Critical Success Factors in Implementing Process-Oriented Knowleddge Management in Korea

Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate College
2011
Critical success factors in implementing process-

oriented knowledge management systems (PKMS)
in the public sector in Korea
Hyun Kang
Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd

Part of the Business Commons
Recommended Citation
Kang, Hyun, "Critical success factors in implementing process-oriented knowledge management systems (PKMS) in the public sector
in Korea" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 12017.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Iowa State University. For more information,
please contact digirep@iastate.edu.
Critical success factors in implementing process-oriented knowledge management
systems (PKMS) in the public sector in Korea
by
Hyun Kang
A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Major: Information Systems
Program of Study Committee:

Sreevatsal Nilakanta, Major Professor
Kevin Scheibe
Terry Childers
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa
2011
Copyright Hyun Kang, 2011. All rights reserved.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... v
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... x
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE................................................................................................ 4
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................... 6
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................ 8
2.1 KNOWLEDGE, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) AND KMS .................................... 8
2.1.1 Hierarchical Views of Data, Information, and Knowledge ............................... 8
2.1.2 Definition of Knowledge ................................................................................... 9
2.1.3 KM in Organizations ....................................................................................... 10
2.1.4 Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) ...................................................... 11
2.1.5 KM in the Public Sector .................................................................................. 12
2.1.6 KM and its Limitations.................................................................................... 14
2.2 PROCESS-ORIENTED KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (PKM) ....................................... 16
2.2.1 Definition of PKM........................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 PKM Structure ................................................................................................. 17

iii
2.2.3 Current Practices in the Public Sector in Korea .............................................. 21
2.2.4 PKMS in KOSHA ........................................................................................... 22
2.3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR (CSF) FROM IS, KM, AND KMS .................................. 26
2.4 SUCCESS MODELS AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT .......................................... 31
2.5 APPLICATION OF CSFS AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ................................... 34
CHAPTER 3. METHOD AND PROCEDURES.................................................................... 37
3.1 METHODS OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 37
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY .................................................................................. 38
3.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS AND FOLLOW-UPS ..................................................... 39
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 40
3.5 VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES ................................................................................. 41
3.5.1 Dependent Variables ....................................................................................... 41
3.5.2 Independent Variables ..................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 54
4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................. 54
4.2 PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE IN KMS AND PKMS .................................................. 65
4.2.1 Perception of Importance in KMS................................................................... 65
4.2.2 Perception of Importance about PKMS Attributes.......................................... 68
4.2.3 Differences of Perception of Importance between KMS and PKMS .............. 71
4.2.4 Comparison of Perceptions of Success between KMS and PKMS ................. 74
4.3 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY TEST............................................................................ 75
4.3.1 Reliability and Validity Tests of KMS ............................................................ 76

iv
4.3.2 Reliability and Validity Tests for PKMS ........................................................ 81
4.4 HYPOTHESES TESTS ................................................................................................. 86
4.5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS ................................ 90
4.5.1 Analysis of Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS ........................ 90
4.5.2 Analysis of Perceptions of Importance on Variables for PKMS ................... 100
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 110
5.1 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................. 110
5.1.1 Perception of Importance toward PKMS comparing to KMS ...................... 111
5.1.2 The Effects of Demographic Differences on KMS and PKMS .................... 114
5.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................. 115
5.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................... 117
APPENDIX A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [ENGLISH] ............................................... 120
APPENDIX B. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [KOREAN]................................................ 125
APPENDIX C. PKMS EXAMPLE [KOSHA] ..................................................................... 129
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 134

v
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ............................................................................ 53
TABLE 4.1 OVERALL RESPONDENTS ........................................................................... 54
TABLE 4.2 RESPONDENTS BY GENDER ....................................................................... 55
TABLE 4.3 RESPONDENTS BY AGE ............................................................................... 55
TABLE 4.4 RESPONDENTS BY POSITION ..................................................................... 56
TABLE 4.5 RESPONDENTS BY REGION ........................................................................ 57
TABLE 4.6 RESPONDENTS BY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS ................................. 58
TABLE 4.7 RESPONDENTS BY MAJOR FIELD ............................................................. 59
TABLE 4.8 RESPONDENTS BY START WORK YEAR ................................................. 60
TABLE 4.9 RESPONDENTS BY WORK YEAR IN CUREENT AREA/POSITION ....... 61
TABLE 4.10 NUMBER OF KNOWLEDGE CREATIONS ................................................. 62
TABLE 4.11 NUMBER OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING CAFS JOINED ......................... 63
TABLE 4.12 NUMBER OF KNOWLEDGE CREATIONS CREATED IN KNOWLEDGE
SHARING CAFS ........................................................................................... 64
TABLE 4.13 PERCEPTION OF IMPORTNACE ON KMS ................................................ 66
TABLE 4.14 PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE ON PKMS.............................................. 69
TABLE 4.15 COMPARISON OF PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE BETWEEN KMS
AND PKMS ..................................................................................................... 72
TABLE 4.16 PAIRED T-TEST OF PERCEPTION ON OVERALL SUCCESS BETWEEN
KMS AND PKMS ............................................................................................ 74

vi
TABLE 4.17 PAIRED T-TEST OF PERCEPTION OF SUCCESS BETWEEN KMS AND
PKMS (SYSTEM USAGE AND USER SATISFACTION, RESPECTIVELY) ... 74
TABLE 4.18 SURVEY ITEMS [KMS] ................................................................................ 77
TABLE 4.19 RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS [COMPOSITE
RELIABILITY AND AVE, FOR KMS] ......................................................... 78
TABLE 4.20 CORRELATION OF LATENT VARIABLES [KMS] ................................... 79
TABLE 4.21 RESULT OF CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS [CROSS-
LOADINGS, KMS].......................................................................................... 80
TABLE 4.22 SURVEY ITEMS [PKMS] .............................................................................. 82
TABLE 4.23 RESULT OF CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS [COMPOSITE
RELIABILITY AND AVE, FOR PKMS] ....................................................... 83
TABLE 4.24 CORRELATION OF LATENT VARIABLES [PKMS] ................................. 84
TABLE 4.25 RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS [CROSS-
LOADINGS, PKMS] ....................................................................................... 85
TABLE 4.26 RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES TEST ............................................................. 89
TABLE 4.27 PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE ON VARIABLES FOR KMS BY
GENDER .......................................................................................................... 92
TABLE 4.28 PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE ON VARIABLES FOR KMS AMONG
DIFFERENT AGES ......................................................................................... 92
DIFFERENT POSITIONS ............................................................................... 93
DIFFERENT REGIONS (1) ............................................................................ 94

vii
DIFFERENT REGIONS (2) ............................................................................ 95
DIFFERENT MAJOR FIELDS ....................................................................... 96
DIFFERENT WORK YEARS ......................................................................... 97
WORK-YEAR IN CURRENT AREA/POSITION ......................................... 97
KNOWLEDGE CREATIONS ......................................................................... 98
KNOWLEDGE SHARING CAF JOINED .................................................. 98
NUMBER OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN KNOWLEDGE SHARING
CAF JOINED ................................................................................................. 99
TABLE 4.38 PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE ON VARIABLES FOR PKMS BY
GENDER ........................................................................................................ 102
TABLE 4.39 PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE ON VARIABLES FOR PKMS AMONG
DIFFERENT AGES ....................................................................................... 102
DIFFERENT POSITIONS ............................................................................. 103
DIFFERENT REGIONS (1) .......................................................................... 104

viii
DIFFERENT REGIONS (2) .......................................................................... 105
DIFFERENT MAJOR FIELDS ..................................................................... 106
DIFFERENT WORK YEARS ....................................................................... 107
WORK-YEAR IN CURRENT AREA/POSITION ....................................... 107
KNOWLEDGE CREATIONS ....................................................................... 108
THE NUMBER OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING CAF JOINED ................ 108
NUMBER OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION IN KNOWLEDGE SHAIRNG
CAF JOINED ............................................................................................... 109

ix
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 2.1 STARTING POINTS OF PKM INITIATIVES [FROM MAIER & REMUS,
2003] ................................................................................................................. 18
FIGURE 2.2 THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE-INTENSIVE
BUSINESS PROCESSES, KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES, KM ACTIVITIES,
AND KNOWLEDGE FLOWS [FROM REMUS & SCHUB, 2003] .............. 19
FIGURE 2.3 OVERVIEW OF THE BLUEPRINT OF PKM [FROM REMUS & SCHUB,
2003] ................................................................................................................. 20
FIGURE 2.4 PROCEDURE OF SELECTING CORE PROCESSES FOR PKMS .............. 23
FIGURE 2.5 AN EXAMPLE HOW KNOWLEDGE AND PROCESS CAN COMBINE
[TAKEN FROM KOREA WORKERS COMPENSATION AND WELFARE
SERVICE (KWCWS)] ..................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 2.6 AN EXAMPLE OF CONSECUTIVE KNOWLEDGE ACCESS IN PKMS
[TAKEN FROM KOREA WORKERS COMPENSATION AND WELFARE
SERVICE (KWCWS)] ..................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 2.7 CSFS AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOR KMS AND PKMS .... 35
FIGURE 4.1 RESULTS OF PLS ANALYSIS [KMS].......................................................... 87
FIGURE 4.2 RESULTS OF PLS ANALYSIS [PKMS] ....................................................... 88

x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to those who helped me
with various aspects of conducting research and writing this thesis. First and foremost, I
would like to thank Dr. Sree Nilakanta for his ongoing support and giving me the right
direction for this study. I also would like to thank to my committee members, Dr. Terry
Childers and Dr. Kevin Sheibe, for their enormous support. Furthermore, I would like to
thank KOSHA, my employer, for giving me this great opportunity to broaden my knowledge
at Iowa State University. In addition, I would like to thank my colleagues at KOSHA, who
have helped complete my study by distributing the survey and giving me abundant, useful
information. Finally, I need to thank my wife, Jinhee, who has been at my side during the
entire thesis process, Jiwoo, my lovely first son, who gives me great energy, and Eunwoo,
my adorable second boy, who turned one-year-old year in April of this year.
xi
ABSTRACT
Knowledge has been considered as a great asset for organizations, including in the
public sector, to enhance competitiveness and to provide better quality public services. As a
result, there has been a growing interest in treating knowledge as a significant organizational
resource in the public sector. Consistent with the interest in organizational knowledge, many
researchers have developed types of knowledge management systems (KMS) to support
knowledge management (KM) activities. However, knowledge cannot be into integrated
into an organization nor create desired outcomes if the knowledge is not working along
with or through established business processes.
Therefore, the concept of process-oriented knowledge management (PKM),
combining KM and business process management (BPM), has emerged as a new idea and
term in academia, industries, and organizations. Information systems (IS) that support PKM
have been developed and called process-oriented knowledge management systems (PKMS).
While there have been a number of studies that explored critical success factors (CSF) that
affect IS, KM, and KMS, there are few studies about PKMS, in the public sector in particular.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to empirically and theoretically assess CSFs that support or
inhibit the successful implementation of PKMS using an example of a public organization in
Korea.
This study examined key CSFs affecting PKM system implementation. The study
focused on determinants of system usage, perceived usefulness, and user satisfaction with an
organizations PKM practices, comparing CSFs in a previously implemented KMS. System
usage, including perceived usefulness and user satisfaction, was used as a measure of how
xii
well knowledge sharing and business processes are incorporated in organizations. Data
collected from 199 employees at Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA)
confirmed 4 of 18 hypothesized relationships: one out of nine hypotheses in KMS, and three
out of nine hypotheses in PKMS. Only one variable (customers voice) was positively
associated with the success of KMS, whereas three variables (high managerial level support,
knowledge sharing culture, and customers voice) were positively related with the success of
PKMS. In summary, different elements affect the success of KMS and PKMS differently,
and so differential approaches should be applied in implementing PKMS. The empirical
findings are assessed in the broader theoretical context of the IS and KM success literature,
which are derived from DeLone and McLeans IS Success Model and technology acceptance
model (TAM).
1
CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW
1.1 Research Background
Knowledge has become the key economic resource and a dominant source of
competitive advantage (Drucker, 1995). Because of this, knowledge is considered in the
business sector as a critical resource for organizations (Holsapple & Whinston, 1987;
Paradice & Courtney, 1989; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Nonaka, 1991; Gartner, 1998). Many
researchers have written that knowledge is based on individual and organizational
competencies such as skills and know-how and that knowledge is a high-value form of
information that impacts managerial decisions and actions (Choi, 2000; Davenport, Long, &
Beers, 1998).
To facilitate knowledge creation and usage, knowledge management (KM) was
considered as an approach that might unearth unused knowledge and could make employees
learn and apply those corporate secrets (Records, 2005). Managing knowledge successfully
leveraged core business competencies, accelerated innovation and time-to-market, enhanced
end-to-end times of processes, helped decision-making, strengthened organizational
commitment, and built sustainable competitive advantage (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). To
maintain sustainability in business, many corporations are conducting extensive KM efforts
(Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001). In addition, KM in organizations has changed daily
business activities (Chang, Hung, Yen, & Tseng, 2009).
In parallel with KM, business process management (BPM) has emerged as a proven
technology that helps companies meet their business objectives and gain competitive
advantage (Choi, Jung, & Song, 2006). BPM offers complete and easy-to-use functionality to
2
manage a process life cycle from beginning to end. While KM and BPM are being
considered at the same time, few studies have been conducted to fuse them together. The
importance of combining knowledge with workflows was ignored in the existing KM
initiatives (Suana, Herweijer, & McGuire, 2003). There was a general lack of understanding
of how the business process is related to knowledge, and how BPM makes KM be easily
accessible for employees work. As a result, academia and industry have become very
interested in the notion of process-oriented knowledge management (PKM) (Choi et al.,
2006). Not surprisingly, knowledge in a repository separated from business operations has
not been well utilized by members of organizations, and it may disappear soon, losing the
original purpose of boosting organizational operations. Successful establishment of PKM
could enhance the business process and facilitate knowledge re-creation and usage in
business activities. Alvavi and Leidner (2001) believed that it is less the knowledge existing
at any given time per se than the firms ability to effectively apply the existing knowledge to
create new knowledge and to take action that forms the basis for achieving competitive
advantage from knowledge-based assets (p. 108). As a solution, they decided that
information technologies (IT) could bridge gaps, generating a knowledge-based view of
firms. In this regard, IT could create better performance in PKM, which also has resulted in a
new terminology, process-oriented knowledge management systems (PKMS). In spite of its
importance in organizational success, there are still very few studies about which factors are
most important in designing and establishing PKMS, while many of the previous studies
have only focused on factors affecting KM (Davenport et al., 1998; Holsapple & Joshi, 2000;
Chong & Choi, 2005).

3
To make full use of advantage of PKM, the Korea Occupational Safety and Health
Agency (KOSHA) has implemented PKMS since 2009 and it selected 16 processes to
implement PKMS. However, the implementation plan was revised, applying PKMS only to
two processes because employees at work-site operations felt a simultaneous initiation of the
process into all 16 processes would be overwhelming and there were unexpected constraints
such as budget and resources. In the meantime, the system provides users with links on the
16-process screen to reach and search on related knowledge, which is called enterprise
resource planning knowledge (or ERP-knowledge) connections. As a result, the success of
the application of PKMS into the two processes would be the key determinant in applying
PKMS into the rest of the processes. In addition, a research study to find any link in critical
success factors (CSF) between knowledge management systems (KMS) and PKMS would be
used to avoid any trial and error in implementing and operating current KMS (in spite of the
fact that PKMS is a broader concept since it combines two characteristics of KM and BPM).
To achieve these goals, this study developed and empirically tested a theoretical model of
PKMS success. The research compared the differences between two systems, which could
enable PKMS to be a more stable and user-friendly system that can smooth business
processes. To measure the performance of the key factors, the IS success model of DeLone
and McLean (1992) and the technology acceptance model of Davis (1989) became a partial
base for this study.

4
1.2 Research Objective
A great number of national governments, departments, and agencies have adopted
KM practices due to a desire and curiosity for producing more intricate and creative systems
that connect people to information and knowledge (Riege & Lindsay, 2006). Riege and
Lindsay also noted that the public sector has enhanced the importance of effective KM in
public services as a societal responsibility and governments have received continual pressure
from society to increase their effectiveness and quality with fewer resources. In addition,
they have insisted that a main driver for the adoption of diverse KM initiatives in public
services is the change in organizational culture. Beyond these situations and issues, how this
knowledge can best be captured, codified, and shared can be of great interest to both
academic researchers and industry (Choi, 2000). In the process of capturing, codifying, and
sharing, the most important thing that we should know is what factors have influenced
knowledge creation, sharing, and re-creation for better performance.
In the early of 1990s, KMS was introduced into Korea as a means of innovation that
might enable companies to have sustainable competitiveness. However, the majority of
companies that adopted KMS have not succeeded in achieving their goals nor were able to
provide the right knowledge to the right persons. As a result, the original purpose of the KMS
has been distorted and a new method to overcome the problem has emerged. One of the best
ways for organizations to ensure success in their KM implementation is to be aware of
common pitfalls and success factors that have been established from the experience of others.
Many scholars have investigated critical success factors for KM and KMS in various
fields (Davenport et al., 1998; Holsapple & Joshi, 2000; Chong & Choi 2005; Yahya & Goh,
2002; Akhavan, Jafari, & Fathian, 2006; Gold et al., 2001; Lee & Choi, 2003; Chang et al.,
5
2009). They have found these critical success factors for KM: education and training,
knowledge sharing cultures, performance measurement, information system structures,
management support, and reward systems, among others. However, there are few studies that
focused on PKMS, and in particular, few targeting the public sector. Moreover, most of
previous studies on KM are conceptual and the knowledge of implementing KM projects in
the workplace is very limited.
In the meantime, KOSHA has implemented PKMS in two core business processes out
of the selected 16 business processes since 2009. As mentioned, depending on the results of
currently implemented PKMS for two core processes, it will decide on further
implementation for the rest of the processes in the future. As a result, critical success factors
investigated in this research will provide the appropriate personnel with the ideas that PKMS
should follow in the long run. Therefore, this study was undertaken to find gaps between
factors that have been thought of as a priority for KMS so far and factors that should be
considered in implementing PKMS. This study has attempted to find any differences based
on demographic information between independent variables and relationships with dependent
variables.
6
1.3 Research Questions
Although there is no doubt that PKM has an important role in every sector, there is
little research and few guidelines on how PKMS in practice can be further developed,
compared to KMS, or how to find factors that facilitate PKMS in an organization.
Furthermore, there have been numerous studies about success factors about KM and KMS,
but most of studies were done at the organizational level and few empirical studies on
success factors for PKMS at the individual level or in the public sector can be found.
In order to implement a successful PKMS in the KOSHA, studies about success
factors that have been important in KMS should be carried out concurrently with PKMS
research. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to find key success factors that will affect a
successful PKMS, compared to factors that have most affected the current KMS. In addition,
the differences in factors perceived, related to demographic information are investigated.
Before finding these factors, PKM concepts and blueprints suggested by several scholars
were introduced. As a result, following are the research questions for this study:
1) What are the CSFs that have affected the current KMS and the key factors that
should be considered in implementing and designing PKMS? What are the
differences between the two systems in terms of success factors?
2) Does PKMS have higher performance than KMS?
3) What CSFs affect performance most?
4) What are the differences in independent variables by demographic information,
such as age, area, major, gender, employee length of service, etc.?

