on knowledge 6transfbr^with• Unc!erstanding and measuring the effect of

of,he enterprises’, erprise Association, pp. 1-7,

Willem, A & Buelens, M 2007, ‘Knowledge sharing in public sector organizations- the effect

Willem, A & Buelens, M 2009, ‘Knowledge sharing in inter-unit cooperative episodes: the impact of organizational structure dimensions’, International Journal of Information Management, vol. 29, pp. 151-6

Yoffie, DB, Slind, M & Achsaf, N 2009, Linkedln Corp. Report

Yu PL 1991, ‘Habitual Domain’, Operations Research Society of America,yol.39, no.6, pp. 869-876

Zhang Y & HUH, SR 2003 Factors that influence online relationship development in a knowledge sharing community', JWeAgs »/<*« Confix

Information Systems, pp 410-417.

Messina, R & Richard , R 2007 Socio-Cognitive ’ work of 9- and 10-years olds ‘EducationalZhang , J, Scardamalia , M, Lamon , M

dynamics of knowledge building in 1 ® no 0? dd-1 17-143. Technology, Research and Development, vol.55, no.02,pp

ssssstssssss^st~-’~^102

APPENDIX - A ~ RELIABILITY test results_ Scale: Snt

CronbadVs T Alpha Based

Cronbach'sAlpha N of Items

onStandardized

Items0.772 0.770 5.000

Item-Total StatisticsScale

Variance if Item

Deleted

Scale Mean if Item Deleted Corrected

Item-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach’s Alpha if

ItemDeletedQi 13.785 5.862 0.646 0.693Q2 14.003

13.95713.876

6.650 0.453 0.761Q3 6.084 0.644 0.696Q4 6.109 0.587 0.715Q5 14.024 7.242 0.397 0.775

Scale : TRURe iability Statistics

Cronbach'sAlpha

Cronbach's Alpha Based

N of Items

onStandardized

Items5.0000.7430.738

Item-Total StatisticsCronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

CorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Scale Variance if Item Deleted

Scale Mean if Item Deleted

0.7010.4773.08315.05614.992

Q6 0.6450.6302.828Q7 0.6600.5822.79515.131Q8 0.6610.5772.73914.97914.858

Q9 0.7790.2733.285Q10

I

r-—-—^S2!ilN0Rr .Cro"bachs ^bid?T

A pha Alpha Based N of Itemson

StandardizedItems

0.714 0.737 _3j)00_ Item-Total Statistic




Cronbach'sAlpha if

ItemDeletedQll 6.321 1.645 0.532 0.636Q12 6.484 1.612 0.600 0.573Q13 7.088 1.110 0.532 0.684

Scale :IDURe iability Statistics


Cronbach'sAlpha

N of Items

onStandardized

Items0.782 0.780 4.000

Item-Total StatisticsScale Mean if Item Deleted

ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


Cronbach'sAlpha if

ItemDeleted

0.7340.5843.02210.765Q140.6780.6833.06210.642Q150.6820.6743.06010.663Q160.8010.4253.91910.283Q17

Scale :PVCReliability Statistics

N of ItemsCronbach's Alpha Based

Cronbach'sAlpha

onStandardized

Items

2.0000.7460.745

| Library |

iis'

*

SSirlSPfCorrectedItem-TotalCorrelation

Cronbach's Alpha if

Variance if Item Deleted

Hjh809

___0.705

ItemQ19-----------—

ScalebVTP?^

Cronbach’sAlpha Alpha Based

DeletedQ20 0.595 0.734

0.595 0.734

N of Items

onStandardized

Items0.749 0.764 4.000

Item-Total StatisticsScale Mean if Scale



Cronbach'sItem Deleted Alpha ifItem

DeletedQ21 11.110 3.101 0.638 0.653Q22 11.409 2.864 0.507 0.715Q23 11.155 3.225 0.546 0.695

0.70511.214 2.587 0.539Q24Scale :MCE

Reliability StatisticsN of Items


Cronbach'sAlpha

onStandardized

Items4.0000.8070.805


Alpha if Item

Deleted 0.776

’ 0.729


ScaleVariance if Item Deleted

4336

Scale Mean ifItem Deleted

0.57910.198Q25 0.6793.391jQ.46310.118

0.744Q26 0.6504.093Q27 0.593 0.769

3.9689.930Q28

III

Scale :IDH

Cr0"bfhs ^SvTT AIPha Alpha Based N of

ItemsonStandardized

Items0.722 0.739 3.000

Item-Total Statistics Scale




Cronbach'sAlpha if

ItemDeletedQ30 7.091 1.568 0.617 0.574Q31 7.187 1.332 0.606 0.553

7.652 1.369Q32 0.7800.443Scale :SRE

Re iability StatisticsCronbach's

AlphaCronbach's

Alpha BasedN of Items

onStandardized

Items4.0000.707 0.711


Alpha if Item

Deleted


ScaleVariance if

Item Deleted


0.5910.5702.16511.500Q33 0.6710.4522.38911.318Q34 0.6910.4082.67211.329Q35 0.6120.5592.55111.487Q36Scale :QLK

