organizational characteristics, knowledge management strategy, enablers, and process capability:...

Organizational Characteristics, Knowledge Management Strategy, Enablers, and Process Capability: Knowledge Management Performance in U.S. Software Companies

Dissertation DefenseHsin-Jung HsiehHsin-Jung Hsieh

Knowledge is power . (Francis Bacon , British philosopher)

2

BACKGROUND TO THE PROBELMBACKGROUND TO THE PROBELM

Most empirical research only examined the relationships separately.

A majority of studies were based on only a few cases or used small sample sizes.

No studies were found that investigated the relationship among organizational characteristics, KM strategy, enablers, process capability, and performance.

3

PURPOSE OF THE STUDYPURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Describe U.S. software company in terms of knowledge management critical factors.

Explore the relationships among knowledge management critical factors.

Investigate the effects of the degree of balance between human and system orientation strategies on knowledge management performance.

Examine the mediating impact of knowledge management process capability

4

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS IDEFINITION OF KEY TERMS I

Knowledge Management StrategyKnowledge Management Strategy

System orientationSystem orientation and human orientationhuman orientation

Knowledge Management EnablersKnowledge Management Enablers

Technology, structure, and organizational culture

Knowledge Management Process CapabilityKnowledge Management Process Capability

Knowledge acquisition, protection, conversion, and application

5

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS IIDEFINITION OF KEY TERMS II

Knowledge Management PerformanceKnowledge Management Performance

Financial and non-financial indicators

Organizational CharacteristicsOrganizational Characteristics

Type of firm, annual sales in dollars, number of employees, and product life cycle

Software CompanySoftware Company

Software publishers, computer system designers, and internet service providers

6

JUSTIFICATIONJUSTIFICATION

SignificanceSignificance KM has strategic significance for the sustainable competitive position of a firm.

The study will contribute to organizational practice through its findings.

FeasibilityFeasibility The participant are available and the survey can be conducted online.

ResearchablilityResearchablility The study investigates important scientific questions and all variables can be measured.

7

DELIMITATIONS AND SCOPEDELIMITATIONS AND SCOPE

The geographic area is limited to the continental United States.

The participants are executives in U.S software companies.

The participants are able to read, write, and speak English, and are at least 18 years of age.

The participants are employed at their companies for the past six months.

LITERATURE GAPS, THEORETICAL FRLITERATURE GAPS, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, AND HYPOTHESESAMEWORK, AND HYPOTHESES

9

RESEARCH DESIGN & POUPLATIONRESEARCH DESIGN & POUPLATION

Research DesignResearch Design

Non-experimental, quantitative, correlational, causal-comparative, and online research design

Target PopulationTarget Population

39,769 executives in U.S software companies.

Accessible PopulationAccessible Population

Lead411 lists approximately 17,811 software company executives.

10

SAMPLING PLANSAMPLING PLAN

Sample SizeSample Size The minimum sample size > 186Simple Random SamplingSimple Random Sampling A sample of 6,000 executives was randomly created from the list of 17,811 executives.

The researcher sent out 6,000 invitation e-mails.Response RateResponse Rate 258 responses were received (4.3 % response rate). 212 valid responses.

INSTRUMENTATIONINSTRUMENTATION

Instruments No. of Items Type of Scale Source

Filter Questions 3 Yes / No

Organizational Characteristics

4Checklist

Fill-in-the blankPark (2006)

KM Strategy 8

5-point semantic differential scale

Choi (2002)

KM Enablers 27 Lee (2003)

KM Process Capability

26 Park (2006)

KM Performance 5Choi (2002)

Al-Hawari (2004)

12

ProceduresProcedures

Obtained permission to use scales. Created an online survey. Received approval from the IRB. Selected a sample of 6,000 participants who

received e-mail (Bcc feature and plain text format) invitations created by the researcher.

Collected data for one month. Analyzed data which was stored on a password

protected computer.

13

METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS IMETHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS I

Validity and ReliabilityValidity and Reliability Internal Consistency Reliability - Internal Consistency Reliability - Coefficient AlphaCoefficient Alpha Construct Validity – Construct Validity – Exploratory Factor AnalysisExploratory Factor Analysis Convergent Validity – Convergent Validity – Pearson r correlation coefficiPearson r correlation coeffici

entent Concurrent Validity – Concurrent Validity – ANOVA and Post Hoc compaANOVA and Post Hoc compa

risonsrisons

14

METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS IIMETHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS II

Research Question 1-2Research Question 1-2 Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive StatisticsResearch Hypotheses H1-H10Research Hypotheses H1-H10 Multiple RegressionMultiple RegressionResearch Hypotheses H11Research Hypotheses H11

Moderated Multiple RegressionModerated Multiple Regression

Research Hypothesis H12Research Hypothesis H12 Two-Way ANOVATwo-Way ANOVA

15

Evaluation of MethodologyEvaluation of Methodology

Internal ValidityInternal Validity A quantitative and correlational research design

strengthens internal validity. The instruments selected have evidence of good e

stimates of reliability and validity. Sample size is sufficient. A non-experimental research design weakens dra

wing causal inferences.