7
1.4 Organization of the Study
This study is organized as follows: overview, literature review, method and
procedures, result, and summary and discussion.
Chapter 1 (Overview) provides the research background of this study, describing KM,
BPM, and PKM in general and the recent situation in KOSHA. Research objectives and
research questions are also previewed. Chapter 2 (Review of Literature) surveys the salient
literature to gain a broader understanding of KM, PKM, and CSFs, and presents the research
model. Chapter 3 (Method and Procedures) presents the research hypotheses characterizing
the relationships depicted in the model. In addition, it explains data collection process and
data analysis. Chapter 4 (Results) presents the results of data analysis. Various statistical
methods, such as paired t-tests, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), and partial
least squares (PLS) were applied to data collected. Chapter 5 (Summary and Discussion)
summarizes the study and provides implications for research and practice, including
limitations.
8
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Knowledge, Knowledge Management (KM) and KMS
2.1.1 Hierarchical Views of Data, Information, and Knowledge
In general, most scholars in academia have used a knowledge hierarchy where
knowledge is superior to information and data, being located at the apex followed by data
and information. Fahey and Prusak (1998) asserted that knowledge should be distinguished
from data and information. Misra, Hariharan, and Khaneja (2003) explained the concept of
knowledge as a sequence of tasks, namely, applying the relationship of data, information,
intelligence, wisdom, and truth, and showing that as we go from data through to truth,
understanding is improved. In addition, knowledge is intangible and not easily amenable to
management via the usual insights. Fahey and Prusak (1998) insisted that a reflection on
concepts and the distinctions among data, information, and knowledge are the basis of a
knowing or learning process.
Meanwhile, several researchers in knowledge and information technology (IT) have
suggested different ways of defining knowledge by separating knowledge, information, and
data. Information affects the emergence of data, and knowledge has an influence on creation
of information with a reverse hierarchy model from the existing one (Tuomi, 1999; Bragazna,
2004). Tuomi (1999) insisted that data emerges last only after there is knowledge and
information available. In other words, data cannot become information only by having
meaning added to it; rather data is created from information by putting information into a
pre-defined structure that defines its meaning (Tuomi, 1999).

9
2.1.2 Definition of Knowledge
There are many definitions and classifications of knowledge in the literature. Polanyi
(1962, 1966) divided knowledge into two categories: explicit, that refers to knowledge that
can be transferred in formal and semantic language, and tacit knowledge, that is hard to
formalize and show in a philosophical context. Polanyi encapsulated the basis of tacit
knowledge in the phrase, We know more than we can tell. Nonaka (1994) classified this
tacit knowledge into cognitive and technical elements. Cognitive elements are mental models
that include schemata, paradigms, beliefs, and viewpoints, whereas technical elements are
concrete know-how, crafts, and skills that apply to specific contexts. Lubit (2001)
distinguished the classifications of tacit knowledge in a different way, classifying it into four
categories: a) hard to pin down skills or know-how, b) mental models, c) ways of
approaching problems, and d) organizational routines. The skill in this definition is tacit
knowledge, which is the basis of skills workers possess. Mental models determine how we
understand and analyze situations, and way of approaching problems is related with the
decision trees people use. Organizational routines are predictable behavior patterns. Kogut
and Zander (1992) categorized knowledge as information and know-how: knowledge as
information is knowing what something means, and know-how is knowing how to do
something. Based on the literature, the concept of knowledge used in this study is explicit
and articulated knowledge, influenced by tacit knowledge through the socialization process,
because users and designers implicitly rely on culturally shared and accumulated stocks of
knowledge in information systems (Tuomi, 1999).

10
2.1.3 KM in Organizations
By having unique knowledge, the majority of firms and organizations gain
competitive advantage due to the difficulty of imitation, transferring, and replication (Wu &
Wang, 2006). First of all, with the advantage of knowledge, it is very important to define the
concept of managing knowledge to have comparative advantages over competitors. KM is
to identify and leverage the collective knowledge inside organizations to produce
organizational competiveness (Von Krogh as cited in Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Recently, KM
has received increasing consideration from researchers of various fields, mainly organization
science, organizational psychology, strategy and management science, artificial intelligence,
computer science, and management information systems (Maier & Remus, 2003).
Organizations believe that implementing KM practices promises increasing
effectiveness, efficiency, and competitiveness (Schultze & Leidner, 2002). KM has emerged
as a strategically important area for most organizations, and organizations develop value
from their intellectual or knowledge assets by KM process activities (Kulkarni, Ravindran, &
Freeze, 2007). KM is considered as a process involving various activities of creating,
storing/retrieving, transferring, and applying knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Holsapple
and Joshi (2000) found that an operational objective of KM is to ensure that the right
knowledge is available to the right processors, in the right representations and at the right
times, for performing their knowledge activities (and to accomplish this for the right cost).
(p. 237). In terms of its ability to be influential for business excellence, KM has become one
of the interesting features for businesses (Alazmi & Zairi, 2003). Because of this
characteristic, businesses today have been changed through KM projects (Davenport et al.,
1998).
11
Furthermore, Woitsch and Karagiannis (2005) found that KM evolved to a serious
management discipline that aims to integrate itself into the orchestra of existing management
approaches. Organization in KM makes an environment that is conducive to knowledge
creation, assimilation, and dissemination (Misra et al., 2003) and knowledge creation and
transfer in an organization has been related to an organizations success and competitiveness
(Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). Many industries have considered KM as a competitive
asset and poured great amounts of money into managing knowledge. Buckman Laboratories,
a specialty chemicals company, spends 2.5 percent of its revenues on KM; Ernst & Young
does so with six percent of its revenues, and McKinsey & Company spends ten percent of its
revenues on KM (Davenport et al., 1998). In spite of this phenomenon, most organizations
are still not satisfied with the outcomes.
2.1.4 Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)
According to Alavi & Leidner, 2001, A knowledge-based firm has a strong advantage
that is difficult to imitate and this may produce a long-term sustainable competitive
advantage However, they insisted that it is less the knowledge existing at any given time than
it is an organizations abilities to create new knowledge and to hold competitive advantage
from knowledge-based assets. As a result, IT would play an important role in enhancing a
knowledge-based view of firms (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Advanced ITs such as internet, intranet, data warehouses, and software agents can be
used to expedite large-scale intra and inter-organizational KM (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). In
addition, sound information and communication technologies make it possible to sustain

12
organizational processes of creating, acquiring, organizing, distributing, and applying
knowledge. This is due to the advent of advanced databases, network, and communication
technologies, in particular the so-called Intranet or Web technologies, as well as dedicated
knowledge management systems (Maier & Remus, 2002). The knowledge becomes a great
asset of the organizations if they properly use them in information systems. In this regard,
many organizations have developed information systems to utilize knowledge sharing and
integration, which are considered as KMS (Alavi, 1999). Alavi (1999) defined KMS as an
emerging line of systems (that) targets professional and managerial activities by focusing on
creating, gathering, organizing, and disseminating an organizations knowledge as opposed
to information or data. Stata (1997) and Harris (1996) showed that the popular claims for
the results of KMS have organizations flexibility and agility with respect to changing market
conditions and innovative standing improving their decision making and productivity (as
cited in Alavi, 1999). In other words, KMS is an integrated art of an information system that
best utilizes knowledge as an organizational core asset through creating, assembling,
distributing, sharing, and re-creating processes.
2.1.5 KM in the Public Sector
Even though KM has been widely analyzed by many academics and industry
professionals, research on KM in the public sector has been limited (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland,
2004). Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland showed that public organizations have done benchmarking
of KM, knowledge sharing, KM initiatives and KM practices. The success of a public
organization is increasingly related to how effectively it can collect, deposit, and retrieve
13
knowledge sharing among employees at all government levels (Chang et al., 2009).
Liebowitz and Chen (2003) found that sharing of knowledge is difficult in typically
hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations, which causes some unique challenges. They
insisted that most employees in government agencies are reluctant to share knowledge
because they have thought that having knowledge at their hands means having a power as
they move through the ranks. Luen and Al-Hawamdeh (2001) discovered that many
organizations in the public sector are knowledge-intensive organizations but high costs come
from poor knowledge management practices, including lost institutional memory, knowledge
gaps, and poor decisions. They also noted that having realized that the public sectors also
have high competition in funding and alternative services, it is turning to KM to gain
competitiveness. Governmental policy has continuously changed depending on the
organizational environment, so no public sectors can be said to have stable status even
though they were born to have less competitiveness compared to the private sector.
Riege and Lindsay (2006) distinguished the difference in KM between the public and
the private sector: the public sector focuses on information services and delivery related to
stakeholder interests and involves multiple parties in the process, whereas the private sector,
in general, is influenced by the external environment such as markets, products, etc., and is
shareholder-dependent. Recently, knowledge-creating organizations like KOSHA have
initiated KM as a tool to share knowledge through information services and to deliver
knowledge to the public. When the KMS was first introduced into KOSHA, the amount of
knowledge generated everyday was enormous, causing limitations in filtering all of it, which
led to the unreliability of knowledge and its lack of connection to business processes.
14
2.1.6 KM and its Limitations
KM activities are located all over the map: building databases, measuring
intellectual capital, establishing corporate libraries, building intranets, sharing best practices,
installing groupware, leading training programs, leading cultural change, fostering
collaboration, creating virtual organizations all of these are KM, and every functional and
staff leader can lay claim to it (Malhotra, 2005, p. 7). As for reason, KM has become
embedded in every stage such as policy making, strategy formation, and implementation
processes of global corporations, governments, and institutions (Malhotra, 2005). The
concept of this was covered in the Business Week in 1993 by Byrne. Byrne (1993)
anticipated the advent of the new model of the business enterprise that was expected to make
it possible to deliver anything, anytime, and, anywhere to potential customers. The concept
was expedited by the emergence of the intranet and web through information technology.
Meanwhile, Malhotra (2003) investigated the impact of KM technology-performance
statistics, and found that some industry estimates have shown the failure rate of technology
implementations for business process reengineering efforts at 70 percent (as cited in
Malhotra, 2005). Furthermore, Darrell, Reichheld, and Schefter (2002) found industry data
that shows a similar failure rate of KM-related technology implementations and applications.
Malhotra & Galletta (2003) found that the top 25 performers invested 0.8 percent of their
revenues on IT, whereas the overall average is 3.7 percent; and the highest IT spenders
typically under-performed by up to 50 percent compared with the best competitive
companies. Statistics on the KMS showed that success rarely comes in practice: many KM
projects are abandoned and over 70% of them did not deliver what they promised at the
beginning (Baloh, Utchicke, & Moon, 2008).

15
In the early stages of KM, many organizations forced employees to get involved in
the knowledge network, and to share information for building a knowledge repository.
Moreover, employees were encouraged to participate in these activities beyond their routine
jobs (Davenport & Glaser, 2002). As a result, the knowledge was not well suited with the
related work. Also, employees thought that they should do extra work to create and
participate in knowledge activities. Most employees would not help but do some activities
because of the pressure from top management. In other words, employees would put at least
as much effort into knowledge creating and sharing activities as for other activities.
Therefore, KM could be embedded in work processes because employees would consider
KM not as additional work, but as their must-do work, which can allow KM sustainability
with business processes. In addition, KM could enable just-in-time delivery of knowledge
to related workers (Davenport & Glaser, 2002). Davenport et al. (1998) said that KM projects
are trying to do something useful with knowledge to achieve organizational goals by
structuring people, technology, and knowledge.

16
2.2 Process-Oriented Knowledge Management (PKM)
2.2.1 Definition of PKM
While KM may not have produced expected outcomes, Malhotra (2003) suggested
the real time enterprise business model that integrates KM technologies into organizational
business processes aims at delivering the right knowledge at the right time. Khosla and Pal
(2002) explained the concept of real time enterprises as follows:
Real time enterprises are organizations that enable automation of processes spanning
different systems, media, and enterprise boundaries. Real time enterprises provide real time
information to employees, customers, suppliers, and partners and implement processes to
ensure that all information is current and consistent across all systems, minimizing batch and
manual processes related to information. To achieve this, systems for a Real Time Enterprise
must be adaptable to change and accept change as the process (p. 2).
Like real time enterprise, PKM has been proposed to integrate KM and process
orientation, and the process-oriented view offers a number of advantages for KM (Remus &
Schub, 2003). In PKM, each KM project is actualized around an organizational process and
the mission, and the scope of the project is delineated by the rationale and objectives of the
process; in addition, KMS is in the center of the PKM strategy (Kwan & Balasubramanian,
2003). Maier and Remus (2002) insisted that a number of advantages, such as orienting KM
towards the value chain, providing relevant context, and aiding navigation in KMS
supporting PKM, (particularly design, implementation and integration of KMS), and
applying widely accepted management methods, are generated through the process-oriented
view.
17
Maier and Remus (2002) wrote the aim of PKMS is to provide employees with work-
related knowledge in the organizations operative business processes. Meanwhile, they
pointed out that PKM activities have already been carried out (e.g. business process
reengineering, business process improvement, process management), and process-orientation
in general and these activities in particular are well known and accepted by employees. Choi
et al. (2006) noted that users of business processes use knowledge and knowledge is created
during this process; business processes are good tools to generate and deliver related
knowledge. They concluded that processing information and executing results become
invaluable corporate knowledge.
2.2.2 PKM Structure
Unlike KM, PKM is a complicated framework that is an outcome of a combination of
BPM and KM. To understand the core idea of PKM, most PKM structures must provide the
common sense of the characteristics in a unified way. However, there is no unique structure
that can describe the PKM every researcher might find. Meanwhile, key ideas about PKM
frameworks can be generalized and about how PKM can operate by combining BPM and
KM. The following structures suggested by several researchers can show a general idea for
understanding the core process of PKM.
Maier and Remus (2003) suggested four levels of intervention to implement a PKM
program: (1) Strategy a starting point of a PKM initiative is the definition and
implementation of an appropriate KM strategy, (2) Topics/content based on knowledge
about processes, a PKM initiative extends the knowledge base, which is typically embodied
18
in process models and process warehouses, and it can avoid information overload by filtering
and presenting knowledge from a variety of sources internal and external to the
organizationbased on needs, (3) Instruments and systems traditional KM systems provide
content management, yellow pages, process communities, and knowledge networks, and a
new PKM approach considers systems developed for process management, like continuous
process improvement and process modeling, and (4) KM organization and processes along
the value chain, knowledge-based business processes are core processes and primarily use
knowledge in order to create process outputs and knowledge processes are service processes
that support knowledge exchange between business units and business processes.
After defining these interventions, they suggested two typical situations for the
implementation of PKM, as shown in Figure 2.1: (1) a situation where process management
(PM) is related to modeling business processes that improve process visibility or analyzing
business processes in terms of knowledge process reengineering, and (2) the situation is a
KM initiative with a strong focus on knowledge-oriented business processes.
Figure 2.1 Starting Points of PKM Initiatives [From Maier & Remus, 2003]
19
KM activities, knowledge-based business processes, knowledge processes, and
knowledge are related to each other in flows on an abstract level in Figure 2.2 (Remus &
Schub, 2003). The activities of a knowledge life cycle are combined with knowledge
processes and are linked to other knowledge processes as well as to business processes. With
these concepts, they proposed a blueprint for PKM which contains two main models a
procedure model and a conceptual model [Figure 2.3].
Figure 2.2 The Relationships between Knowledge-Intensive Business Processes, Knowledge

Processes, KM Activities, and Knowledge Flows [From Remus & Schub, 2003]
In this blueprint, the procedure model, using the conceptual model, displays activities
to initiate business processes for a PKM: (1) to prepare the business process by selecting
the business process, instructing the process team, defining roles and positions, identifying
knowledge needs, carrying out the knowledge audit, and identifying knowledge problems,
20
and (2) to integrate the business process into a PKM by customizing the conceptual model,
implementing the conceptual model, and implementing systems. Meanwhile, the conceptual
model has produced different levels of abstraction: (1) the first level (the activity and process
landscape) defines different processes as well as the assigns instruments to KM activities, (2)
the second level (process models and knowledge structure diagrams) models PKM processes
and the knowledge structure, and (3) the third level (action charts) models action charts
which show all resources involved during the execution of actions.
Figure 2.3 Overview of the Blueprint of PKM [From Remus & Schub, 2003]
21
2.2.3 Current Practices in the Public Sector in Korea
The Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL) in Korea first implemented PKMS
in the public sector in Korea. Since its implementation, many public organizations have tried
to benchmark the system; in particular, public organizations under MOEL (such as the Korea
Labor Institute, the Korea Workers Compensation and Welfare Service, etc.) have
implemented PKMS since 2008.
However, generally it was found that staff-turnover becomes one of the major
problems for some knowledge-intensive organizations. It poses a challenge to knowledge
initiatives due to the loss of knowledge assets when staff-turnover happens with employees
who have knowledge and experience in specific processes (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004).
In addition, organizations, in particular knowledge-intensive ones like MOEL and KOSHA,
should update newly generated knowledge such as revised laws, regulations, directives,
instructions, documents, formats, and information about industries on a regular basis, but
regular staff-turnover every three or five years may prevent a PKM from optimal utilization.
The traditional hierarchical decision-making process would also be one of constraints to limit
active participation in the process. Furthermore, several limitations such as an insufficient
budget, unshared common goals, non-volitional participation, that people thought of
participation as extra work, lack of high level managerial concerns and encouragement, and
lack of motivation might confine the PKM utilization. These should be considered in
implementing PKMS in KOSHA.