Reliability Statistics ~~ Cronbach's

Alpha BasedN of ItemsCronbach's

Alphaon

StandardizedItems

5.0000.7760.775

IV

SoCM5i|VlS||2!LS,iostem Deleted Variance

if Item Deleted Hjun Hj^To

57050


Cronbach's Alpha if

ItemQ37 Deleted1^096

J4J44Il834

0.499Q38 0.7510.572Q39 0.7270.507Q40 0.74914.257 4.138 0.676Q41 0.687______ 14.075_

Scale :QUK Reliability Statistics

4.911 0.504 0.748

Cronbach'sAlpha

Cronbach'sAlpha Based

N of Items

onStandardized

Items0.739 0.747 3.000

Item-Total StatisticsScale Mean if Scale



Cronbach'sItem Deleted Alpha if

ItemDeleted

Q42 6.979 1.474 0.575 0.6577.027Q43 1.742 0.590 0.6226.850 2.053 0.555 0.677Q44

Scale :TCK

Reliability Statistics

N ofItems


Cronbach'sAlpha

onStandardized

Items3.0000.7780.776

Item-Total StatisticsScale


1974 1262 1725

Cronbach'sAlpha if


Scale Mean ifItem Deleted Item

Deleted0.7780.535

6.353 0.652Q45 0.6586.623 0.650Q46 0.6626.553Q47

V

ScaleTttri?r uCronbach s CronbacivT-'

AIPha Alpha Based N of Itemson

StandardizedItems

0.731 0.733 3.000fem-Total Statistics




Cronbach'sAlpha if

ItemDeletedQ48 7.658 1.346 0.517 0.693Q49 7.591 1.363 0.595 0.595

Q50 7.361 1.448 0.553 0.646Scale: CWE

Re iability StatisticsCronbach's

AlphaCronbach's

Alpha BasedN of Items

onStandardized

Items0.827 0.827 4.000

Item-Total StatisticsCronbach'sCorrected




Alpha ifItem

Deleted0.7530.7135.4559.457Q510.7350.7525.3899.781Q520.8270.5466.2219.588Q53 0.8030.6075.7639.396Q54

VI

APPENDIX - B - descriptive STASTICS

Dimension EXCELCODE

VALID mean STANDARDDEVAITONNSocial Network Ties SNT 372 3.48Trust 0.100TRU 374 3.75Beliefs in

ReciprocityIdentification

0.100374NOR 3.32 0.404

IDN 374 3.53 0.210Privacy PVC 374 3.25 0.374Self-rated ExpertisePersonal OutcomeExpectation

SRE 374 3.80 0.100374 3.74 0.412MPE

Member’scommunity related outcomeexpectation_____Individual Habit

374 3.39 0.700MCEIDH 374 3.66 0.300

Organization’sWorkingEnvironment

374 3.19 0.170CWE

Quality of Knowledge 374 3.52 0.489QLKQuantity of Knowledge

0.2823.48374QUK0.1413.26Tacit Knowledge 374TCK0.4893.77374Explicit Knowledge EXK

VII

APPENDIX - C -descriptive STASTICS

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. DeviationQuestions NQi 372 3.63 0.892Q2 372 3.41 0.872Q3 372 3.45 0.838Q4 372 3.53 0.882Q5 372 3.39 0.760SNT 372 3.48 0.100Q6 374 3.70 0.555Q7 374 3.76 0.557

374 3.62 0.599Q8Q9 374 3.78 0.624Q10 374 3.90 0.636TRU 374 3.75 0.100

374QH 3.63 0.616374 3.46 0.593Q12

2.86 0.878374Q130.4043.32374NOR0.8343.35374Q140.7493.48374Q150.7553.45374Q160.6423.83374Q170.2103.53374IDN0.8403.33374Q190.8993.17374Q20 0.3743.25374PVC 0.6063.85374Q21 0.7863.55374Q22 0.6223.81374Q23 0.8643.75374Q24 0.4123.74374MPE 0.7203.37374Q25 0.9323.11374Q26 0.7413.45374Q27 0.8223.64374Q28