16

Evaluation of MethodologyEvaluation of Methodology

External ValidityExternal Validity The survey was completed within their respective

firm settings Using a simple random sampling technique in this

study is appropriate. The final data producing sample of the target pop

ulation is self-selected which has potential bias. A single executive might not be representative of

his/her entire firm.

RESULT-VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ANALYSESRESULT-VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ANALYSES

Variables Original Dimensions New DimensionsConvergent / Concurrent

Validity

KM StrategyHuman orientationSystem orientation

8 items---

Convergent

KM Enablers

TechnologyStructureOrganizational culture

27 items

TechnologyDecentralizationDecentralizationFormalizationFormalizationOrganizational culture

25 items


Knowledge acquisition, Knowledge protection, Knowledge conversion, Knowledge application

26 items

Internal knowledge acquisitionExternal knowledge acquisitionKnowledge upgradeKnowledge protectionKnowledge conversionKnowledge application

26 items

KM Performance (Unidimensional)5 items

---


Annual sales in dollarsNumber of employees

---

Type of companyProduct life cycle

--- Concurrent

RESULT- RESEARCH QUESTION 1RESULT- RESEARCH QUESTION 1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Internet serviceproviders

Computer systemdesigners

Softwarepublishers

Organizational CharacteristicsOrganizational Characteristics

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Introductory Growing Mature Declining

Type of software company

Product life cycle

Annual sales in dollars: 97,579,502

Number of employees: 358

RESULT- RESEARCH QUESTION 2RESULT- RESEARCH QUESTION 2KM MeasurementKM Measurement

Variables Dimensions Mean

KM Strategy System orientation 3.04

Human orientation 3.79

KM Enablers Technology 3.76

Decentralization 3.67

Formalization 2.63

Organizational Culture 3.98

KM Process Capability Internal knowledge acquisition 3.20

External knowledge acquisition 3.38

Knowledge upgrade 2.96

Knowledge protection 3.59

Knowledge conversion 3.00

Knowledge application 3.40

KM Performance (Unidimensional) 3.48

20

RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 1 & 2RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 1 & 2

Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 Supported Supported

KM Strategy

System orientation +

Human orientation +

KM Performance

Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 SupportedSupported

KM Enablers

Technology +

Decentralization -

Formalization

Organizational culture +

KM Performance

21


Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 SupportedSupportedKM Process Capability

Internal knowledge acquisition

External knowledge acquisition +

Knowledge upgrade

Knowledge protection

Knowledge application +

KM Performance

Hypothesis 4 Hypothesis 4 SupportedSupportedKM Enablers

Technology +

Decentralization -

Formalization

Organizational culture +


22



KM Strategy


Human orientation +

KM Enablers



KM Strategy


Human orientation +

23



Organizational CharacteristicsType of software company

Number of employee

Annual sales in dollars +

Product life cycle

KM Strategy

Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8 NNot Supportedot Supported

KM Enablers


Number of employee

Annual sales in dollars

Product life cycle

24




Number of employee

Annual sales in dollars +

Product life cycle

KM process capability


KM Performance


Number of employee


Product life cycle

25

RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESESRESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 11 Hypothesis 11 Partially SupportedPartially Supported


KM Strategy

System orientation

Human orientation

KM Enablers

Technology

Decentralization

Formalization

Organizational cultureKM Performance

x

Organizational CharacteristicsType of companyType of company

Number of employee


Product life cycleProduct life cycle

26

RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESESRESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Hypothesis 12 Hypothesis 12 Partially SupportedPartially Supported

System orientation

KM Performance

Human orientation

Balance

Interaction x

27

INTERPRETATIONS IINTERPRETATIONS I

This Study Literature Consistent

Human orientation > System orientation

Keskin (2005) ; Choi, (2002) Yes

Organizational culture > Technology > Decentralization > Formalization

Park (2006) Yes

Lee (2003):

Technology > Organizational culture > Structure

Partially

Knowledge protection > Knowledge application > External knowledge acquisition > Internal knowledge acquisition > Knowledge conversion > Knowledge upgrade

Park (2006):

Knowledge protection > Knowledge application > Knowledge acquisition > Knowledge conversion

Partially

KM performance = 3.48 Al-hawari (2004); Choi (2002)