22
2.2.4 PKMS in KOSHA
KOSHA was established to prevent occupational accidents and diseases in December,
1987, based on the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency Law enacted in May, 1987.
Since its establishment, KOSHA has provided: (1) technical support - safety and health
checks, KOSHA 18001 Certification, S Mark Safety Certification, inspection of dangerous
or hazardous equipment and facilities, support for brain and cardiovascular disease
prevention, and technical support for small construction sites, (2) education and training
expert training programs by Occupational Safety Training Institute and training courses by
regional/area offices, (3) financial support creating Clean Workplace, musculoskeletal
disorder prevention programs, and support of loans for occupational accident prevention
facilities, and (4) research and development research of occupational safety and health,
material safety data sheets, and occupational accidents statistics. KOSHA has about 1,300
employees in the main headquarters, six regional headquarters, seventeen area offices, the
Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI) and the Occupational Safety and
Health Training Institute (OSHTI).
Because of its particular mission and character, the KOSHA has generated a great
amount of knowledge pertaining to safety and health and all the employees can be called
knowledge workers. To this end, since 2004, KOSHA has adopted KMS to try to enhance the
efficiency of work and competitiveness of employees, prevent an administrative vacuum
from frequent reshuffling of the employees, promote automatic knowledge transfer among
employees, and provide information for swift and accurate policy decisions. However, the
KMS has not accomplished its goal because of lack of utilization of KM; BPM and KM from
the KMS have worked in isolation, employees have not been satisfied with the results of
23
related knowledge searching, and knowledge creating and usage have been considered as
additional work that was not compensated. In addition, KM programs have focused on
organizing employees into communities of practice and building repositories of knowledge
(Records, 2005), so KM was not comprehensive in terms of covering end-to-end processes,
and the KM ignored other critical elements such as integrating KM into the strategic goals of
the organization.
To solve these problems, KOSHA decided to establish PKMS in 2009, hosting
several consultants since 2007. The major task of PKMS at the initial stage was to select 16
PKM processes out of 212 processes 43 from strategic processes, 65 from supportive
processes, and 104 from main business processes. After considering the effectiveness of 16
core processes by 2011, KOSHA can decide whether to expand the PKM to the rest of the
processes. Figure 2.4 shows how to select and review core processes. First of all, 174 end-to-
end processes were selected out of 212 KOSHA processes, and then a Salient/Work Matrix
(Keen, 1997) was used to assess end-to-end processes. Among 27 end-to-end processes, 16
processes were selected to apply PKM, based on the importance of the process and
correlation with work flow.
Figure 2.4 Procedure of Selecting Core Processes for PKMS

24
Figure 2.5 An Example How Knowledge and Process Can Combine [Taken from Korea
Workers Compensation and Welfare Service (KWCWS)]
The main concept of implementing a PKMS is to integrate knowledge and process
like shown in Figure 2.5. Figure 2.6 shows an example of PKMS applied in the Korea
Workers Compensation and Welfare Service (KWCWS) in 2009. As seen in Figure 2.6, the
main screen provides a number of types of work, and when employees go to next stage, a list
of related information and knowledge is located in the left side of the portal. Farthest to the
right in Figure 2.6, PKMS provides a work process map which shows related knowledge in
each process.
Even though PKMS in KOSHA is similar to the concepts of the PKMS implemented
in the KWCWS, KOSHA is a very knowledge-intensive organization in that knowledge
created inside can be used widely in outside, private companies to prevent occupational
accidents, through KOSHA employees who regularly visit corporations to provide safety and
health inspection and consulting. In other words, practicability, quality, and link-ability of
knowledge should be considered as a priority in PKMS implementation. In January 2011,

25
Figure 2.6 An Example of Consecutive Knowledge Access in PKMS [Taken from Korea
Workers Compensation and Welfare Service (KWCWS)]
ERP-knowledge connection workflows were applied to 16 processes selected from a
consulting process, whereas only two business processes (Procurement and Fatal accidents
inspection) have used a PKM system due to unexpected constraints, including budget
problems and the risk from changing the whole process at once. In spite of these changes, the
result of these two processes will be very important in deciding about the expansion of
PKMS to other processes. The outcomes from this study will be very useful in future
implementation of PKMS in terms of critical factors that have not been thought as important
before.
26
2.3 Critical Success Factor (CSF) from IS, KM, and KMS
Many studies have tried to find critical success factors (CSF) that affect successful IS,
KM, and KMS. As explained in the previous literature review, KMS is a class of IS that
fertilizes managing knowledge in organizations. In other words, characteristics of IS and KM
are melted into KMS naturally. Because of this perspective, this study has found critical
success factors from all three fields, IS, KM, and KMS, that are to be applied to PKM as well.
Behavioral perspectives were the success factors more emphasized in KM, than in IS,
whereas KMS combine both behavioral and IS perspectives. To find factors that mostly
affect IS, KM, and KMS, CSF should be defined in advance.
CSFs are Those things that must be done if a company is to be successful (Freund,
1988). Thus, CSFs are successful ingredients that lead to the success of systems or
management. CSFs deal with issues critical to an organizations tentative environment and
future success (Boynton & Zmud, 1984). Digman (1999) asserted that CSFs are useful for
structuring environmental analysis due to the important relationship between environmental
analysis and CSFs leading to organizational success; as such, CSFs lead to developing core
capabilities and competencies in organization. Core capabilities and competencies are hard to
follow exactly and have competitive advantage in organizations (Civi, 2000). Leonard-
Barton (1995) suggested that core capabilities are built through a knowledge building process
(as cited in Civi, 2000).
As a result, many scholars and researchers have tried to examine key factors that lead
to successful IS, KM, and KMS implementation. Davenport, et al. (1998) studied 31 KM
projects in 24 companies to understand how companies are managing knowledge. In this

27
study, they found eight success factors that influence KM projects; link to economic
performance or industry value, technical and organizational infrastructure, standard and
flexible knowledge structure, knowledge-friendly culture, clear purpose and language,
change in motivational practices, multiple channels for knowledge transfer, and senior
management support. Among these eight factors, they identified knowledge-oriented culture,
creating an organizational infrastructure, motivational tools, and supportive senior
management as likely the most important influencing factors.
Furthermore, Choi (2000) tried to find CSFs for KM, comparing the difference
between factors perceived as important and factors actually implemented by organizations.
Based on this study, Chong and Choi (2005) presented 11 key KM components to successful
KM implementation, identified through reviewing the literature: employee training,
employee involvement, team-working, employee empowerment, top management leadership
and commitment, information systems infrastructure, performance measurement, knowledge-
friendly culture, benchmarking, knowledge structure, and elimination of organizational
constraints.
In addition, Holsapple and Joshi (2000) divided the factors that influence KM into
three categories: managerial influences, resource influences, and environmental influences;
managerial influences leadership, coordination, control, and measurement, resource
influences human participants personal belief, organizations cultural knowledge resource,
and infrastructure, and environmental influences technology, government regulation, and
actions of a competitor. Applying KM in the organization, Davenport et al. (1998) insisted
that performance will be the primary factor that should be considered and it must produce
industry value. By reducing waiting time for phone support or giving online knowledge
28
support, several KM systems tried to improve customer satisfaction in the customer support
process. Meanwhile, DeLone and McLean (1992) defined six major dimensions for IS
success: system quality, information quality, use, user satisfaction, individual impact, and
organizational impact, even though they considered them as dependent variables.
Several studies point out the importance of high managerial level support that is the
leadership in organizations. A trusting environment that can lead to knowledge sharing is
highly related with leadership (Holsapple & Joshi, 2000). Employees in Buckman Labs have
gradually used the KMS because the CEO used it, so they thought that puts value on it
(Liebowitz, 1999). The CEOs support and commitment has an impact on success of every
program and planning in an organization (Akhavan, 2006). A fundamental paradigm change
can go through an organization, depending on the top managements philosophy (Choi, 2000).
In addition, knowledge sharing culture is one of the most important factors for a successful
KM implementation (Chase, 1997; Davenport, 1998; Demarest, 1997; Gold, Malhotra, &
Segars, 2001; Lee & Choi, 2003). However, it is often difficult to create knowledge sharing
inside an organization and it is a critical hurdle for KM (Davenport et al., 1998). Knowledge
sharing can only be cultivated by encouragement and facilitation without any pressure
(Gibbert & Krause, 2000) and organizational culture plays an important role in nourishing
knowledge sharing (Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, & Mohammed, 2007). Employees behaviors
such as knowledge sharing and knowledge hoarding are determined by an organizations
cultural knowledge resources (Holsapple & Joshi, 2002). Alavi (1999) found that the success
of KMS would be more aligned with organizational culture than with technology structure.
Even when a knowledge sharing culture is established by CEOs, if there is no
motivation to participate in knowledge sharing, the system becomes useless. Sometime,

29
motivating employees to share the knowledge they have involves good people management,
where trust is itself an incentive. Regarding motivation, Scarbrough et al. (1999) have shown
that the establishment of a psychological contract between employer and employee is a
constructive step (as cited in Civi, 2000). Recently, it was suggested that effective
motivational instruments are contingent on KM strategy (Bartol & Srivastava, 2002).
Malhotra and Galletta (2003) found empirical support that socio-psychological factors have
high relationship with implementation of IT and KMS performance.
If a company or organization is willing to be a knowledge-based organization, quality
training should be initiated beforehand. Furthermore, organization learning processes
producing on-going improvement should be created in advance, when the management and
employees acquire the general understanding of quality concepts (Yahya & Goh, 2002).
Akhavan, Jafari, and Fathian (2006) conducted a qualitative study on CSFs of KMS in six
companies, such as Ernst & Young, Hewlett-Packard, Business, Edge Solutions, Microsoft,
Teltech, and Siemens. In the study, they noticed that training programs are one of the CSFs at
five companies (not at Siemens). As a result, they wrote that employees must be completely
and deeply familiar with knowledge concepts to enhance knowledge policies and the totality
of knowledge in the organization.
To develop knowledge in the organization, there should be some networks for
facilitating share of knowledge between experts. There are several ways to set up these
networks, such as scientific committees, communities of practice, knowledge teams, and
knowledge centers, at HP, Siemens, E&Y, and Teltech (Akhavan et al., 2006). Even though
employees share a great amount of knowledge, if there is no consideration of the quality and
interrelationships, the system will not last a long time or will lose a number of users in the
30
future. Meanwhile, in the process-orientation view, information overload can be solved
through continuous knowledge filtering, producing only relevant information at each activity
(Maier & Remus, 2002). Staff-turnover could be one of the critical factors that affects a
successful KM (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004), and the literature indicates that turnover
means the movement of employees from one organization to different organizations.
However, considering the relative low rate of turnover compared to the private sector in
Korea, staff-turnover within public organizations would be more important. To maximize the
positive outcomes of systems, collaboration and distributed information technology
infrastructure could encourage individuals within the organization to collaborate more,
enabling concurrent workflows and reducing geographical obstacles that may have
previously prevented such interaction (Gold et al., 2001). Knowledge creating, sharing,
storage, and usage can be enabled through information technology (Leonard-Barton, 1998).
In addition, an integrated information infrastructure must be able to leverage public and
private intellectual assets. Corporations and organizations are operating their businesses
considering value of customers (Civi, 2000). In particular in public organizations, customers
influence the existence of the organization because they believe that the economic resources
of those organizations come from their pockets.
Davenport et al. (1998) insisted that the easiest and most impressive benefits from
KM projects involve money saved or earned. However, as the purpose for establishing
KOSHA was public-focused, the core value of knowledge should be evaluated by its
dedication to its work connected with the reduction of occupational accident rates in Korea.
How it contributes to the prevention of occupational accidents through employee satisfaction

31
and employees frequent use will be the most important part in implementing PKMS in
KOSHA.
2.4 Success Models and Performance Measurement
Computer systems cannot improve organizational performance if they arent used
(Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). However, end-users are usually unwilling to use current
computer systems that would produce significant gains if used (Davis et al., 1989). March
(1987) and Mitroff and Mason (1983) found that identifying the suitable functional and
interface characteristics that would be added to end-user systems has become more
demanding and complicated than expected (as cited in Davis et al., 1989). Because of this, a
well-defined measure is essential to see if an information system (IS) succeeds or not
(DeLone & McLean, 1992). In this regard, several scholars have suggested success models to
verify variables.
In 1992, DeLone and McLean suggested a comprehensive, multidimensional model
of IS Success with dependent variables based on the communications research of Shannon
and Weaver (1949) and the information influence theory of Mason (1978): system quality
(that measures technical success), information quality (that measures semantic success), and
use, user satisfaction, individual impacts, and organizations impacts (that measure
effectiveness success). Their model describes system quality and information quality as
affecting IS use and user satisfaction, which are advanced before individual impact and
organizational impact. Of these, they insisted that the system use variable, that is voluntary,
use may be the most objective and easily accessible dimension for quantification, and user
32
satisfaction is no doubt the most widely used single measure of IS success. Jarvenpaa,
Dickson, and Desanctis (1985) recommended user satisfaction as an appropriate success
measure in experimental IS research (as cited in DeLone & McLean, 1992). System use and
user satisfaction both belong to the effectiveness-influence level, and IS use in particular
affects system benefits. In the meantime, Seddon (1997) proposed an extension of the
DeLone and McLean model of IS success, insisting that IS use is the result of benefits
generated from using an information system. He believed that IS use is not an antecedent of
IS success, but a consequence of IS success; as a result, IS use is separated from the IS
success model. Seddon asserted that the authors who have used IS use as a variable of IS
success in the past presumed a positive relationship between the benefits from IS use and
time spent on systems. Instead, Seddon defined IS use as the dependent variable in a variance
model for expectations about the net benefits of future IS use, with information and system
quality and perceptions of net benefits of IS use constituting the IS success model.
Reviewing the literature since the creation of D & M IS success model (DeLone &
McLean, 1992), DeLone and McLean (2003) updated and revised their original IS success
model. They insisted that the original system use should be maintained in the model because
the nature of system use could be addressed by determining whether the full functionality of
a system is being used for the intended purposes, giving an example from e-commerce
systems use. The updated D & M model still has a limitation since it does not provide
specific empirical evidence in other fields in terms of IT use.
In addition, several researchers have found that perceived usefulness is related with
intention to use and user satisfaction with IS. To predict peoples computer acceptance from
a measure of their intentions, Davis (1986) introduced the technology acceptance model
33
(TAM) that had two key concepts, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use,
explaining users behavioral intentions that result in IS use. Perceived usefulness is one of
the determinants and predictors of end-user satisfaction within enterprise resources planning
(ERP) systems (Calisir & Calisir, F., 2004) and in information technology (Mahmood, Burn,
Gemoets, & Jacquez, 2000). Performance in work mirrors perceived usefulness that leads to
user satisfaction and usage.
DeLone and McLean (1992) stated that no single variable is intrinsically better than
another, so the choice of success variables is often a function of the objective of the study,
the organizational context (p. 80). The study adapted different perspectives in using system
and information quality in that the two variables may cause success rather than a part of IS
success result. Even though systems may have high quality of information and systems, if
there is a lack of system use and user satisfaction, those systems cannot be considered as a
success system. In this regard, the two perspectives were considered as independent variables
which were used with different terms in this present study. Furthermore, net benefits such as
individual, organizational, and society aspects, a result of IS use can be considered as other
measures of the net benefits of IS use (Seddon, 1997). However, these aspects were
eliminated in this study because the main purpose of this study was to find success factors
that most influence on successful implementation of PKMS and these net benefits would be a
necessary outcome of IS success. Furthermore, the present study used a similar meaning of
IS use, suggested by Seddon (1997), provided there have been enough explanation and
training processes for system usage at KOSHA before launching a new system. In other
words, employees have experienced a minimum amount of usage experiences to decide their
usage behavior, expecting net benefits of future IS use.

34
Furthermore, KMS has been used widely in KOSHA since 2003, so IS use and user
satisfaction can be directly measured by employees. On the other hand, PKMS was initiated
in January, 2011, so it would take several months until its full implementation after providing
training and a pretest period to employees at KOSHA. Because of this, direct measurement of
PKMS could not be initiated, but indirect measurement could be used instead: perceived
usefulness and intention to use from the TAM were used, which would result in IS use and
user satisfaction. So, two dependent variables, usage and user satisfaction, were used in
scrutinizing performance measurement of KMS, and perceived usefulness and intention to
use were used to measure usage and user satisfaction in PKMS. This study used the same
terminology for success measures, with system usage and user satisfaction toward KMS and
PKMS combined. As a result, a new model is suggested in Figure 2-7.
2.5 Application of CSFs and Performance Measurement
Based on the literature, numerous studies about success factors in KMS, including IS
and KM, have been conducted; however, there are few studies on PKM. Because of this,
CSFs examined in the KM and IS were used in examining CSFs for implementing and
executing PKMS in KOSHA. Applying the factors from KMS to PKMS can create some
limitations, in that PKMS is based on a process-oriented structure, whereas KMS is rather
static because employees should voluntarily seek related knowledge. However, the
application of the same factors and comparisons between KMS and PKMS can provide a
direction so that KOSHA may not have to undergo the same trials and errors driven from the
current KMS again. Moreover, this will fill in the deficiency that most studies have focused
35
on the managerial level or only a person who is in charge of current systems rather than the
total members at the forefront in an organization.
This study will examine several aspects mentioned in the research objectives: 1) What
are the CSFs that have been considered in operating KMS so far and the CSFs that should be
emphasized in PKMS? 2) In examining the first question, does PKMS have higher
performance than KMS? 3) Which factors are mostly related with performance? and 4) What
are the differences in factors by demographic information?
Using previous studies, nine variables were chosen for this study as CSFs (see Figure
2.7 model). These factors are related with employees satisfaction and usage which can
measure the success of PKMS in an organization. At the same time, factors that have mostly
affected successful KMS can be compared with the results in PKMS. The current PKMS that
was applied to two selected processes can be extended into the entire process, based on the
results.
Figure 2.7 CSFs and Performance Measurement for KMS and PKMS
36
As a result, one dependent variable consisting of system usage and employee
satisfaction is used in Figure 2-7, and nine independent variables used in this study are
selected as follows:
1. High managerial level support
2. Knowledge sharing culture
3. Knowledge sharing motivation
4. Education and training
5. Knowledge connectivity
6. Knowledge filtering and evaluation
7. Staff-turnover
8. Integrated information technology infrastructure
9. Customers voice
37
CHAPTER 3. METHOD AND PROCEDURES
This chapter describes research methods, data collection and analysis, and variables
and hypotheses. For the research methods, a descriptive study with a survey was used.
3.1 Methods of the Study
Churchill and Iacobucci (2005, p. 109) divided descriptive studies into longitudinal
panel studies and cross-sectional analysis (sample surveys). Cross-sectional analysis seemed
most appropriate for this study because this analysis could provide a snapshot of the variables
of success factors at a single point and produce cross-classification. Therefore, classification
in one part may imply classification in one or more other parts. This study used software
called Qualtrics (provided by the College of Business at Iowa State University), that enables
users to create their own web-based surveys and conduct statistical analysis. To increase
response rate, invitations with personalized email invitations as well as multiple contact
methods were used. Personalized email invitations resulted in increasing the response rate in
the web survey because bulk emails make recipients feel they are unimportant (Dillman,
Smyth, & Christian, 2009, p. 273). Heerwegh (2005) found that personalized email invitation
resulted in an eight percentage point increase in response rates over the un-personalized
invitations (as cited in Dillman et al., 2009, p. 273). Cook, Heath, and Thompson (2000)
insisted that Sending multiple contacts to potential web survey respondents is the most
effective way to increase response rates (as cited in Dillman et al., 2009). For multiple
contacts, 25 people at each local office were contacted personally by the researcher in this
38
study and were asked to encourage employees in each office to participate in the survey.
Designated people also distributed the survey link to employees in local offices using
KOSHA intranet. The headquarters has 13 departments, so 13 people were contacted to
distribute the survey link to employees at each department again.
3.2 Description of the Survey
The survey had four parts: the first part was to get perception about important factors
(factors that have been importantly applied in KMS and factors that should be emphasized in
PKMS), the second part was to ask overall perceptions about satisfaction and usage of KMS
and PKMS, the third part was to get any ideas or opinions that could produce a successful
PKMS, and the last part was to get demographic information such as gender, age, position,
region, major field, year they joined KOSHA, year of current area/position, number of
knowledge creations during last two months, number of knowledge sharing Cafs joined, and
number of knowledge creations in knowledge sharing Cafs participants joined. All items
were operationalized as a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5: 1 = strongly disagree, 2
= disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. Respondents
who were supposed to complete this survey were employees at KOSHA, and they were asked
to do the questionnaire through personalized email invitations by the researcher and intranet
mailings by designated staff at each office simultaneously. Even though most respondents
were not professionals in KMS and PKMS, they were asked to honestly respond to the
survey from the perspective of regular workers. In addition, questions were randomly
rearranged among variables to avoid biased answers.