VIII

MCE 3743.39Q30 0.7003743.87Q31 0.584374 3.78Q32 0.703374 3.31 0.789374IDH 3.66 0.300Q33 374 3.71 0.741Q34 374 3.89 0.735Q35 374 3.88 0.648Q36 374 3.72 0.592SRE 374 3.80 0.100Q37 374 3.51 0.749Q38 374 3.46 0.813Q39 374 3.77 0.601Q40 374 3.34 0.755

Q41 374 3.53 0.649QLK 374 3.52 0.489Q42 374 3.45 0.886Q43 374 3.40 0.757Q44 374 3.58 0.645QUK 374 3.48 0.282Q45 374 3.41 0.880

374Q46 3.14 1.032374Q47 3.21 0.867

3.26 0.141374TCK3.65 0.727374Q48

0.6723.71374Q490.6553.94374Q500.4893.77374EXK0.9633.28374Q510.9472.96374Q520.9243.15374Q530.9833.34374Q540.1703.19374CWE

IX •A%£! library j§

*s&wssy

APPENDIX-D-PEARSONCQRRelation DATA

1. Pearson Correlation for Personal Expectation and KS (QUK, QLK, TCK, EXK)

Correlations

Member'spersonaloutcome

expectation Quantity of KnowledgeMember's personal

outcome expectationTacit Explicit

KnowledgePearson Correlation Sig. (2-talled)

Knowledge1 .667" .406" .080 .353”000N .000 124 000374Quality of Knowledge 374Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-tailed)________ 'I

Quantity of Knowledge Pearson Correlation Slg. (2-tailed)

374 374 374.667" 1 468" 176" .335".000 .000N .001 000374 374 374 374 374.406" .468" 1 .353" 308".000 .000N .000 000374 374 374Tacit Knowledge 374 374Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-talled).080 .176" .353" 1 151''.124 .001 .000 003N 374 374 374 374Explicit Knowledge 374Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-tailed).353" 385" 306" .151" 1.000 .000 000 .003N 374 374 374 374 374

” Correlation Is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

2. Pearson Correlation for Social Interaction Ties and KS (QUK, QLK, TCK, EXK)

Correlations

SocialInteraction Explicit

KnowledgeTacit

KnowledgeQuantity of Knowledge

Quality of KnowledgeTies

.199".168".363".379"Social Interaction Ties Pearson CorrelationSlg. (2-tailed)

1.000.001.000.000374374374374374N

385".176".468"1.379-Quality of Knowledge Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

000.001.000.000374374374374374N 306".353".468" 1363"Quantity of Knowledge Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-tailed)000000.000.000 374374374374374N 151"1.353".176".168"Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)Tacit Knowledge 003.000.001.001 374374374374N 1.151".306".385".199"Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)Explicit Knowledge 003.000.000.000 374374374374374N

Correlation Is significant at the 0.01 leve. (2-talled).

X

3. Pearson Correlation f0r Trust and KS(QUK, QLK

- TCK, EXK)

Correlations

.Quality orKnowledge

Trust Quantity ofKnowledge

TrustPearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed):]

Pearson Correlation Slg. (2-tailed)

Quantity KnowTidiT~P^i^c5™ita Sig. (2-tailed)

Tacit ExplicitKnowledgeKnowledge1 .386" .329" .192" 280"N .000 .000 .000Quality of Knowledge 374 .000374 374 374.386” 3741 .468” .176" 385”.000N .000 .001 .000374 374 374 374 374.329" .468" 1 .363” .306".000 .000N .000 .000374Tacit Knowledge 374Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-tailed)374 374 374.192" .176" .353" 1 .151"#1 N .000 .001 .000 003374 374Explicit Knowledge 374Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-tailed)374 374280" .385” .306" .151” 1.000 .000 .000 .003N 374 374 374 374” Correlation Is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 374

4. Pearson Correlation for Privacy and KS (QUK, QLK, TCK, EXK)

Correlations

Quality of Knowledge

Quantity of Knowledge

TacitKnowledge

ExplicitKnowledgeTrust

Trust Pearson CorrelationSlg. (2-talled)

.386" .329"1 .192” .280".000 .000 .000 .000

N 374 374 374 374 374Quality of Knowledge Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-tailed).386” .468" .176" 385"1

.001 .000.000.000374374N 374374374

.306".353".468".329"Quantity of Knowledge Pearson Correlation Slg. (2-talled)

1.000.000.000.000374374374374374N

.151".353" 1.176".192"Pearson Correlation Slg. (2-tailed)

Tacit Knowledge003.000.001.000374374374374374N

.151" 1.306".385".280"Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-tailed)

Explicit Knowledge.003.000.000.000

374374374374374N**. Correlation Is significant at the 0.01 level (2-talled).