KM performance > 4

No

Descriptive Characteristics: MeanDescriptive Characteristics: Mean

28

INTERPRETATIONS IIINTERPRETATIONS IIHypotheses TestingHypotheses Testing

Hypotheses Results Hypotheses Results

H1 Supported H8 Not Supported

H2 Supported H9 Supported

H3 Supported H10 Supported

H4 Supported H11 Partially Supported

H5 Supported H12-1 Not Supported

H6 Supported H12-2 Supported

H7 Supported H12-3 Not Supported

29

INTERPRETATIONS IIIINTERPRETATIONS IIIHypotheses TestingHypotheses Testing

External knowledge acquisition

Internal knowledge acquisition

Knowledge upgrade

Knowledge protection

Knowledge conversion

Knowledge application

KM performance

---- Literature

This study

This study & literature

+ This study & + Park (2006)

+ This study

+ Park (2006)

+ Park (2006)

30

INTERPRETATIONS IVINTERPRETATIONS IVHypotheses TestingHypotheses Testing

---- Literature

This study


+ This studySystem orientation strategy

Human orientation strategy

KM Enablers


KM performance

+ This study

+ This study+ Choi (2002)+ Keskin (2005)

+ This study

+ This study

+ This study+ Choi (2002)+ Keskin (2005)

31

INTERPRETATIONS VINTERPRETATIONS VHypotheses TestingHypotheses Testing

System

Human

KM performance

This study & Keskin (2005)

Human

Human

System

System

KM enablers

KM process capability

This study

This study

32

INTERPRETATIONS VIINTERPRETATIONS VIHypotheses TestingHypotheses Testing

---- Literature

This study


Technology

Decentralization

Formalization

Organizational cultureOrganizational culture


KM performance

- This study+ Hurley (2005)

+ This study+ Gold et al (2005)

+ This study

- This study

+ This study

+ This study+ Gold et al (2005)

33

INTERPRETATIONS VIIINTERPRETATIONS VIIHypotheses TestingHypotheses Testing

This study


KM Strategy

System orientation

Human orientation

KM Performance


Number of employee


+ This study

(Mediator)

34

INTERPRETATIONS VIIINTERPRETATIONS VIIHypotheses TestingHypotheses Testing

This study

KM Performance

High degree

System orientation

High degree

Human orientation

Balance+ This study

35

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONSPRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

To enhance knowledge management performance, managers could place greater emphasis on:

Improving human orientation strategy, system orientation strategy, technology, centralization, organizational culture, external knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application.

Strengthening and balancing system orientation and human orientation strategies.

(continued)

36

Creating company policies to ensure that knowledge application is more important than knowledge acquisition.

Helping their company understand that more centralization will be helpful to raise knowledge performance.

Avoiding paying too much attention to technology while ignoring organizational culture.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS (Continued)(Continued)

37

ConclusionsConclusions

System and human orientation strategies are significant positive explanatory variables of knowledge management process capability, enablers, and performance.

Technology and organizational culture dimensions are significant positive explanatory variables of knowledge management process capability and knowledge management performance. Decentralization may inversely affect knowledge management performance.

38

Conclusions Conclusions (Continued)(Continued)

Annual sales in dollars was a significant positive explanatory variable of knowledge management strategy and knowledge management process capability.

Knowledge management process capability is a mediator between knowledge management strategy and organizational characteristics, and knowledge management performance.

39

Conclusions Conclusions (Continued)(Continued)

Companies with a balance in a high degree of human orientation coupled with a high degree of system orientation, had a positive significant relationship with knowledge management performance.

The six-dimension and 26-indicator knowledge management process capability scale and the four-dimension and 25-indicator knowledge management enablers scales were more appropriate than the original scales used in past research.

40

LimitationsLimitations

This study has several limitations: This study was limited to measuring attitudes of

respondents. This study was a one-time survey. The design of the study was non-experimental which

threatens internal validity. The very low response rate and a self-selected final

data-producing sample poses threats to external validity.

(continued)

41

Limitations Limitations (Continued)(Continued)

The study was based on the findings obtained using multiple regression analyses.

The questionnaire contained too many items compared to prior studies… and may have affected the accuracy of responses.

This study adopted the breakdown of the AEA to classify the software companies.

The findings may only be generalized to similar U.S high-tech industries.

42

RECOMMENDATONS FOR FUTURE STUDYRECOMMENDATONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

Future research should include financial performance data.

Future research should try to access a single organization in a longitudinal case study.

The study should be replicated in different industries and countries.

Future research should select middle managers, knowledge workers, or specific departments as their samples.

43

RECOMMENDATONS FOR FUTURE STUDYRECOMMENDATONS FOR FUTURE STUDY (Continued)(Continued)

Future studies should add other variables into the knowledge management model.

Future studies should add socio-demographic characteristics of participants.

Dissertation

organizational characteristics, knowledge management strategy, enablers, and process capability:...

Documents

application slide

british philosopher

correlational research

research question

empirical research

software company executives

s software companies

minimum sample size