39
3.3 Data Collection Process and Follow-Ups
The survey described in the previous section was administered to 1,273 employees at
26 offices at KOSHA, including headquarters. The participants were all full-time employees,
and they responded through a web survey after receiving emails. As mentioned, all
employees were not only contacted through a personalized email invitation to participate in
the survey, but also received an online mail through intranet by designated persons at each
local office. Designated persons at each local office were provided with brief explanation a
few days prior to the questionnaire distribution in case they received a question from a
research participant. The survey was conducted for one week, and designated persons in 26
local offices were contacted in the middle of the week to check the response rate. At the same
time, reminder emails were sent to encourage employees who did not participate in the
survey to participate. At the end of the surveying week, designated persons were again
contacted to check the response rate and persons whose branch had less than a 10% response
rate were again asked to encourage employees to do the survey. This survey used the
appealing approach, explaining that responses from each employee would be a great asset
and help create a successful PKMS that can provide KOSHA with better performance,
having more competitiveness in occupational safety and health fields in the long run
The survey had 199 respondents for a 15.6% response rate. According to Churchill
and Iacobucci (2005, p.226), Response rates for email surveys that are embedded in the text
of the email tend to run 20 to 25%, but response rates dropped to 8% when the recipient
must open an attached file. This approach, as well as a lack of an appreciation token, may be
one of reasons for the low response rate: the response rate was low compared to response
rates in normal email surveys. Meanwhile, the results had no missing values because of the
40
strong benefit of web survey that it can be controlled and could not proceed to the next page
unless the current page is completed.
3.4 Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) by IBM Company was used for
the data analysis. Meanwhile, Partial Least Squares (PLS) that allows latent constructs to be
modeled was used to test the research model (Chin, 1998). In addition, PLS is appropriate for
a study with relative small sample size requirements having several strengths: PLS requires
a minimum sample size that equals 10 times the greater of (1) the number of items
comprising the most formative construct or (2) the number of independent constructs
influencing a single dependent construct (Wixom & Watson, 2001, p. 28). VisualPLS
1.04b1 was used in this study. Detailed analysis methods were based on two studies: Wixom
and Watson (2001) and Bock, Zmud, Kim, and Lee (2005). Following the previous research,
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first conducted to assess the measurement model;
then, the structural relationships including internal consistency and the convergent and
discriminant validity of the construct items.
In total, 34 KMS/PKMS attributes in terms of CSFs were used as the independent
variables in the data analysis, while performance measurement, with system usage and user
satisfaction, was used as the dependent variable. First of all, descriptive statistics on
demographic information were analyzed. Then, mean scores of each attribute was calculated,
and a paired t-test was used to find significant differences between KMS and PKMS in terms
of CSFs. In the meantime, the research model was tested using CFA; then, reliability and
41
validity test were executed. Using PLS, the bootstrap resampling method was used to
determine the statistical significance of path coefficient in the structural model. The sample
size was 199 that exceeded the recommended minimum of 40 that was moderate size for
model testing (Wixom & Watson, 2001). In addition, multivariate analysis was conducted to
evaluate the interrelationships among factors and variables. Respondents were categorized
into several groups based on their demographic background for MANOVA analysis. The
significance level (alpha) was set at .05 for all statistical tests in this study.
3.5 Variables and Hypotheses
3.5.1 Dependent Variables
Defining dependent variables in information systems cannot be overemphasized, and
measuring various independent variables is not appropriate if the dependent variables cannot
be measured with a similar degree of accuracy (DeLone & McLean, 1992). As a result, two
dependent variables are suggested in this study, and those variables are applied to KMS and
PKMS in a same manner.
Computer systems cannot improve organizational performance if there arent used
(Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989, p. 982). The use of IS is one of the frequently used
measures in terms of IS success (DeLone & McLean, 1992). They also found that use and
user satisfaction are closely interrelated to each other. User satisfaction is defined as the
extent to which users believe that the system will be available to meet their demands in terms
of information requirements, and the user will be not satisfied if the system does not provide
proper information at the right time (Ives, Olson, & Baroudi, 1983). In general, use must
42
precede user satisfaction in a process but positive experiences with usage leads to greater
user satisfaction (Ong & Lai, 2007). In addition, Devaraj, Fan, and Kohli (as cited in Ong &
Lai, 2007) found that people with satisfaction recommended use to other people.
In the technology acceptance model (TAM), Davis (1986) tried to find the impact of
external factors on internal beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. TAM described two particular
beliefs, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use that are related to computer
acceptance behaviors (Davis et al., 1989). In this model, perceived usefulness is defined as a
persons subjective probability that usage of a system will enhance their job performance
(Davis et al., 1989). People are willing to use or not use an application to the extent they
believe it will help them perform their job better (Davis, 1989, p. 320). Perceived ease of
use (EOU) is the degree to which a user considers the system to be easily used with no cost
and physical efforts (Davis et al., 1989). An application considered to be easy to use is more
likely to be accepted by users (Davis, 1989). Davis (1986) explained that actual system use is
determined by behavioral intention to use (BI), that is described by the attitude toward using
and perceived usefulness. Meanwhile, perceived usefulness positively affected not only
peoples intentions to use a system, but also their attitude toward using a system, and
peoples computer use can be anticipated from their intentions (Davis et al., 1989).
Mawhinney and Leaderer (as cited in Calisir & Calisir, 2004) and Mahmood et al. (2000)
found that user satisfaction is strongly related to the perceived usefulness of the IS. Calisir
and Calisir (2004) also noted that users who perceive IS as having more value, are more
inclined to have satisfaction with the IS than those who do not. From various perspectives,
perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are shown to be fundamental and apparent
determinants that have a vital role in decisions to use information technology (Davis, 1989).
43
As a result, perceived usefulness and intention to use were used as dependent variables in
PKMS because PKMS had not been fully implemented yet when this study started, whereas
system usage and user satisfaction were applied to KMS. However, same terms of system
usage and employee satisfactions were used in performance measurement for both KMS and
PKMS based on the literature. Therefore, one integrated dependent variable consisting of
system usage and user satisfaction was used.
This study used four questions to measure user satisfaction and system usage. Scale
items were designed to measure the knowledge workers beliefs about KMS whether (1) I am
required to use the system to complete my tasks, (2) I usually choose to use the system if I
need it, (3) I am overall satisfied with the system, and (4) the KMS overall impacts on my
performance of task/work. Four similar questions were used in PKMS as well,asking
knowledge workers beliefs about whether (1) I will be required to use the system to
complete my tasks, (2) I will choose to use the system if I need it, (3) the PKMS will overall
impact my perceived performance of task/work, and (4) the information from the PKMS will
be useful for my work.
3.5.2 Independent Variables
Based on the literature review, nine independent variables were defined as follows:
(1) high managerial level support, (2) knowledge sharing culture, (3) knowledge sharing
motivation, (4) education and training, (5) knowledge connectivity, (6) knowledge filtering
and evaluation, (7) staff-turnover, (8) integrated information technology infrastructure, and
(9) customers voice. Descriptions of each variable follow.

44
3.5.2.1 High Managerial Level Support
Even though most success factors operate in organizations, a successful project
cannot be achieved without high level managerial support. Several factors such as a
knowledge sharing culture, KM-based training programs and encouraging employees to
attend them are influenced by top management decisions (Davenport et al., 1998; Chong,
2006). Senior management in an organization can change culture that is implanted - values
and preferences about what organization must grow to gain (Kulkarni et al., 2007). Yoon,
Guimaraes, and ONeal (1995) pointed out that management support is very important in
receiving personnel and monetary resources for development because a development cost
will not be funded without management support. Considering this importance, success
factors should provide a useful system where CEOs can get required information at their
disposal. In addition, Sullivan (1999) argued that a managerial commitment to a long-term
strategic vision to achieve the business goal is needed in an organization . People at higher
levels can play an important role in influencing knowledge-related contributions and use by
employees who have sharable knowledge (Kulkarni et al., 2007). Nonaka, Konno, and
Toyama (2000) insisted that the success of knowledge creation depends on the leaders
assumption of responsibility, justification, and caring (as cited in Kosk, 2003).
Thus:
H 1a: A higher level of performance in KMS is positively related with High
Managerial Level Support
H 1b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related with High
Managerial Level Support

45
3.5.2.2 Knowledge Sharing Culture
Employees in most organizations are unwilling to share their knowledge because of
the bureaucratic culture in the organizations (Liebowitz, 1999). Meanwhile, changing current
culture takes extreme efforts, time, and confronting the flow for the organization (Park,
Ribiere, & Schulte, 2004). In addition, the most intangible element for managers, in terms of
knowledge and culture, is one of obstacles to understanding how knowledge and culture
interact (Long, 1997). One study discussed different perspectives in terms of knowledge
sharing power and that more careful assumptions must be advanced in developing KM
systems for sharing valuable knowledge (Shin, 2004). Shin (2004) wrote that knowledge
sharing has a negative relationship with competitiveness, from an economic perspective.
Davenport et al. (1998) mentioned that there are several components in a knowledge
sharing culture; people have a positive attitude toward knowledge, or are not inclined to
share knowledge, and the existing culture controls the KM. They found that although
employees do not naturally have an unwelcome attention to knowledge, they are not willing
to share knowledge with their peers spontaneously. Meanwhile, Al-Alawi, Al-Marzooqi, and
Mohammed (2007) defined six core factors that enable organizational and knowledge
sharing: interpersonal trust or trust between co-workers, communication between staff,
information systems, a reward system, and organizational structure. Social interactions in an
organizational context brought practices and fundamental criteria that can be explained by
culture, and the effect of culture on knowledge creation and use is shown in behaviors and
perceptions (Kulkarni et al., 2007).
Thus:
46
H 2a: A higher level of performance in KMS is positively related with Knowledge
Sharing Culture
H 2b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related with
Knowledge Sharing Culture
3.5.2.3 Knowledge Sharing Motivation
It is people who are at the center of KM initiatives (Kulkarni et al., 2007). However,
an individual workers knowledge does not convert into organizational knowledge even if
knowledge archives are created (Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). The success of an
information system is not from information technology itself, but from people inside
organizations. From a motivation perspective, authors have argued that incentive and reward
systems were necessary to boost creative knowledge sharing with colleagues (Davenport et
al., 1998; Kulkarni et al., 2007). In addition, Lee and Ahn (2007) found that an
organizations formal incentive system will increase knowledge sharing in an organization.
In their study, they developed a formal reward system model for intra-organizational
knowledge sharing, which might be useful in designing reward systems in organizations.
It is not uncommon that changing peoples behaviors is generally considered to be
the most severe challenge facing firms desiring to increase their members knowledge-
sharing behaviors (Bock et al., 2005, p. 89). Employees generally are not willing to easily
provide their knowledge without having any gains as a result of this action; therefore, an
effective reward system should consider employees needs and objectives (Al-Alawi et al.,
2007). The ShareNet online community at Siemens, allows for redemption for prizes and
47
that facilitates personal knowledge, including seminars or courses employees might want to
attend, even if it doesnt have any relation to their usual jobs (Pudlatz, 2002). At least
incentives can be given to encourage initial use of the systems (Liebowitz, 1999). For
example, several organizations have given mileage to employees who have created,
evaluated, and applied knowledge to their work. Giving incentives could mitigate free riders
for knowledge (Markus, 2001).
Thus:
Sharing Motivation
Knowledge Sharing Motivation
3.5.2.4 Education and Training
Through socialization, education, and learning, knowledge transfers happen (Roberts,
2000). In this sense, education and training will be the basis to enhance continuous
knowledge transfer to help get employees involved in the KM. By providing various learning
programs of education, training, and mentoring, organizations can have successful
knowledge creation (Swap, Leonard, Shields, & Abrams, 2001). Training and education
provide a company and organizations with a chance to create norms that will enhance KM
and sharing. Fiol and Lyles (1985, p. 811) referred to organizational learning as: the
development of insights, knowledge and associations between past actions, the effectiveness
of those actions, and the future actions.

48
Thus:
H 4a: A higher level of performance in KMS is positively related with Education and
Training
Education and Training
3.5.2.5 Knowledge Connectivity
Connections with various knowledge from outside can make people use knowledge
more often because knowledge from outside is thought to be unique and scarce (Menon &
Pfeffer, 2003). They found that people in general prefer knowledge obtained from outsiders
to that from insiders. In addition, firms frequently copy and transfer knowledge, strategy
structures, and management practices from outsiders, even though one of their case studies
illustrates that knowledge valuation decreased as the outsider became an insider and another
case study shows that valuation increased because of the outsiders.
How to locate and map important knowledge and to connect it with external domain
experts is the most important activity for the start of KM (Chang et al., 2009). McEvily and
Chakravarthy (as cited in Shin, 2004) suggested that sharing just internal knowledge will
decrease an organizations competitive benefit. Furthermore, if they encounter competitors
that have strong knowledge and a better profound knowledge, they may lose their
competitive advantage in the near future.
Thus:
49
Connectivity
Knowledge Connectivity
3.5.2.6 Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation
Few studies have used the direct terminology of knowledge filtering and evaluation,
but they have used various terms, such as information quality or knowledge content quality.
Therefore, this present study considers these terms as similar concepts to knowledge filtering
and evaluation, which would result in user satisfaction and knowledge use.
User satisfaction and system usage are influenced by information quality (DeLone &
McLean, 1992). Mason (1978) applied three levels of communication problems generated by
Shannon and Weaver (1949) to an IS and defined the effectiveness-influence level of those
three levels as occasions that might have an impact on users. Of these occasions, Mason
believed that the evaluation of information would have an impact on a users behavior. How
to evaluate the knowledge created and to determine its interrelationship with the work will be
one of the most important factors to maintain the quality of the knowledge repository. As a
result, knowledge filtering and systems must be considered as important in the knowledge
creating and operating process. Akhavan et al. (2006) used knowledge audit, that is very
important in KM systems, and is defined as a survey that measures knowledge re-use and
communication, cultural receptiveness to KM, and the valuing of knowledge, KM
opportunities, deficiencies, gaps, and problem areas. Kulkarni et al. (2007) used the term,
50
knowledge content quality, that has a broader concept such as information quality in the
electronic repositories and quality of documents, reports, lessons learned either structure or
unstructured formats. In their study, knowledge content quality leads perceived usefulness of
knowledge sharing and finally enhances knowledge use.
Thus:
Filtering and Evaluation
Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation
3.5.2.7 Staff-Turnover
It has happened commonly that employees with knowledge and experience leave the
organization, and this staff-turnover could be one of critical factors that affect a successful
KM (Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004). As a result, many organizations are spending a lot of
money to avoid a knowledge exodus (Koudsi, 2000; McCune, 1999, as cited in Droege &
Hoobler, 2003). The majority of studies have dealt with changes in staff between different
business fields; however, the term, staff-turnover, used in this study has a different meaning
since frequent staff-turnover inside knowledge-intensive organizations would have an impact
on knowledge management process. In particular, public organizations in Korea have very
low turnover rates; thus, staff-turnover inside one organization would be a very important
issue in determining knowledge creation, and transfer, and sharing in public organizations.
51
In public organizations in KOSHA, staff-turnover generally happens every year,
while most positions are secured based on the rule of five-year maximization in one position.
After five years, most employees should change their positions or areas. When one
department experiences a staff-turnover of someone taking care of core processes, the next
person in that position needs a long time to catch up with the previously executed tasks.
Because of this, this factor was adopted as one of independent variables.
Thus:
H 7a: A higher level of performance in KMS is negatively related with Staff-Turnover
H 7b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be negatively related with Staff-
Turnover
3.5.2.8 Integrated Information Technology Infrastructure
Information technology (IT) support means the degree to which knowledge
management is supported by the use of IT (Gold et al., 2001). Many researchers have found
that IT is a crucial element for knowledge creation. Roberts (2000) insisted that IT facilitates
rapid collection, storage, and exchange of knowledge on a scale not practicable in the past,
thereby assisting the knowledge creating process. Broader and accessible infrastructure of
technology based on knowledge-oriented systems enables KM projects to be successful
(Davenport et al., 1998), and technology advances may affect the modes and channels of
sharing (Holsapple & Joshi, 2000).
Thus:
52
H 8a: A higher level of performance in KMS is positively related with Integrated
Information Technology Infrastructure
Integrated Information Technology Infrastructure
3.5.2.9 Customers Voice
Yahya and Goh (2002) asserted that companies are increasingly concerned with
customer retention, and that retention can be accomplished by customers satisfaction toward
the companys products and services. As mentioned above, KOSHA is a knowledge-oriented
organization, in that most of employees create and use knowledge in every workflow process.
This is because they must provide industries with consulting and inspection, delivering a
great amount of knowledge to the industry and making internal reports on every task, which
is for occupational accidents prevention activities. Whether corporations and industries are
satisfied with this service or not will be connected to the annual evaluation process of public
organizations by Ministry of Strategy and Finance. Therefore, customers voice may be
related with the internal process.
Thus:
H 9a: A higher level of performance in KMS is positively related with Customers
Voice
Customers Voice
53
Table 3.1
Research Hypotheses
Independent
Hypotheses
Variables
H 1a: A higher level of performance in KMS is positively related with
High Managerial High Managerial Level Support
Level Support H 1b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related
with High Managerial Level Support
Knowledge Knowledge Sharing Culture
Sharing Culture H 2b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related
with Knowledge Sharing Culture
Knowledge
Sharing
H 3b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related
Motivation
with Knowledge Sharing Motivation
Education and Education and Training
Training H 4b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related
with Education and Training
Knowledge Knowledge Connectivity
Connectivity H 5b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related
with Knowledge Connectivity
Knowledge
Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation
Filtering and
H 6b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related
Evaluation
with Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation
H 7a: A higher level of performance in KMS is negatively related with
Staff-Turnover
Staff-Turnover
H 7b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be negatively related
with Staff-Turnover
Integrated IT Integrated Information Technology Infrastructure
Infrastructure H 8b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related
with Integrated Information Technology Infrastructure
Customers Customers Voice
Voice H 9b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be positively related
with Customers Voice
54
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS
This chapter presents statistical analysis and findings. This chapter consists of the
following, in order: demographic description, overall perceptions toward KMS and PKMS,
differences between KMS and PKMS about importance, performance measurements,
reliability and validity tests, and hypotheses tests.
4.1 Demographic Descriptions
As of January 2011, of 1,273 employees of KOSHA, 199 people had (15.6%) replied
to the survey [Table 4.1].
Table 4.1
Overall Respondents
Respondents Frequency Percent (%)
Total 1,273 100
Respondents 199 15.6
Non-Respondents 1,074 84.4
Table 4.2 provides information regarding gender of respondents. It shows that the
majority of respondents are male (84.4 %, 168), whereas female respondents are 15.6% (31).
55
Table 4.2
Respondents by Gender
Gender Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
Male 168 84.4
Female 31 15.6
Table 4.3 provides information that is pertinent in age groups. About 50 % of the
respondents are from 36 to 45 year-old (48.7%, 97), whereas only 3.0% (6) of respondents
are less than 31 year-old. Above 45 year-old also have 36.2% (72) of response rate out of the
total respondents.
Table 4.3
Respondents by age
Age Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
Less than 31 years old 6 3.0
31 35 years old 24 12.1
36 40 years old 55 27.6
41 45 years old 42 21.1
46 50 years old 37 18.6
More than 50 years old 35 17.6

