Perceived benefit of knowledge sharing: Adapting TAM model

Most companies realize the knowledge sharing will give value to the organization. In ensuring knowledge sharing activities more reliable, effective and efficient, many companies have developed Knowledge Management System (KMS) as their knowledge sharing initiatives. Knowledge Management System would not make any different in term of advantages of knowledge sharing if individuals refuse in sharing their knowledge. Understanding individual characteristic in knowledge sharing through Knowledge Management System is crucial. In this paper, authors propose a comprehensive antecedent of Knowledge Management System acceptance by extending Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and called it as perceived benefit of knowledge sharing. Previous TAM for KMS acceptance is lack of knowledge contributor perspective in term of knowledge sharing advantages. They just look for knowledge seeker perspective. In this study we will fill this gap and propose both perspective of knowledge workers as contributor and knowledge seeker. Furthermore, we incorporate how trust, shared vision, organization and social-cultural factors influence KMS Acceptance.

[1]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[2]  I. Nonaka.  A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[3]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[4]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , 2001, MIS Q..

[5]  Lorne Olfman,et al.  A Knowledge Management Success Model: An Extension of DeLone and McLean's IS Success Model , 2003, AMCIS.

[6]  William H. Money,et al.  Assessing Knowledge Management System User Acceptance with the Technology Acceptance Model , 2005, Int. J. Knowl. Manag..

[7]  M. Lai,et al.  Assessment of Intellectual Capital Management in Taiwanese IC Design Companies: Using DEA and the Malmquist Productivity Index , 2006 .

[8]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Book review:Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak. Harvard Business School Press, 1998. $29.95US. ISBN 0‐87584‐655‐6 , 1998 .

[9]  R. Noe,et al.  Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research , 2010 .

[10]  Ganesh D. Bhatt,et al.  Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people , 2001, J. Knowl. Manag..

[11]  Jonathon N. Cummings.  Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[12]  Liam Fahey,et al.  Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management , 2000 .

[13]  Samer Faraj,et al.  Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice , 2005, MIS Q..

[14]  Atreyi Kankanhalli,et al.  Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories: An Empirical Investigation , 2005, MIS Q..

[15]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  The DeLone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[16]  Michael H. Zack,et al.  Managing Codified Knowledge , 1999 .

[17]  R. McDermott.  Why Information Technology Inspired but Cannot Deliver Knowledge Management , 1999 .

[18]  M. Hitt,et al.  Managing Knowledge for Sustained Competitive Advantage: Designing Strategies for Effective Human Resource Management , 2003 .