XI

5. Pearson Correlation f0r Norm of Reciprocity and KS (QUK, QLK

, TCK, EXK)

Correlations


.289"


.234"

NOR NOR Tacit ExplicitKnowiedce

.138“Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

IQuantity of Knowledge Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

Knowledge1.078

.000N .000 .132 008374Quality of Knowledge 374 374 374 374.289" 1 .468" .176" 335".000 .000N .001 .000374 374 374 374 374.234" .468" 1 .353" .306",000 .000 .000N .000374 374Tacit Knowledge 374 374 374Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)078 .176" .353" 1 .151"

.132 .001 .000 .003N 374 374 374Explicit Knowledge 374 374Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-talled)

.138" 385" .306" .151" 1.008 .000 .000 .003N 374 374 374 374 374

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

6. Pearson Correlation for Identification and KS (QUK, QLK, TCK, EXK)

Correlations



TacitKnowledge

ExplicitKnowledgeIdentification

Identification Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

.395" .237" .197"1 .084.106 .000.000 .000

N 374374 374374 374Quality of Knowledge Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-talled).385".468" .176".395" 1.000.001.000.000

374 374374N 374374.306".353".468".237"Quantity of Knowledge Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-talled)1

.000.000.000.000374374374374374N

.151".353" 1.176"Pearson CorrelationSig. (2-talled)

.084Tacit Knowledge.003.000.001106374374374374374N

.151" 1.306".385".197"Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

Explicii Knowledge.003.000000.000

374374374374374N** Correlation Is significant at the 0.01 level (2-talled).

XII

7. Pearson Correlation for Self Elated Experience

and KS (QUK, QLK, TCK, EXK)

Correlations

Self Related- Expertise Quality of

Knowledge

.425"

Self Related Expertise Quantity of Knowledge

.256"

TacitPearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)J____Pearson Correlation Slg. (2-tailed)

_______ :iQuantity of Knowledge Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

ExplicitKnowledge

263"

Knowledge1.055

N .000 .000 .289 000Quality of Knowledge 374 374 374 374 374.425" 1 .468" .176" .385".000N .000 .001 .000374 374 374 374 374.256" .468" 1 .353" 306".000 .000N .000 .000374Tacit Knowledge 374 374Pearson CorrelationSlg. (2-tailed)

374 374.055 176" .353" 1 .151".289 .001 .000N .003374 374Explicit Knowledge 374 374Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-tailed)

374.263" .385" .306" .151" 1

.000 000 .000 .003N374 374 374 374 374~ Correlation Is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

8. Pearson Correlation for Organizational Supportand KS (QUK, QLK, TCK, EXK)Correlations

Organizationsupport



Tacit ExplicitKnowledgeKnowledge

OrganizationSupport Pearson CorrelationSlg. (2-tailed)

1 .206" .107' -.051 -.016.000 .038 .324 .752

N 374 374 374 374 374Quality of Knowledge Pearson Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed).206" .468" .176" .385"1

.000 .000 .000.001N 374 374 374374 374

Quantity of Knowledge Pearson Correlation Slg (2-tailed)

.107' .468" 353" .306"1.000 .000.000.038

374374 374N 374374.151".353"Pearson Correlation

Slg. (2-talled).176" 1Tacit Knowledge -.051

.003.000.001.324374374374374N 374

.151".306" 1.385“Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

-.016Explicit Knowledge.003.000.000.752

374374374374374N**, Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-talled).*. Correlation Is significant at the 0.05 level (2-talled).

XIII

APPENDIX - E - QUESTIONAIREPersonal Information

Age

° 20-25 Years o 26-30 Years ° 31-35 Years o 36-40 Years

o More than 40 Years

Gender

o Male o Female

Working experience in the Industry

o 2 years o 3 -5 Yeas o 5-10 Years o More than 10 Years

Job Title

o IS Manager o Project Manager o QA Manager o IT Consultant o Software Engineer o Web Developer o QA Engineer

Education

o Degree Level o Masters Level

o PhD Level

Do you have any other professional qualifications? If yes, please mention below.