56
More than half of the respondents (72.4%, 144) are managers (senior manager and
manager) followed by deputy directors (12.1%, 24), while only 9.5% (19) are assistant
manager, staff, and assistant staff. Among them, assistant staff (.5%, 1) has the lowest
number of respondents [Table 4.4].
Table 4.4
Respondents by Position
Position Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
Director/Director General 12 6.0
Deputy Director 24 12.1
Senior Manager 52 26.2
Manager 92 46.2
Assistant Manager 6 3.0
Staff 12 6.0
Assistant Staff 1 0.5

57
Table 4.5
Respondents by Region
Region Frequency Percent (%)

Total 199 100
Main Headquarters 42 21.1
OSHRI 19 9.6
OSHTI 5 2.5
Seoul Regional Headquarters 12 6.1
Seoul North Office 11 5.6
Gangwon Office 3 1.5
Busan Regional Headquarters 8 4.0
Woolsan Office 7 3.5
Kyungnam Office 7 3.5
Kyungnam East Office 2 1.0
Daegu Regional Headquarters 8 4.0
Kyungbuk East Office 4 2.0
Kyungbuk North Office 2 1.0
Kyungin Regional Headquarters 5 2.5
Kyungki East Office 4 2.0
Kyungki West Office 8 4.0
Kyungki South Office 12 6.1
Kyungki North Office 3 1.5
Bucheon Office 1 .5
Gwangju Regional Headquarters 7 3.5
Jeonbuk Office 6 3.0
Jeonnam East Office 9 4.5
Jeju Office 2 1.0
Daejeon Regional Headquarters 6 3.0
Chungnam Office 2 1.0
Chungbuk Office 4 2.0
58
Table 4.5 presents 26 offices including Main Headquarters, OSHRI, OSHTI, and
regional headquarters. Among the regional offices, Seoul regional headquarters and Kyungin
South Office have the highest numbers of respondents, 12 (6.1%), whereas Bucheon Office
has the fewest respondents (.5%, 1). Table 4.6 provides the number of respondents by
regional headquarters, including headquarters, OSHRI, and OSHTI. Respondents from
Kyungki regional headquarters accounts for 16.6% (33) followed by Seoul Regional
Headquarters (13.1%, 26). Meanwhile, Daejeon Regional Headquarters just stands for 7.0%
(14) of the respondents. Even though respondents were categorized into regional
headquarters, Headquarters still has the highest number of respondents (21.1%, 42).
Table 4.6
Respondents by Regional Headquarters
Region Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
Headquarters 42 21.1
OSHRI 19 9.6
OSHTI 5 2.5
Seoul Regional Headquarters 26 13.1
Busan Regional Headquarters 24 12.0
Daegu Regional Headquarters 14 7.0
Kyungin Regional Headquarters 33 16.6
Gwangju Regional Headquarters 24 12.1
Daejeon Regional Headquarters 12 6.0

59
Table 4.7 shows respondents by major field; and there are nine major fields.
Management support stands for 25.6% (51) followed by mechanics (19.6%, 39) and
industrial hygiene (17.1%, 34), ,while ergonomics only account for 1.0 % (2) of respondents
followed by chemistry (1.5%, 3).
Table 4.7
Respondents by Major Field
Major Field Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
Mechanics 39 19.6
Electronics 15 7.5
Chemical Engineering 13 6.5
Industrial Hygiene 34 17.1
Ergonomics 2 1.0
Chemistry 3 1.5
Educational and Promotion 24 12.1
Management Support 51 25.6
Construction 18 9.0
More than half of the respondents (60.8%, 121) started their career at KOSHA before
2001, and there were no respondents from 2007 to 2009 (see Table 4.8). Respondents starting
in 2001 were the biggest number, with 13.1% respondents (26), whereas the groups starting
at KOSHA in 1998 and 1999 have just one respondent each.

60
Table 4.8
Respondents by Start Work Year
Start Year
Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
1988 12 6.0
1989 12 6.0
1990 7 3.5
1991 18 9.1
1992 17 8.6
1993 6 3.0
1994 8 4.0
1995 14 7.1
1996 8 4.0
1997 6 3.0
1998 1 .5
1999 1 .5
2000 11 5.6
2001 26 13.1
2002 8 4.0
2003 12 6.0
2004 8 4.0
2005 12 6.0
2006 6 3.0
2010 3 1.5
2011 3 1.5
61
Table 4.9 shows work years of respondents in current area/position. About half of the
respondents (49.8%, 99) have worked in the current area/position for less than three years.
Respondents who have worked in the current area/position for five or more years account for
36.7% (73).
Table 4.9
Respondents by Work Year in Current Area/Position
Work Years in Current Area/Position Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
Less than one-year 52 26.1
From one-year to less than two-years 26 13.1
From two-years to less than three-years 21 10.6
From three-years to less than four-years 10 5.0
From four-years to less than five-years 17 8.5
Five or more than five-years 73 36.7

62
Table 4.10 shows the number of knowledge creations by respondents. The majority of
respondents (81.4%, 162) had not created any knowledge during last two months.
Respondents who created one knowledge creation are 7.5% (15); whereas, only 3.5% (12)
created more than three knowledge creations during last two months.
Table 4.10
Number of Knowledge Creations
Number of Knowledge Creations during Last

Frequency Percent (%)
Two Months
0 knowledge creations 162 81.4
1 knowledge creation 15 7.5
7 knowledge creations 0 0
More than 11 knowledge creations 3 1.5

63
Only 12.6% of the respondents have not joined any knowledge sharing Caf, while
38.1% (76) respondents have joined more than two knowledge sharing Cafs [Table 4.11].
Overall, most respondents (87.4%, 174) have joined a knowledge sharing Caf.
Table 4.11
Number of Knowledge Sharing Cafs Joined
Number of Knowledge Cafs Joined Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
0 Cafs 25 12.6
1 Caf 48 24.1
2 Cafs 50 25.1
3 Cafs 41 20.6
4 Cafs 19 9.5
5 Cafs 7 3.5
More than 5 Cafs 9 4.5

64
Table 4.12 shows the number of knowledge creations created in knowledge sharing
Cafs by respondents who joined cafs. Even though the majority of respondents have joined
at least one knowledge sharing Caf[Table 4.11], more than 70% of the total respondents,
including respondents who have not joined knowledge sharing Cafs, have not created any
knowledge.
Table 4.12
Number of Knowledge Creations created in Knowledge Sharing Cafs
Number of Knowledge Creation Frequency Percent (%)
Total 199 100
1 knowledge creation 19 9.5
7 knowledge creations 1 .5
More than 10 knowledge creations 7 3.5

65
4.2 Perception of Importance in KMS and PKMS
4.2.1 Perception of Importance in KMS
Table 4.13 illustrates the mean scores of perception of importance for 34 KMS
attributes. The group mean rating was 3.71 .93 (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither
agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree). The highest rated attribute for KMS
was Update related principles or adequate information regularly (Mean = 4.15) followed
by Efficiency and ease of use of information systems (Mean = 4.07), A system that easily
accepts every employees opinions or ideas (Mean = 4.04), and Update the most operating
rules, and procedures for better process implementations (Mean = 3.96).
The lowest rated attribute of perception of importance for KMS was Provide
incentives in promotion as compensation (Mean = 3.38), followed by Enhancing customer
satisfaction through integrated knowledge and its quality (Mean = 3.45), High managerial
levels continuous concerns toward system utilizations (Mean = 3.53), and Well balanced
personnel appointments in that right people works at right tasks (Mean = 3.54). Meanwhile,
all of the attributes received more than 3 points on a five-point Likert scale, which shows that
respondents perceived all 34 attributes for KMS as important, to some degree.

66
Table 4.13
Perception of Importance on KMS
Attributes Mean SD
Update related principles or adequate information regularly 4.15 .83
Efficiency and ease of use of information systems 4.07 .89
A system that easily accepts every employees opinions or ideas 4.04 .83
Update the most operating rules, and procedures for better process
3.96 .81
implementations
Actively encourage employee to participate in decision processes 3.93 .87
Adequate supporting for budgeting or funding for projects 3.92 .93
Receiving customers feedback on the provided information 3.91 .95

Reducing hierarchical and bureaucratic knowledge management
3.90 .88
procedures
Sharing knowledge with safety managers in industries 3.89 .90
Evaluate usability and understandability of output 3.88 .89
Reducing clicking times1 when getting related knowledge 3.87 .95

Encouraging employees to attend learning courses (e.g., university
3.76 .98
classes, conferences, seminars)
Gaining knowledge about customer 3.73 .95
Regularly invites renowned professionals into KOSHA 3.69 .92
Easy data sharing among different works or different applications 3.67 .93
High managerial level leadership and commitment 3.63 .91

Easy access to the majority of knowledge and process within my
3.63 .83
organization
1
Number of times to click a computer mouse
67
Table 4.13 (Continued)
Attributes Mean SD
Providing regular awareness training courses or seminars by KOSHA

3.62 1.07
staff at regional offices
Connecting with knowledge outside organization, such as journals,
3.60 .96
information from related organizations, current trends, etc.
Financial incentives for actual usage and improvement by the usage 3.60 .95
Promote freely sharing wiki pages like knowledge iN at

3.60 .96
www.naver.com or knowledge Q&A
Encouraging employees to benchmark best practices from outside
3.59 .94
organization or inside organization
Evaluating performance of usage by high managerial level 3.59 1.03
Promoting contribution by providing opportunities such as

3.58 1.13
participations in overseas training
Connecting with OSH professionals or academic scholars outside
3.57 .99
organization
Applying customers needs into the systems 3.57 .99
Actively participate in knowledge caf 3.56 .83
Enhance knowledge quality eliminating unrelated knowledge regularly 3.56 .84
Evaluate related and important knowledge 3.55 .87
Timely personnel appointments 3.55 1.06
Well balanced personnel appointments in that right people work at

3.54 .92
right tasks
High managerial levels continuous concerns toward system
3.53 .89
utilizations
Enhancing customer satisfaction through integrated knowledge and its
3.45 .86
quality
Provide incentives in promotion as compensation 3.38 1.00

68
4.2.2 Perception of Importance about PKMS Attributes
Table 4.14 illustrates the mean scores of perception of importance about 34 PKMS
attributes. The group mean rating was 4.00 .84 (5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = neither
agree nor disagree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree) that is higher than the group mean for
KMS attributes by .29 (3.71 .93). The highest rated attribute for PKMS was Easy access
to the majority of knowledge and process within my organization (Mean = 4.23) followed
by Actively encourage employee to participate in decision processes (Mean = 4.19),
Enhance knowledge quality eliminating unrelated knowledge regularly (Mean = 4.18), and
Efficiency and ease of use of information systems (Mean = 4.18). The four attributes,
Update related principles or adequate information regularly, Efficiency and ease of use of
information systems, A system that easily accepts every employees opinions or ideas,
and Actively encourage employee to participate in decision processes were ranked high
both in KMS and PKMS.
The lowest rated attribute for perception of importance for PKMS was Provide
incentives in promotion as compensation (Mean = 3.55) followed by Providing regular
awareness training courses or seminars by KOSHA staff at regional offices (Mean = 3.70),
Evaluating performance of usage by high managerial level (Mean = 3.74), and Promoting
contribution by providing opportunities such as participations in overseas training (Mean =
3.74). The mean score of Provide incentives in promotion as compensation was the lowest
both for KMS and PKMS. All the attributes received more than 3 points on a five-point
Likert scale, which showed that respondents perceived all 34 attributes for PKMS as at least
somewhat important.
69
Table 4.14
Perception of Importance on PKMS
Attributes Mean SD
Easy access to the majority of knowledge and process within my

4.23 .78
organization
Actively encourage employee to participate in decision processes 4.19 .74
Enhance knowledge quality eliminating unrelated knowledge

4.18 .82
regularly
Efficiency and ease of use of information systems 4.18 .75
A system that easily accepts every employees opinions or ideas 4.17 .73
Update related principles or adequate information regularly 4.17 .81
Actively participate in knowledge caf 4.14 .76
Receiving customers feedback on the provided information 4.14 .68
High managerial level leadership and commitment 4.12 .93
Adequate supporting for budgeting or funding for projects 4.12 .77
Enhancing customer satisfaction through integrated knowledge and its

4.11 .82
quality
Well balanced personnel appointments in that right people works at
4.10 .87
right tasks
Reducing clicking times when getting related knowledge 4.08 .87
Update the most operating rules, and procedures for better process
4.08 .79
implementations
4.07 .80
utilizations
Reducing hierarchical and bureaucratic knowledge management
4.07 .82
procedures
Easy data sharing among different works or different applications 4.06 .81
70
Attributes Mean SD

4.04 .92
Evaluate related and important knowledge 4.04 .77
Sharing knowledge with safety managers in industries 4.00 .80
Timely personnel appointments 3.97 .85
Connecting with OSH professionals or academic scholars outside

3.95 .87
organization
Encouraging employees to benchmark best practices from outside
3.94 .84
Evaluate usability and understandability of output 3.94 .84
Connecting with knowledge outside organization such as journals,

3.93 .92
Gaining knowledge about customer 3.91 .89
Applying customers needs into the systems 3.90 .84
Encouraging employees to attend learning courses (e.g., university

3.90 .84
Financial incentives for actual usage and improvement by the usage 3.84 .90
Regularly invites renowned professionals into KOSHA 3.82 .95

3.74 .89
Evaluating performance of usage by high managerial level 3.74 .93
Providing regular awareness training courses or seminars by KOSHA

3.70 .93
staff at regional offices
Provide incentives in promotion as compensation 3.55 .98

71
4.2.3 Differences of Perception of Importance between KMS and PKMS
The differences of perception of importance between KMS and PKMS were
compared based on two-tailed, pairwise t-test. Table 4-15 compares the differences of
importance perception between two systems. The mean values come from importance
perception of KMS minus PKMS. The largest difference in mean of perception of importance
between KMS and PKMS was Enhancing customer satisfaction through integrated
knowledge and its quality (Mean D2 = -.66), followed by Enhance knowledge quality
eliminating unrelated knowledge regularly (Mean D = -.62) and Easy access to the
majority of knowledge and process within my organization (Mean D = -.60). These
attributes have means less than 3.65 for KMS, whereas they have means more than 4.10 for
PKMS.
In the meantime, there are no significant differences on perception of importance
between KMS and PKMS on seven attributes: Update related principles or adequate
information regularly (Mean D = -.03, Sig. p =.69 > .05), Evaluate usability and
understandability of output(Mean D = -.03, Sig. p = .41 > .05), Providing regular
awareness training courses or seminars by KOSHA staff at regional offices (Mean D = -.08,
Sig. p =.43 > .05), Sharing knowledge with safety managers in industries (Mean D = -.11,
Sig. p =.10 > .05), Update the most operating rules, and procedures for better process
implementations (Mean D = -.11, Sig. p = .06 > .05), Efficiency and ease of use of
information systems (Mean D = .11, Sig. p = .09 > .05), and Promoting contribution by
providing opportunities such as participations in overseas training (Mean D = -.16, Sig. p
= .08 > .05). After these seven attributes, the attribute about information systems A system
2
Mean D = Mean Difference
72
that easily accepts every employees opinions or ideas has the least differences in means
between two systems. Overall, means for PKMS have higher values than means for KMS.
Table 4.15
Comparison of Perception of Importance between KMS and PKMS
Mean t Sig.
Attributes
Difference value (2-tailed)
Enhancing customer satisfaction through integrated
-.66 -8.72 .00
knowledge and its quality
Enhance knowledge quality eliminating unrelated knowledge
-.62 -7.94 .00
regularly
Easy access to the majority of knowledge and process within
-.60 -8.12 .00
my organization
Actively participate in knowledge caf -.58 -7.80 .00
Well balanced personnel l appointments in that right people
-.55 -6.47 .00
works at right tasks
-.54 -6.99 .00
utilizations
Evaluate related and important knowledge -.49 -6.10 .00
High managerial level leadership and commitment -.49 -5.74 .00
-.44 -4.53 .00
Timely personnel appointments -.43 -4.61 .00
Easy data sharing among different works or different
-.38 -4.43 .00
applications
Connecting with OSH professionals or academic scholars
-.38 -4.19 .00
outside organization
Encouraging employees to benchmark best practices from
-.35 -4.02 .00
outside organization or inside organization
Applying customers needs into the systems -.34 -5.18 .00
Connecting with knowledge outside organization such as
journals, information from related organizations, current -.33 -3.49 .00
trends, etc.
Actively encourage employee to participate in decision
-.25 -4.25 .00
processes
Financial incentives for actual usage and improvement by the
-.24 -2.68 .01
usage
73
Mean t Sig.
Attributes
Difference value (2-tailed)
Reducing clicking times when getting related knowledge -.21 -3.60 .00
Adequate supporting for budgeting or funding for projects -.20 -3.01 .00
Gaining knowledge about customer -.19 -3.03 .00
Provide incentives in promotion as compensation -.17 -2.59 .01
Reducing hierarchical and bureaucratic knowledge

-.17 -2.53 .01
management procedures
-.16 -1.78 .08
Evaluating performance of usage by high managerial level -.15 -2.36 .02
Encouraging employees to attend learning courses (e.g.,

-.15 -2.27 .02
university classes, conferences, seminars)
Regularly invites renowned professionals into KOSHA -.14 -2.37 .02
A system that easily accepts every employees opinions or

-.13 -2.02 .04
ideas
Efficiency and ease of use of information systems -.11 -1.71 .09
Update the most operating rules, and procedures for better

-.11 -1.93 .06
process implementations
Sharing knowledge with safety managers in industries -.11 -1.65 .10
Providing regular awareness training courses or seminars by

-.08 -.79 .43
KOSHA staff at regional offices
Evaluate usability and understandability of output -.06 -.83 .41
Update related principles or adequate information regularly -.03 -.41 .69
Reducing clicking times when getting related knowledge -.21 -3.60 .00
74
4.2.4 Comparison of Perceptions of Success between KMS and PKMS
Four questions for the dependent construct were integrated to evaluate the overall
success of both systems in Table 4.16. Table 4.16 presents a paired t-test of perception of
success between KMS and PKMS. There was a significant difference between two systems,
with a mean difference of -.29 (Sig. p = .000 < .05). Respondents overall perceived that
PKMS are more successful systems than KMS are. In addition, Table 4.17 shows system
usage and user satisfaction separately. PKMS was considered a more successful system than
KMS in both measures (Sig. p = .000 < .05, for both). In particular, respondents were not
satisfied with KMS (M = 1.72), whereas they considered that PKMS will give user
satisfaction more than KMS (M = 3.89).
Table 4.16
Paired t-test of Perception on Overall Success between KMS and PKMS
Mean Mean t Sig.

(2-
KMS Success PKMS Success Difference value
tailed)
3.71 4.00 -.29 -8.046 .000
Table 4.17
Paired t-test of Perception of Success between KMS and PKMS (System Usage and User
Satisfaction, Respectively)
Mean Mean t Sig.

Success Measure (2-
KMS PKMS Difference value
tailed)
System Usage 3.69 3.88 -.19 -4.058 .000

User Satisfaction 1.72 3.89 -2.16 -48.494 .000
75
4.3 Reliability and Validity Test
A reliability test is to estimate how well the different items complement each other
in their measurement of different aspects of the same variable or quality (Litwin, 1995, p.
24). The internal consistency of the attributes that explain perception of importance of KMS
and PKMS was evaluated using Cronbachs coefficient alpha. Cronbachs alpha is a
commonly used test that estimates the internal reliability among a group of attributes
combined to form a single scale. Each alpha that exceeds the minimum acceptable level
of .70 is recommended (Nunnally, 1994). Nunnally (1978, p. 226) also mentioned that in the
early stages of research on predictor tests or hypothesized measures of a construct, one saves
time and energy by working with instruments that have only modest reliability, for which
purpose reliabilities of .60 or .50 will suffice. If there are significant correlations,
corrections for attenuation will estimate how much the corrections will increase when
reliabilities of measure are increased. (Nunnally, 1994, p. 265). Litwin (1995) also wrote
that levels of .70 or more are generally accepted as representing good reliability. In this
regard, this study has set .70 as the threshold to determine reliabilities.
Validity refers to the extent to which an instrument measures what it is intended to
measure. Churchill and Iacobucci (2005, p. 294) described construct validity as concerned
with the question of does the instrument, in fact, measure what we purport it to measure?
According to Campbell and Fiske (1959), convergent validity refers to all items measuring a
construct actually loading on a single construct. In this study, convergent validity was
examined by average variance extracted (AVE) from the measures (Hair, Anderson, Tathan,
& Black, 1998 as cited in Bock et al., 2005), and the AVE should be at least .5 (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). For the discriminant validity test, the AVE was assessed to see whether the
76
AVE from the construct is greater than the variance shared between the construct and other
constructs (Chin, 1998).
4.3.1 Reliability and Validity Tests of KMS
Table 4.18 shows means, standard deviations, loadings, weight, and t-statistics for
survey items. Half of the items have loadings less than .50, whereas constructs such as KST3
and KPM4 have higher loadings. Table 4.19 shows composite reliability, AVE, and
Cronbachs alpha for each construct. Only KST, KCV5, and KPM are satisfactory, with a
convergent validity test having an AVE higher than .50, while KCV and KPM have
reliability more than .70. For the discriminant validity test, Table 4.20 shows the correlation
of latent variables. In Table 4.20, the diagonal elements are the square root of the AVE, and
these values should exceed the inter-construct correlations for adequate discriminant validity.
Only three constructs, KST, KCV, and KPM, satisfied discriminant validity. As new
measures such as KST and KCV were included as new measures, loadings for each item and
cross-loadings are reviewed in Table 21. Even though both constructs satisfied convergent
and discriminant validity, one item from KCV has relatively low loading, with .481.
3
KST: KMS Staff-Turnover
4
KPM: KMS Performance Measurement
5
KCV: KMS Customer Voice
77
Table 4.18
Survey Items [KMS]
Construct Items Mean Stdev Loading Weight t - Statistic

KHM1 3.633 0.911 0.372 0.199 2.401
High Managerial Level Support KHM2 3.533 0.892 0.351 0.187 2.093
(KHM) KHM3 3.593 1.035 0.866 0.647 12.538
KHM4 3.925 0.926 0.756 0.398 8.049
KSC1 3.563 0.826 0.211 0.103 1.582
Knowledge Sharing Culture KSC2 3.598 0.964 0.252 0.163 1.714
(KSC) KSC3 4.040 0.828 0.909 0.643 28.271
KSC4 3.899 0.876 0.801 0.441 12.254
KSM1 3.598 0.948 0.315 0.129 2.220
Knowledge Sharing Motivation KSM2 3.583 1.133 0.456 0.251 2.969
(KET) KSM2 3.382 0.997 0.802 0.607 9.905
KSM2 3.935 0.865 0.760 0.472 14.524
KET1 3.623 1.070 -0.042 -0.034 -0.381
Educational and Training KET2 3.593 0.938 0.240 0.191 1.505
(KET) KET3 3.759 0.976 0.887 0.682 14.272
KET4 4.146 0.825 0.764 0.456 7.756
KKC1 3.603 0.963 0.244 0.135 1.578
Knowledge Connectivity KKC2 3.573 0.987 0.184 0.068 1.335
(KKC) KKC3 3.889 0.898 0.878 0.593 21.384
KKC4 3.688 0.923 0.852 0.510 16.560
KFE1 3.563 0.844 0.496 0.311 3.412
Knowledge Filtering and KFE2 3.548 0.874 0.334 0.150 2.120
Evaluation
KFE3 3.884 0.894 0.833 0.521 10.597
(KFE)
KFE4 3.965 0.806 0.769 0.471 7.978
Staff-Turnover KST1 3.543 0.925 0.778 0.577 4.496
(KST) KST2 3.548 1.057 0.835 0.660 5.252
KIT1 3.628 0.830 0.314 0.086 1.530
Integrated IT Infrastructure KIT2 3.673 0.926 0.384 0.177 1.648
(KIT) KIT3 4.065 0.894 0.893 0.590 9.728
KIT4 3.869 0.950 0.816 0.463 5.882
KVO1 3.452 0.857 0.477 0.193 5.249
Customers Voice KVO2 3.568 0.987 0.864 0.393 28.462
(KVC) KVO3 3.910 0.949 0.830 0.320 16.960
KVO4 3.729 0.952 0.861 0.352 25.367
KPM1 3.764 0.876 0.789 0.289 15.344
Performance Measurement KPM2 3.623 0.929 0.849 0.279 21.923
(KPM) KPM3 3.382 1.002 0.857 0.282 30.763
KPM4 3.533 0.984 0.894 0.328 44.722
78
Table 4.19
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis [Composite Reliability and AVE, for KMS]
Average
Composite Cronbachs
Construct Variance
Reliability Alpha
Extracted
High Managerial Level Support (KHM) 0.695 0.396 0.505
Knowledge Sharing Culture (KSC) 0.661 0.394 0.386
Knowledge Sharing Motivation (KSM) 0.688 0.382 0.488
Education and Training (KET) 0.571 0.357 0.288
Knowledge Connectivity (KKC) 0.659 0.397 0.469
Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation (KFE) 0.715 0.410 0.516
Staff-Turnover (KST) 0.789 0.651 0.463
Integrated IT Infrastructure (KIT) 0.717 0.428 0.593
Customers Voice (KCV) 0.852 0.601 0.770
Performance Measurement (KPM) 0.911 0.719 0.870

79
Table 4.20
Correlation of Latent Variables [KMS]
KHM KSC KSM KET KKC KFE KST KIT KCV KPM
KHM 0.629
KSC 0.678 0.628
KSM 0.686 0.656 0.618
KET 0.642 0.676 0.652 0.598
KKC 0.614 0.676 0.695 0.760 0.630
KFE 0.705 0.669 0.653 0.724 0.738 0.641
KST 0.212 0.304 0.244 0.269 0.257 0.355 0.807
KIT 0.648 0.677 0.622 0.657 0.621 0.742 0.361 0.654
KCV 0.765 0.653 0.686 0.749 0.747 0.744 0.304 0.637 0.775
KPM 0.441 0.392 0.404 0.355 0.403 0.387 0.168 0.261 0.468 0.848
Diagonal elements are the square root of Average Variance Extracted. These Values should exceed
the inter-construct correlations for adequate discriminant validity.
Legend:
KHM = KMS High Managerial Level Support
KSC = KMS Knowledge Sharing Culture
KSM = KMS Knowledge Sharing Motivation
KET = KMS Education and Training
KKC = KMS Knowledge Connectivity
KFE = KMS Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation
KST = KMS Staff-Turnover
KIT = KMS Integrated IT Infrastructure
KCV = KMS Customers Voice
KPM = KMS Performance Measurement
80
Table 4.21
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis [Cross-Loadings, KMS]
Construct Items KHM KSC KSM KET KKC KFE KST KIT KVO KPM
GHM1 0.376 0.134 0.122 0.200 0.114 0.265 0.202 0.259 0.212 0.136
GHM2 0.355 0.254 0.127 0.179 0.135 0.299 0.262 0.278 0.196 0.128
High Managerial Level Support
GHM3 0.870 0.542 0.643 0.464 0.536 0.566 0.082 0.458 0.653 0.440
GHM4 0.760 0.649 0.571 0.686 0.562 0.591 0.184 0.634 0.674 0.272
GSC1 0.245 0.214 0.183 0.154 0.097 0.194 0.155 0.221 0.117 0.064
GSC2 0.235 0.256 0.155 0.187 0.193 0.284 0.324 0.230 0.195 0.101
GSC3 0.622 0.914 0.566 0.564 0.578 0.537 0.202 0.546 0.571 0.393
GSC4 0.497 0.805 0.571 0.615 0.605 0.594 0.247 0.613 0.560 0.270
GSM1 0.258 0.244 0.319 0.251 0.208 0.227 0.173 0.228 0.191 0.079
GSM2 0.273 0.239 0.461 0.221 0.203 0.244 0.315 0.319 0.235 0.153
GSM3 0.539 0.400 0.806 0.493 0.561 0.459 0.145 0.363 0.559 0.367
GSM4 0.554 0.691 0.763 0.572 0.595 0.610 0.123 0.626 0.566 0.286
GET1 0.044 0.068 0.121 -0.038 0.117 0.103 0.232 0.140 0.035 -0.015
GET2 0.095 0.094 0.094 0.245 0.153 0.168 0.367 0.213 0.127 0.097
Educational and Training
GET3 0.560 0.550 0.599 0.891 0.723 0.599 0.187 0.460 0.675 0.343
GET4 0.543 0.635 0.513 0.768 0.541 0.638 0.179 0.683 0.592 0.230
GKC1 0.110 0.147 0.123 0.049 0.248 0.195 0.275 0.214 0.088 0.087
GKC2 0.185 0.169 0.214 0.188 0.189 0.260 0.404 0.346 0.134 0.045
GKC3 0.521 0.614 0.616 0.655 0.882 0.646 0.237 0.540 0.667 0.379
GKC4 0.552 0.557 0.594 0.700 0.856 0.618 0.107 0.495 0.657 0.326
GFE1 0.205 0.269 0.175 0.242 0.206 0.500 0.436 0.324 0.223 0.198
Knowledge Filtering and GFE2 0.218 0.133 0.080 0.104 0.134 0.338 0.397 0.147 0.138 0.097
Evaluation GFE3 0.607 0.534 0.584 0.613 0.674 0.837 0.271 0.614 0.672 0.331
GFE4 0.631 0.620 0.607 0.676 0.651 0.773 0.048 0.647 0.657 0.300
GST1 0.230 0.251 0.201 0.221 0.217 0.289 0.783 0.328 0.242 0.128
Staff-Turnover
GST2 0.126 0.246 0.199 0.219 0.204 0.291 0.840 0.266 0.255 0.146
GIT1 0.155 0.196 0.149 0.181 0.166 0.300 0.348 0.319 0.170 0.039
GIT2 0.243 0.160 0.134 0.131 0.163 0.230 0.326 0.388 0.147 0.079
Integrated IT Infrastructure
GIT3 0.536 0.605 0.547 0.568 0.555 0.654 0.316 0.898 0.563 0.258
GIT4 0.602 0.602 0.574 0.620 0.550 0.637 0.196 0.821 0.579 0.203
GVO1 0.351 0.337 0.364 0.298 0.267 0.368 0.451 0.345 0.481 0.218
GVO2 0.686 0.544 0.605 0.598 0.643 0.608 0.219 0.478 0.868 0.442
Customers Voice
GVO3 0.670 0.625 0.590 0.711 0.661 0.643 0.267 0.606 0.834 0.361
GVO4 0.616 0.507 0.549 0.662 0.668 0.662 0.138 0.547 0.865 0.396
GPM1 0.361 0.278 0.323 0.288 0.324 0.265 0.132 0.136 0.367 0.793
GPM2 0.346 0.323 0.316 0.328 0.369 0.296 0.130 0.216 0.391 0.853
Performance Measurement
GPM3 0.369 0.313 0.336 0.287 0.313 0.353 0.074 0.226 0.394 0.862
GPM4 0.422 0.414 0.395 0.311 0.369 0.400 0.227 0.305 0.442 0.899
81
4.3.2 Reliability and Validity Tests for PKMS
Table 4.22 shows means, standard deviations, loadings, weight, and t-statistics for
survey items about PKMS. All of the items have loadings greater than .50. Table 4.23 shows
composite reliability, AVE, and Cronbachs alpha for each construct. The AVE values range
from .585 to .875, which are higher than .50, an acceptable level (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
In addition, reliabilities range from .764 to .923, which are higher values than the threshold
of .70. Table 24 shows correlations of the latent variables. In Table 4.24, diagonal elements
are also the square root of AVE, and these values should exceed the inter-construct
correlations for adequate discriminant validity as well. In this regard, the square root of AVE
for two constructs (PET6, PKC7) is lower than correlations in other constructs, and does not
meet the measure for discriminant validity. Meanwhile, the square root of AVE in the
remaining constructs exceeds the inter-construct correlations. As with the KMS, the loadings
and cross-loadings are shown in Table 4.21 because of new constructs with PST8 and PCV9.
All of the items in each construct have higher loading values than other constructs.
6
PET: PKMS Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation
7
PKC: PKMS Knowledge Connectivity
8
PST: PKMS Staff-Turnover
9
PCV: PKMS Customers Voice
82
Table 4.22
Survey Items [PKMS]
Construct Items Mean Stdev Loading Weight t - Statistic

PHM1 4.121 0.930 0.786 0.382 0.254
High Managerial Level Support PHM2 4.070 0.801 0.819 0.329 0.310
(PHM) PHM3 3.739 0.933 0.753 0.433 0.359
PHM4 4.121 0.769 0.750 0.438 0.369
PSC1 4.141 0.759 0.705 0.504 0.270
Knowledge Sharing Culture PSC2 4.035 0.918 0.792 0.373 0.283
(PSC) PSC3 4.171 0.732 0.841 0.292 0.343
PSC4 4.065 0.823 0.847 0.282 0.351
PSM1 3.839 0.896 0.774 0.402 0.334
Knowledge Sharing Motivation PSM2 3.744 0.887 0.856 0.268 0.312
(PSM) PSM2 3.548 0.978 0.765 0.415 0.319
PSM2 4.186 0.739 0.652 0.575 0.353
PET1 3.698 0.932 0.806 0.350 0.307
Educational and Training PET2 3.945 0.842 0.875 0.234 0.354
(PET) PET3 3.905 0.838 0.771 0.406 0.295
PET4 4.171 0.811 0.724 0.475 0.297
PKC1 3.935 0.922 0.781 0.390 0.312
Knowledge Connectivity PKC2 3.950 0.869 0.888 0.211 0.319
(PKC) PKC3 4.000 0.798 0.802 0.358 0.268
PKC4 3.824 0.945 0.828 0.314 0.312
PFE1 4.181 0.821 0.769 0.408 0.235
Knowledge Filtering and PFE2 4.035 0.768 0.825 0.319 0.327
Evaluation
(PFE) PFE3 3.940 0.839 0.800 0.360 0.270
PFE4 4.075 0.791 0.862 0.257 0.388
Staff-Turnover PST1 4.095 0.874 0.923 0.149 0.483
(PST) PST2 3.975 0.849 0.948 0.101 0.585
PIT1 4.226 0.781 0.836 0.301 0.277
Integrated IT Infrastructure PIT2 4.055 0.805 0.830 0.310 0.300
(PIT) PIT3 4.176 0.755 0.845 0.286 0.274
PIT4 4.080 0.867 0.847 0.282 0.340
PVO1 4.111 0.815 0.780 0.392 0.277
Customers Voice PVO2 3.905 0.838 0.839 0.296 0.297
(PCV) PVO3 4.136 0.679 0.829 0.313 0.326
PVO4 3.915 0.892 0.865 0.251 0.306
PPM1 3.839 0.813 0.879 0.228 0.305
Performance Measurement PPM2 3.930 0.749 0.914 0.165 0.274
(PPM) PPM3 3.889 0.803 0.921 0.153 0.276
PPM4 3.889 0.796 0.895 0.199 0.255
83
Table 4.23
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis [Composite Reliability and AVE, for PKMS]
Average
Composite Cronbachs
Construct Variance
Reliability Alpha
Extracted
High Managerial Level Support (PHM) 0.859 0.605 0.781
Knowledge Sharing Culture (PSC) 0.875 0.637 0.807
Knowledge Sharing Motivation (PSM) 0.848 0.585 0.764
Education and Training (PET) 0.873 0.634 0.805
Knowledge Connectivity (PKC) 0.895 0.682 0.841
Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation (PFE) 0.887 0.664 0.832
Staff-Turnover (PST) 0.933 0.875 0.858
Integrated IT Infrastructure (PIT) 0.905 0.705 0.860
Customers Voice (PCV) 0.898 0.687 0.845
Performance Measurement (PPM) 0.946 0.814 0.923