XIV

Information

!• Are you

□ Linkedln

□ Yammer

□ Twitter

□ MySpace

□ Xing

□ Online professtional network maintain by my organization

^alQnlineProfessi,,nal Networks

mber of following professional network sites?a

1.1 Are you a member of any other professtional site other than the above mentioned?

Please indicate the name---------------------------------------

2. Do you use following professional discussion or information sites to collobarate with others?| | Knowledge blog

| | Web forum

□ Wiki

□ Writting Posts

2.1 Your are a member since?

o More than 5 Years

o 5 Years o 4 Years o 3 Years o 2 Years o 1 Years o Less than 1 year

online professional network than an offlinelike to maintain an2.2 Do you professional network?

o Yes o No

XV

2.3 If Yes, what are the reasons?

d Easy to

□ Free

□ Easy to customize

□ Use as a collobarative tool

□ Wider range of views and opinion

□ Most of the friend in the industry using it

□ Can manage with with your busy schedule

use

Any other reason(s)

2.4 What type of information do you exchange with each other?

n Recreational purpose (Entertainment)

^ Keep up to date with developments in the profession/industry

□ Manage information

□ Collaborate with colleagues

|—| Communicate with colleagues

□ Employment purpose

XVI

1 "Strong Disagree 2-Degree 3-Niether 4-Segree 5-Strong Agree

-------

l 2Q1. 3 4 5

Q2.in my

Q3. I,™3!11 the interactive Professional relationship with my colleagues by using online professional site

I prefer to communicate and share with members via online professional networks (e.g. Linkedln, Twitter, Blogging) rather than face-to-face meetingsI have mutual understnading between each other with networksI haveprofesstional networks

Q4.ideas

Q5.in my onlilne professional

Q6. trust of the peoples in my

Q7. I trust on my online professtional networktool

Q8- I belive that members in the professional network are truthful when dealing with each otherI trust the information that is being shared by others in your online professional networkI feel happy to work in the onlinecommunity because peoples are treating in friendly manner

Q9.

Q10.

I know the value of the professionalQ11 •networks_____________ ________ -—I like to create moreo and more connection with in the community by referencing each

other

Q12.

considerable amount of effort toand comment through online

I put publishpostprofessional network------- ------- -------- —

diversified netwrork combine wim

Q13.

I haveother industry experts—-----------

of belongingness within my

Q14

I feel sense online network community

Q15

XVII

Q16online professional

w 1 exPand my network more

within my network community

Q17 Iother

and more

mv nrnfen°U8h, C°^^lce about others in my professional network

Q18 I have

Q19 1 issues with the onlineprofessional network tool

Q20 I reluctant to because of I

my knowledge with other am more concerns about

privacy of my knowledge and experience

Q21 I like to share knowledge with in the online professional networks

Q22 When I share knowledge in online communities, I hope to increase my membership level (e.g., be promoted from basic to advanced membership).

Q23 I respect the people who contribute his/her valuable knowldege to others through online professtional networks]

I can increase career advancement by sharing information with each other through online network

Q24

I think members in the professional network are behaving in consistent manner

Q25

I feel everyone in my professional networkhas common goal when dealing with eachother______ _________ ______—-----—I feel i have recognition within theprofessional network community---------_—I can stable my status by exchanging

through online professional

arise

Q26

Q27

Q28knowledgenetwork

when opportunitiesnetwork will help me

I noticed professionals in my

Q29

XVIII

Q30 When sharing knowled will increas ge with each other

sense of helping each otherQ31 In this

learn

^ethat

I have enough experience sharing related, matters with in the online professional networks

new ^mUnity’ We help each other tonew skills regardless of seniority

Q32

uesQ33

work

Q34 f onlysiwi“itty Knowledge if I think my knowledge is important

I learn a lot from other members in this community

I have lot of experience in the industry and I would like to help others

Q35

Q36

Q37 I believe the shared knowledge is relevant to my problem

Q38 I can get complete answer for my work related problem from the industry expertise by posting it through online professional network

I can understand the shared knowledge thatis being shared by others in your professional network

Q39

The Shared knowledge with in the onlinecommunity is accurate _____ ________.—The Shared knowledge with in the online community is reliable

I’m wasting time by posting the comments in online professional network

I share average volume of knowledge within

my network community per month

Q40

Q41

Q42

Q43

XIX

Q44 If I publish answer from community

a problem ,1 can get lot of my online professional

Q45 I prefervnl.mt -P60?!6 toapproidT^TShiT oluntaniy offer my knowledge tQ them than

Q46

Q47

Q48 1 can get complete answer for my work lelated problem from the industry expertise by posting it through online professional network

Q49 I share work related article, coded information among my online professional network

Q50 Generaly online network is good platfonns for us to share academic or non-academic articles

My company give enough support, when i share work related matters with each other by using online professional networks

Q51

My company reward me, when sharingwork related matters with each other by using online professional networks

Q52

to get theMY company approve information from the internet rather than directly asking for help from other members

Q53

My~~company give enough encouragementwhen sharing the work related matters with each other by using online professiona

networks

Q54

XX

chapter 6 references - dl.lib.uom.lk

Documents