84
Table 4.24
Correlation of Latent Variables [PKMS]
PHM PSC PSM PET PKC PFE PST PIT PCV PPM
PHM 0.778
PSC 0.697 0.798
PSM 0.751 0.632 0.765
PET 0.710 0.713 0.716 0.796
PKC 0.664 0.667 0.683 0.873 0.826
PFE 0.751 0.737 0.722 0.777 0.766 0.815
PST 0.645 0.652 0.577 0.589 0.554 0.706 0.935
PIT 0.699 0.792 0.594 0.680 0.663 0.812 -0.675 0.840
PCV 0.777 0.763 0.655 0.784 0.780 0.811 -0.660 0.764 0.829
PPM 0.487 0.428 0.425 0.440 0.438 0.437 -0.368 0.323 0.482 0.902
Diagonal elements are the square root of Average Variance Extracted. These Values should exceed
the inter-construct correlations for adequate discriminant validity.
Legend:
PHM = PKMS High Managerial Level Support
PSC = PKMS Knowledge Sharing Culture
PSM = PKMS Knowledge Sharing Motivation
PET = PKMS Education and Training
PKC = PKMS Knowledge Connectivity
PFE = PKMS Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation
PST = PKMS Staff-Turnover
PIT = PKMS Integrated IT Infrastructure
PCV = PKMS Customers Voice
PPM = PKMS Performance Measurement
85
Table 4.25
Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis [Cross-Loadings, PKMS]
Construct Items PHM GSC GSM GET GKC GFE GST GIT GVO GPM
GHM1 0.790 0.546 0.483 0.486 0.447 0.536 0.584 0.511 0.561 0.293
GHM2 0.823 0.574 0.535 0.544 0.522 0.565 0.548 0.611 0.613 0.357
High Managerial Level Support
GHM3 0.757 0.351 0.676 0.496 0.486 0.495 0.400 0.348 0.530 0.413
GHM4 0.754 0.700 0.607 0.660 0.592 0.723 0.506 0.701 0.701 0.425
GSC1 0.538 0.708 0.455 0.542 0.500 0.571 0.563 0.616 0.549 0.295
GSC2 0.482 0.796 0.484 0.624 0.607 0.598 0.543 0.663 0.589 0.309
GSC3 0.645 0.846 0.553 0.546 0.525 0.608 0.505 0.672 0.690 0.375
GSC4 0.564 0.852 0.530 0.589 0.523 0.597 0.503 0.603 0.613 0.384
GSM1 0.606 0.350 0.777 0.495 0.432 0.511 0.405 0.425 0.438 0.328
GSM2 0.588 0.502 0.860 0.676 0.641 0.579 0.499 0.417 0.525 0.306
GSM3 0.490 0.334 0.769 0.464 0.450 0.420 0.366 0.287 0.431 0.313
GSM4 0.601 0.722 0.655 0.553 0.561 0.681 0.486 0.662 0.597 0.346
GET1 0.590 0.546 0.651 0.810 0.731 0.596 0.542 0.529 0.598 0.344
GET2 0.604 0.572 0.548 0.880 0.777 0.663 0.506 0.565 0.704 0.396
Educational and Training
GET3 0.534 0.508 0.633 0.774 0.669 0.571 0.416 0.439 0.583 0.330
GET4 0.541 0.662 0.467 0.728 0.609 0.657 0.415 0.644 0.618 0.333
GKC1 0.506 0.587 0.462 0.673 0.785 0.593 0.507 0.621 0.588 0.373
GKC2 0.605 0.537 0.617 0.784 0.893 0.643 0.519 0.552 0.679 0.382
GKC3 0.563 0.583 0.570 0.682 0.806 0.661 0.420 0.587 0.695 0.320
GKC4 0.533 0.512 0.617 0.753 0.833 0.649 0.386 0.445 0.634 0.373
GFE1 0.518 0.586 0.461 0.590 0.554 0.773 0.623 0.703 0.579 0.268
Knowledge Filtering and GFE2 0.619 0.562 0.615 0.663 0.656 0.829 0.713 0.641 0.692 0.373
Evaluation GFE3 0.639 0.599 0.589 0.568 0.601 0.804 0.503 0.625 0.648 0.308
GFE4 0.668 0.666 0.665 0.704 0.679 0.866 0.501 0.704 0.719 0.443
GST1 0.606 0.638 0.530 0.577 0.561 0.688 0.927 0.686 0.622 0.310
Staff-Turnover
GST2 0.608 0.593 0.553 0.535 0.489 0.645 0.953 0.594 0.621 0.376
GIT1 0.541 0.665 0.410 0.525 0.512 0.623 0.631 0.840 0.611 0.252
GIT2 0.639 0.703 0.497 0.623 0.604 0.688 0.591 0.835 0.700 0.273
GIT3 0.529 0.645 0.499 0.524 0.530 0.685 0.507 0.850 0.611 0.249
GIT4 0.636 0.659 0.583 0.611 0.582 0.734 0.553 0.851 0.651 0.309
GVO1 0.593 0.662 0.426 0.631 0.591 0.657 0.571 0.729 0.784 0.368
GVO2 0.656 0.558 0.593 0.627 0.668 0.645 0.445 0.523 0.843 0.394
Customers Voice
GVO3 0.635 0.672 0.504 0.632 0.586 0.678 0.590 0.651 0.833 0.432
GVO4 0.703 0.651 0.656 0.723 0.753 0.723 0.593 0.649 0.870 0.407
GPM1 0.492 0.391 0.355 0.372 0.389 0.412 0.377 0.294 0.484 0.883
GPM2 0.449 0.401 0.381 0.396 0.378 0.379 0.331 0.311 0.448 0.919
Performance Measurement
GPM3 0.431 0.377 0.413 0.413 0.416 0.394 0.306 0.277 0.416 0.925
GPM4 0.386 0.383 0.393 0.418 0.404 0.399 0.314 0.287 0.389 0.900
86
4.4 Hypotheses Tests
Hypotheses were tested with PLS, and the results of the analyses are depicted in
Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2 and summarized in Table 4.26. Path coefficients, t-statistics, and R2
were used to determine the significances. Surprisingly, only one measure, first suggested in
this study in KMS (H9a regarding customers voice) is significant for its path coefficient at
the level of .05 (.254, t = 2.002). High managerial level support (H1a) and knowledge sharing
culture (H2a) are somewhat positively related with higher performance in KMS; however,
they are not statistically significant. Meanwhile, staff-turnover (H7a) does not have an impact
on performance at all. In addition, the negative significant coefficient observed with
Hypothesis 8 implies that integrated IT infrastructure hinders rather than enhances successful
performance of the system throughout system usage and user satisfaction. According to R2,
nine constructs together explained 27.1% of the dependent constructs variance in KMS.
Based on path coefficients and t-statistics for PKMS, H1 (.256, t = 2.257) and H2
(.194, t = - 2.172) were supported at the level of .05 path loadings; in addition, H9 (.208, t =
1.810) was also supported with path coefficient at the level of .10. Therefore, high
managerial level support, knowledge sharing, and customers voice were positively related
with higher performance. The same as in KMS, the negative significant coefficient observed
with H8 implies that integrated IT infrastructure was an obstacle for higher performance
rather than facilitating the system usage and user satisfaction that result in higher
performance. H5 regarding knowledge connectivity seems to affect performance; however,
there is no statistical significance. In addition, the negative path coefficient of education and
training suggests that education and training might have a negative effect on higher
87
performance for KMS. Finally, 30.4% of the dependent constructs variance (R2 = .304) was
explained by independent constructs for PKMS.
Figure 4.1 Results of PLS Analysis [KMS]

88
Figure 4.2 Results of PLS Analysis [PKMS]

89
Table 4.26
Results of Hypotheses Test
Independent
Hypotheses Results
Variables
H 1a: A higher level of performance in KMS is positively
High Not Supported
related with High Managerial Level Support
Managerial
H 1b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be
Level Support Supported
positively related with High Managerial Level Support
Knowledge Not Supported
related with Knowledge Sharing Culture
Sharing
Culture Supported
positively related with Knowledge Sharing Culture
Knowledge Not Supported
related with Knowledge Sharing Motivation
Sharing
Motivation Not Supported
positively related with Knowledge Sharing Motivation
Not Supported
Education and related with Education and Training
Training H 4b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be
Not Supported
positively related with Education and Training
Not Supported
Knowledge related with Knowledge Connectivity
Connectivity H 5b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be
Not Supported
positively related with Knowledge Connectivity
Knowledge related with Knowledge Filtering and Evaluation Not Supported
Filtering and H 6b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be
Evaluation positively related with Knowledge Filtering and Not Supported
Evaluation
H 7a: A higher level of performance in KMS is negatively
Not Supported
related with Staff-Turnover
Staff-Turnover
Not Supported
negatively related with Staff-Turnover
related with Integrated Information Technology
Not Supported
Infrastructure H 8b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be
Not Supported
positively related with Integrated Information
Technology Infrastructure
H 9a: A higher level of performance in KMS is positively Supported
Customers related with Customers Voice
Voice H 9b: A higher level of performance in PKMS will be Supported
positively related with Customers Voice
90
4.5 Statistical Analysis for Differences between Groups
To see if there are differences among different groups, mulitivariate analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was implemented based on demographic information. Means of each
independent variable for perception of importance for KMS and PKMS were tested by
demographic information such as gender, age, positions, regions, major fields, work years,
work-years in current area/position, number of knowledge creations, number of knowledge
sharing cafs joined, and number of knowledge creations in knowledge sharing cafs joined.
In terms of dependent variables, nine independent constructs of perception of
importance on KMS and PKMS were used separately: high managerial level support,
knowledge sharing culture, knowledge sharing motivation, education and training,
knowledge connectivity, knowledge filtering and evaluation, staff-turnover, integrated
information technology infrastructure, and customers voice.
4.5.1 Analysis of Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS
To analyze gender, independent sample t-tests were implemented, while MANOVA
was conducted on all of the data. Before conducting each analysis, differences of variances
and homogeneity were tested. From Table 4.27 to Table 4.37 showed no significant
differences of means by gender, positions, region, the year they joined KOSHA, number of
knowledge creations, number of knowledge sharing Cafs joined, and number of knowledge
creations in knowledge sharing Cafs joined. However, there were significant differences of
means by age group, major field, and work-year in current area/position

91
Table 4.28 shows that there is significant difference in integrated IT infrastructure by
age group (Sig. p = .01 < .05), while other constructs do not have significant differences. In
particular, group 1 (less than 36 year-old) and group 2 (36-45 year-old) were significantly
different (Sig. p = .01 < .05). Group 2 considered this variable more important than group 1
did. Table 4.32 also shows that there are significant differences in knowledge connectivity
and customers voice (Sig. p = .04, .03 < .05 each) by major field. Group 4 (Industrial
Hygiene, Ergonomics, Chemistry) and Group 7 (Construction) and Group 5 (Education and
Promotion) and Group 7 have slight differences in knowledge connectivity; however, the
differences are not significant (Sig. p = .09, .06 > .05 each). Groups 5 and 7 also have a slight
difference, which is not significant (Sig. p = .8 > .05) in customers voice; however, Groups
5 and 6 (Management Support) have significant difference (Sig. p = .04 < .05).
Table 4.34 illustrates that there is a difference of means in integrated IT infrastructure
by work-year in current area/position (Sig. p = .01 < .05). Group 1 (less than 1 year) and
Group 3 (more than 5 years) and Group 2 (2 5 years) and Group 3 have differences of
means (Sig. p = .04, .03 < .05 each), whereas Group 1 and Group 2 have no significant
difference (Sig. p = .1 > .05). Group 3 considered integrated IT infrastructure more important
than Group 1 and Group 2 overall. There was an interesting observation in different regions
divided by four groups (Headquarters, OSHRI, OSHTI, and Regional Offices) [Table 4.31].
Even though there was no significance in education and training by different regions (Sig. p
= .56 > .05), Group 2 (OSHRI) and Group 4 (Regional Offices) have a significant difference
of means for this construct (Sig. p = .04 < .05). Participants in OSHRI considered education
and training less important than those in regional offices.

92
Table 4.27
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS by Gender
Mean Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t- Sig.
Variables
value (2-tailed)
Male Female
F Sig.
High managerial level support 3.68 3.64 1.705 .193 .341 .733
Knowledge sharing culture 3.78 3.74 1.370 .243 .387 .700
Knowledge sharing motivation 3.64 3.55 .377 .540 .739 .461
Education and training 3.77 3.82 .003 .955 -.385 .701
Knowledge connectivity 3.70 3.61 5.320 .022 .781 .436
Knowledge filtering and evaluation 3.75 3.69 .669 .414 .603 .547
Staff-turnover 3.58 3.35 2.574 .110 1.444 .150
Integrated IT infrastructure 3.81 3.80 2.114 .148 .107 .915
Customers voice 3.68 3.60 .146 .703 .569 .570
Table 4.28
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Different Ages
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
High managerial level support 3.55 3.72 3.66 .949 2 .389

Knowledge sharing culture 3.65 3.88 3.69 3.760 2 .025
Knowledge sharing motivation 3.48 3.65 3.66 1.023 2 .361
Education and training 3.65 3.82 3.78 1.133 2 .324
Knowledge connectivity 3.59 3.76 3.64 1.389 2 .252
Knowledge filtering and evaluation 3.53 3.80 3.75 2.271 2 .068
Staff-turnover 3.37 3.63 3.50 1.462 2 .234
Integrated IT infrastructure 3.55 3.92 3.77 4.623 2 *.011
Customers voice 3.48 3.78 3.61 1.949 2 .145
Group 1: less than 36, Group 2: 36 45, Group 3: Over 45 year-old
* p .05
93
Table 4.29
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Different Positions
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
High managerial level support 3.83 3.61 3.83 2.790 2 .064

Knowledge sharing motivation 3.70 3.60 3.69 .489 2 .614
Education and training 3.76 3.77 3.90 .497 2 .609
Knowledge connectivity 3.71 3.69 3.64 .085 2 .918
Staff-turnover 3.61 3.50 3.69 .661 2 .518
Integrated IT infrastructure 3.85 3.75 3.90 .400 2 .671
Customers voice 3.76 3.62 3.83 1.041 2 .355
Group 1: Managerial level, Group 2: Managers, Group 3: Practical level
94
Table 4.30
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Different Regions (1)
Mean
Variables Group Group Group Group Group Group Group F df Sig.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
High managerial level
3.66 3.71 3.73 3.54 3.76 3.68 3.46 .546 6 .773
support
Knowledge sharing
3.77 3.84 3.81 3.59 3.86 3.79 3.54 .949 6 .461
culture
Knowledge sharing
3.55 3.80 3.70 3.38 3.63 3.69 3.67 .979 6 .440
motivation
Education and training 3.72 3.84 3.91 3.52 3.88 3.76 3.79 1.132 6 .345
Knowledge connectivity 3.67 3.84 3.76 3.39 3.77 3.61 3.60 1.146 6 .337
Knowledge filtering and
3.72 3.78 3.83 3.41 3.80 3.79 3.70 1.104 6 .361
evaluation
Staff-turnover 3.50 3.40 3.67 3.32 3.79 3.42 3.70 1.139 6 .341
Integrated IT
3.78 3.83 3.90 3.64 3.90 3.75 3.81 .478 6 .817
infrastructure
Customers voice 3.59 3.75 3.58 3.54 3.89 3.72 3.46 .996 6 .429
Group 1: Center (Headquarters, OSHRI, OSHTI),
Group 2: Seoul Regional Headquarters Group 3: Busan Regional Headquarters
Group 4: Daegu Regional Headquarters Group 5: Kyungin Regional Headquarters
Group 6: Gwangju Regional Heaadquarters Group 7: Daejeon Regional Headquarters
95
Table 4.31
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Different Regions (2)
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
High managerial level support 3.62 3.63 4.00 3.68 .618 3 .604
Knowledge sharing culture 3.79 3.74 3.75 3.78 .045 3 .987
Knowledge sharing motivation 3.54 3.54 3.70 3.66 .583 3 .627
Education and training 3.82 3.46 3.90 3.81 2.564 3 .056
Knowledge connectivity 3.73 3.61 3.45 3.70 .469 3 .705
3.68 3.79 3.80 3.75 .261 3 .853
evaluation
Staff-turnover 3.55 3.53 3.00 3.57 .808 3 .491
Integrated IT infrastructure 3.76 3.80 3.80 3.83 .116 3 .951
Customers voice 3.52 3.66 3.95 3.70 .897 3 .444
Group 1: Headquarters Group 2: OSHRI Group 3: OSHTI Group 4: Regional Offices
96
Table 4.32
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Different Major Fields
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4 Group5 Group6 Group7
High managerial
3.79 3.63 3.58 3.72 3.79 3.60 3.43 1.100 6 .364
level support
Knowledge sharing
3.84 3.98 3.58 3.80 3.82 3.73 3.61 1.240 6 .287
culture
Knowledge sharing
3.75 3.72 3.48 3.71 3.67 3.53 3.41 1.100 6 .364
motivation
Education and
3.76 3.83 3.67 3.92 3.94 3.70 3.56 1.646 6 .137
training
Knowledge
3.68 3.78 3.65 3.84 3.91 3.56 3.39 2.321 6 *.035
connectivity
Knowledge filtering
3.80 3.62 3.81 3.85 3.88 3.64 3.53 1.541 6 .167
and evaluation
Staff-turnover 3.60 3.60 3.42 3.65 3.58 3.49 3.33 .466 6 .833
Integrated IT
3.88 3.85 3.61 3.94 3.92 3.69 3.68 1.243 6 .286
infrastructure
Customers voice 3.77 3.63 3.62 3.79 3.99 3.46 3.38 2.479 6 *.025
Group 1: Mechanics, Group 2: Electronics, Group 3: Chemical Engineering,
Group 4: Industrial Hygiene, Ergonomics, Chemistry, Group 5: Education and Promotion
Group 6: Management Support, Group 7: Construction
* p .05
97
Table 4.33
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Different Work Years
Mean
Variables F df Sig.

Knowledge sharing culture 3.75 3.76 3.80 .192 2 .826
3.83 3.61 3.74 2.280 2 .105
evaluation
Staff-turnover 3.58 3.48 3.55 .233 2 .792
Customers voice 3.65 3.64 3.69 .091 2 .913
Group 1: 1988-1992, Group 2: 1993-1999, Group 3: 2000-2011
Table 4.34
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Work-Year in Current Area/Position
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
Staff-turnover 3.58 3.47 3.60 .485 2 .616
Customers voice 3.57 3.65 3.75 1.055 2 .350
Group 1: Less than 1 year, Group 2: 2-5 years, Group 3: More than 5 years
* p .05
98
Table 4.35
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Knowledge Creations
Mean
Variables F df Sig.

Knowledge filtering and evaluation 3.74 3.62 3.83 .676 2 .510
Staff-turnover 3.50 3.83 3.66 1.422 2 .244
Customers voice 3.66 3.40 3.89 2.078 2 .128
Group 1: 0 knowledge, Group 2: 1 knowledge, Group 3: More than 1 knowledge
Table 4.36
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Knowledge Sharing CafJoined
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
Education and training 3.82 3.77 3.76 3.83 .198 3 .897
Knowledge connectivity 3.83 3.61 3.67 3.74 .879 3 .453
3.85 3.65 3.73 3.81 .993 3 .397
evaluation
Staff-turnover 3.86 3.43 3.46 3.70 2.454 3 .065
Customers voice 3.69 3.51 3.67 3.86 1.641 3 .181
Group 1: 0 Caf, Group 2: 1, Group 3: 2-3 Caf, Group 4: More than 3 Caf
99
Table 4.37
Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS among Number of Knowledge Creation in
Knowledge Sharing CafJoined
Mean
Variables F df Sig.

Staff-turnover 3.55 3.58 3.52 .040 2 .960
Customers voice 3.69 366 3.55 .556 2 .574
Group 1: 0 knowledge creation;, Group 2: 1 knowledge creation; Group 3: More than 1 knowledge
creation
100
4.5.2 Analysis of Perceptions of Importance on Variables for PKMS
Similar analyses were conducted on PKMS as well. For gender, an independent
sample t-test was implemented, while others were analyzed using MANOVA. For
implementing MANOVA, homogeneity of variances in all groups and variances of subset
were tested using Tukey HSD and Levene Statistics. Tables 4.38 to 4.48 show no significant
differences of means by gender, age, position, region by regional headquarters, major field,
number of knowledge creations, or number of knowledge creations in knowledge sharing
Cafjoined, except regions (by Headquarters, OSHRI, OSHTI, and Regional Offices), work
years, work years in current area/position, and the number of knowledge sharing Cafjoined.
There were no differences in mean scores among headquarters or between
headquarters and regional office, but there was a significant difference in regions when
regions were divided into four groups (Headquarters, OSHRI, OSHTI, and Regional Offices),
regarding the knowledge connectivity construct (Sig. p = .04 < .05) [Table 4.42]. Similar to
the comparison in KMS, there was significant difference between Group 2 (OSHRI) and
Group 4 (Regional Offices), and the mean in Group 4 was higher than the one in OSHRI.
Meanwhile, although the difference between Group 2 and Group 4 was not significant for the
education and training construct, the mean in Group 4 (Regional Offices) was slightly higher
than the one in Group 2 (OSHRI).
Table 4.44 shows that the means of knowledge sharing motivation and customers
voice were significantly different by different work years (Sig. p = .01, .04 < .05 each). For
knowledge sharing motivation, the means in Group 1 (joined KOSHA in 1988-1992) and
Group 2 (join KOSHA in 1993-1999) and Group 2 and Group 3 (joined KOSHA in 2000-
101
2011) were significantly different. Group 1 and Group 3 thought the knowledge sharing
motivation more importantly than Group 2 (Sig. p = .21, .16 < .05 each). For the variable,
customers voice, Group 3 considered customers voice as an important determinant
influencing higher performance more than Group 2 (Sig. p =.04 < .05).
Table 4.45 shows that there were significant differences in the high managerial level
support, knowledge sharing culture, and integrated IT infrastructure constructs among
different groups of work-years in current area/positions (Sig. p = .01, .01, .02 < .05
respectively). Group 3 (work-year more than 5 years in current area/position) considered
high managerial level support as a more important variable that determines higher
performance for PKMS than Group 1 (less than 1 year in current area/position) (Sig. p = .00
< .05) did. In addition, Group 3 also perceived knowledge sharing culture more important for
better performance (Sig. p = .01, .03 < .05 each) than Group 1 and Group 2 did, and Group 3
considered integrated IT infrastructure more important than Group 1 (Sig. p = .04 < .05) did.
In terms of the number of knowledge sharing Cafs joined, there was significant difference in
high managerial level support. Respondents who joined two or three Cafs (Group 3)
perceived high managerial level support more important for higher performance f PKMS
than respondents who had just joined one Caf(Group 2).

102
Table 4.38
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS by Gender
Mean Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t- Sig.
Variables
value (2-tailed)
Male Female
F Sig.
High managerial level support 4.01 4.04 .334 .564 -.251 .802
Knowledge sharing culture 4.12 3.99 .241 .624 1.043 .298
Knowledge sharing motivation 3.93 3.93 1.076 .301 -.594 .553
Education and training 3.92 3.96 .229 .633 .020 .984
Knowledge connectivity 3.40 3.12 .014 .906 -.270 .787
Knowledge filtering and evaluation 4.05 4.12 .000 .985 -.582 .561
Staff-turnover 4.06 3.90 2.211 .139 .992 .323
Integrated IT infrastructure 4.12 4.21 .031 .860 -.676 .500
Customers voice 4.01 4.04 .551 .459 -.217 .829
Table 4.39
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Different Ages
Mean
Variables F df Sig.

Staff-turnover 3.90 4.06 4.06 .495 2 .610
Customers voice 4.10 4.04 3.94 .675 2 .510
Group 1: less than 36, Group 2: 36 45, Group 3: Over 45 year-old
103
Table 4.40
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Different Positions
Mean
Variables F df Sig.

Staff-turnover 4.22 4.00 3.94 1.192 2 .306
Customers voice 4.06 3.99 4.14 .433 2 .649
Group 1: Managerial level, Group 2: Managers, Group 3: Practical level
104
Table 4.41
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Different Regions (1)
Mean
Variables Group Group Group Group Group Group Group F df Sig.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
High managerial level
3.99 4.09 4.00 4.11 4.11 3.89 3.88 .461 6 .836
support
Knowledge sharing
4.20 4.03 4.04 4.14 4.10 3.89 4.27 .923 6 .480
culture
Knowledge sharing
3.79 3.96 3.79 4.00 3.83 3.76 3.77 .415 6 .869
motivation
Education and training 3.84 4.10 3.94 3.96 4.03 3.84 3.92 .647 6 .693
Knowledge connectivity 3.78 4.08 3.90 4.03 3.99 4.00 4.02 .821 6 .555
4.02 4.10 4.07 4.23 4.05 3.98 4.06 .267 6 .952
evaluation
Staff-turnover 4.06 4.21 4.08 4.14 3.98 3.75 4.00 .795 6 .575
Integrated IT
4.11 4.21 4.11 4.20 4.18 4.03 4.17 .220 6 .970
infrastructure
Customers voice 3.99 4.06 3.89 4.09 4.18 3.90 4.00 .650 6 .690
Group 1: Center (Headquarters, OSHRI, OSHTI),
Group 2: Seoul Regional Headquarters Group 3: Busan Regional Headquarters
Group 4: Daegu Regional Headquarters Group 5: Kyungin Regional Headquarters
Group 6: Gwangju Regional Heaadquarters Group 7: Daejeon Regional Headquarters
105
Table 4.42
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Different Regions (2)
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
Knowledge sharing culture 4.28 4.00 4.25 4.06 1.541 3 .205
Education and training 3.90 3.58 4.25 3.98 2.315 3 .077
Knowledge connectivity 3.85 3.53 4.15 4.00 2.791 3 *.042
4.01 4.03 4.15 4.07 .139 3 .937
evaluation
Staff-turnover 4.04 4.08 4.20 4.02 .098 3 .961
Customers voice 4.02 3.88 4.20 4.03 .392 3 .759
Group 1: Headquarters Group 2: OSHRI Group 3: OSHTI Group 4: Regional Offices
* p .05
106
Table 4.43
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Different Major Fields
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4 Group5 Group6 Group7
High managerial
3.80 4.03 4.06 4.06 4.22 4.07 3.86 1.424 6 .227
level support
Knowledge sharing
4.01 4.18 4.13 4.06 4.21 4.13 4.04 .333 6 .856
culture
Knowledge sharing
3.73 3.65 3.83 3.88 3.98 3.87 3.76 .800 6 .527
motivation
Education and
3.81 3.85 3.19 3.95 4.14 3.85 3.97 .784 6 .537
training
Knowledge
3.78 3.85 4.19 4.07 4.17 3.78 3.90 1.657 6 .162
connectivity
Knowledge filtering
3.94 3.900 4.23 4.11 4.28 3.97 4.17 1.360 6 .249
and evaluation
Staff-turnover 3.91 4.00 4.08 4.06 4.23 3.98 4.14 .624 6 .646
Integrated IT
4.03 3.95 4.10 4.22 4.33 4.10 4.22 1.268 6 .284
infrastructure
Customers voice 3.86 3.87 4.23 4.08 4.25 3.98 3.96 1.154 6 .333
Group 1: Mechanics, Group 2: Electronics, Group 3: Chemical Engineering,

Group 4: Industrial Hygiene, Ergonomics, Chemistry, Group 5: Education and Promotion
Group 6: Management Support, Group 7: Construction
107
Table 4.44
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Different Work Years
Mean
Variables F df Sig.

Knowledge sharing motivation 3.91 3.56 3.90 4.603 2 *.011
4.11 3.86 4.12 2.671 2 .072
evaluation
Staff-turnover 4.05 3.88 4.10 1.184 2 .308
Integrated IT infrastructure 4.12 3.95 4.24 2.809 2 .063
Customers voice 4.02 3.81 4.12 3.131 2 *.046
Group 1: 1988-1992; Group 2: 1993-1999; Group 3: 2000-2011 * p .05
Table 4.45
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Work-Year in Current Area/Position
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
High managerial level support 3.82 3.97 4.20 5.303 2 *.006

Knowledge sharing culture 3.96 4.02 4.29 5.258 2 *.006
Staff-turnover 3.91 3.95 4.21 2.860 2 .060
Customers voice 3.90 3.98 4.13 1.839 2 .153
Group 1: Less than 1 year, Group 2: 2-5 years, Group 3: More than 5 years
* p .05
108
Table 4.46
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Knowledge Creations
Mean
Variables F df Sig.

Staff-turnover 4.01 4.03 4.20 .548 2 .579
Customers voice 3.98 4.15 4.16 .981 2 .377
Group 1: 0 knowledge; Group 2: 1 knowledge; Group 3: More than 1 knowledge creation
Table 4.47
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among the number of Knowledge Sharing
CafJoined
Mean
Variables F df Sig.
High managerial level support 3.97 3.80 4.12 4.04 2.661 3 *.049
Education and training 4.01 3.84 3.92 4.02 .589 3 .623
Knowledge connectivity 4.04 3.83 3.88 4.11 1.347 3 .260
4.01 3.98 4.09 4.11 .391 3 .760
evaluation
Staff-turnover 3.98 3.83 4.14 4.07 1.621 3 .186
Customers voice 3.97 3.92 4.05 4.09 .630 3 .596
Group 1: 0 Caf, Group 2: 1, Group 3: 2-3 Caf, Group 4: More than 3 Caf
* p .05
109
Table 4.48
Perception of Importance on Variables for PKMS among Number of Knowledge Creation in
Knowledge Sharing CafJoined
Mean
Variables F df Sig.

Staff-turnover 4.00 3.97 4.21 .963 2 .383
Customers voice 4.01 3.99 4.68 .126 2 .881
Group 1: 0 knowledge, Group 2: 1 knowledge, Group 3: More than 1 knowledge
110
CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents implications of the study, including differences in perceptions
of importance between PKMS and KMS and demographic differences, contributions and
limitations of the study, and future research needs.
5.1 Implications of the Study
This study examined the factors that affect the success of process-oriented knowledge
management systems (PKMS) and knowledge management systems (KMS) by using a
research model that was developed from IT, KM, and KMS literature. As a result, this study
identified a number of potentially salient, critical success factors that can affect PKMS and
KMS success, using a performance measurement as the dependent variable (system usage
and user satisfaction) and nine variables as independent variables (high managerial level
support, knowledge sharing culture, knowledge sharing motivation, education and training,
knowledge connectivity, knowledge filtering and evaluation, staff-turnover, integrated IT
infrastructure, and customers voice). Furthermore, an empirical study was executed through
a survey of knowledge workers at KOSHA, a public organization in Korea. Based on the
results, factors between PKMS and KMS success were determined and compared. The
following sections present key observations regarding the major determinants for higher
performance.
111
5.1.1 Perception of Importance toward PKMS comparing to KMS
Using partial least squares (PLS), a structural modeling technique, CSFs on PKMS
and KMS were defined in Figure 4.1 and 4.2. Nine constructs explained 30.4% of the
dependent constructs variance (R2 = .304), and high managerial level support, knowledge
sharing culture, and customers voice constructs were significantly related with higher
performance for PKMS. Concurrently, the customers voice construct was positively related
with higher performance in both systems. However, integrated IT infrastructure was
significant negative effect on higher performance, and the coefficient observed implies that
the integrated IT infrastructure hinders rather than enhances performance. Also,staff-turnover
that was a new variable in this research is not negatively related with higher performance. It
shows that the employees in the organization generally perceived the regular staff-turnover as
normal and they accept it. Looking at PKMS, knowledge connectivity and knowledge
filtering and evaluation have higher t-values than with KMS, but do not meet the significance
level threshold. Unexpectedly, knowledge sharing motivation and education and training
were not positively associated with higher performance in both systems.
Because of the nature of public organizations, customers voice was perceived as an
important key determinant in performance in both systems. Employees at public
organizations are frequently exposed to the public and voices from patrons have a vital role
in whether a public sector gets public support or receives public complaints. With the start of
KMS at KOSHA, customers satisfaction, reducing business streamlining processes, and
focusing on customer-oriented perspectives was unexpectedly emphasized since early 2000s.
The advent of the internet in particular enhanced the speed of this phenomenon with the
support of new technologies such as customer relationship management (CRM), enhanced

112
message service (EMS), and short message service (SMS). In addition, public across the
world have experienced a highly competitive environment for funding and alternative
services with the private sectors (Luen & Al-Hawamdeh, 2001). Generally, employees in the
public sector consider consumer satisfaction as a priority, based on their establishments
objectives. Basically, employees at KOSHA are knowledge-oriented workers and most of
their central tasks are accomplished through physical relationships with clients in industry:
they provide safety and health consulting, advice, inspections, and safety training. These
activities become the basis of customer evaluations at the end of every year by the Ministry
of Strategy and Finance, and these results comprise a great portion of an organizations total
evaluation and reputation.
High managerial level support and knowledge sharing culture were positively
associated only with higher performance for PKMS. Thinking of the situation, where PKMS
had been applied in only two business processes at that time, two things can be implied by
this result. First, this result suggests that the customers voice was very important and
emphasized in implementing the KMS since the early 2000s. However, this factor alone does
not ensure employees satisfaction toward higher performance; meanwhile, higher
managerial concerns should be followed up for better performance. The concerns should be
based not on temporary concerns but on continuous efforts and consideration of the systems
success. Second, knowledge sharing motivation through rewards, such as financial incentives
or promotion incentives, was not considered important even though many scholars and
researchers have emphasized organizational rewards for knowledge sharing and usage. On
the other hand, the culture perspective was strongly associated with the higher performance.
Knowledge sharing was considered one of the important determinants in successful KMS,
113
but knowledge sharing was not applied into system implementation despite the expectation
that it will enhance the system.
Interestingly, high managerial level support and knowledge sharing culture are very
similar concepts in that organizational culture is greatly influenced by leadership. For
example, an item from the knowledge sharing culture construct is A system that easily
accepts every employees opinions or ideas, but this idea cannot be implemented unless
there is high managerial support. In other words, enforcement of high managerial level
support could result in sharing culture automatically. At the same time, organizational culture
that enhances knowledge sharing and usage through various methods, such as more active
participation in knowledge sharing Cafs and sharing applications like social network
services, must also be emphasized.
In sum, while the results of finding CSF in KMS and PKMS are consistent with the
results of previous KMS and PKMS research, there are still inconsistent CSFs with the
literature. As mentioned above, customers voices are an important part of the public sector,
and also have a vital role in implementing successful KMS and PKMS. It also shows that
customers become a part of organizational routine life and should always be considered. It is
especially interesting to observe that respondents strongly disagreed with the importance of
integrated IT infrastructure toward higher performance: integrated IT infrastructure was
negatively correlated with higher performance. In general, well-developed IT is considered to
facilitate the business process and knowledge sharing; however, it was found that it was not
positively associated with higher performance in KMS and PKMS. Lastly, many researchers
have scrutinized the importance of top managements concerns and commitment as the key
114
determinant for successful PKMS. It is highly related with the organizational culture that
could generate knowledge sharing culture.
5.1.2 The Effects of Demographic Differences on KMS and PKMS
The relationships between the hypothesized nine independent variables and
demographic information were tested by employing MANOVA, except the gender
information that used independent samples t-test. For KMS, the MANOVA results show that
nine variables about CSFs were not influenced by gender, current position, region, the year
they joined KOSHA, number of knowledge creations, number of knowledge sharing Cafs
joined, or number of knowledge creations in knowledge sharing Cafs joined, whereas there
were significant differences of means by age group, major field, and work-years in current
area/position. On the other hand, the nine variables for PKMS were influenced by region
when regions were divided into four groups (Headquarters, OSHRI, OSHTI, and Regional
Offices), work years, work-years in current area/position, and the number of knowledge
sharing Cafs joined.
Regarding KMS, significant differences were found in integrated IT infrastructure by
different age groups and work-years in current area/position, and knowledge connectivity and
customers voice by different major fields of work. In terms of PKMS, significant differences
were shown in knowledge sharing motivation and customers voice by different work years,
knowledge sharing culture and integrated IT infrastructure by work-year in current
area/position, and high managerial level support by work-year in current area/position and
number of knowledge sharing Cafs joined.

115
In particular, respondents from OSHRI generally answered negatively compared to
those in regional offices. In terms of knowledge connectivity and education and training in
PKMS, respondents from OSHRI considered these as less important than others. There could
be several reasons to explain this difference, but the characteristics of research and
development is relatively static and time consuming. As a result, employees at OSHRI seem
to feel that they already had experienced similar information or systems, so that they do not
need education and training or knowledge connectivity. Similar observations can be noticed
with KMS in spite of its low significance level. On the other hand, employees at regional
offices deal with dynamic tasks, concurrently, and they are not exposed to knowledge-related
systems often. This leads them to seek training and try to connect with knowledge inside or
outside.
5.2 Contributions of the Study
This study presents contributions to the current understanding of which determinants
knowledge workers in the public sector consider most important and why they choose more
CSFs in PKMS than KMS. In particular, the following findings are important contributions
of this study.
First, a contribution of this study is the extension of the PKMS implementation
literature, not only through the investigation of KM, KMS, and IS factors, but also a chance
to come up with the new ideas on CSFs on PKMS that have never been tried in the public
sector. There have been many studies on success factors in the fields of KM, KMS, and IS,
but there are few academic or empirical studies on success factors of PKMS. Furthermore,
116
the comparison of CSFs between KMS and PKMS may give a blueprint to researchers and
practitioners researching or implementing PKMS in the near future.
Second, this study has attempted to identify new success factors that have not been
dealt with in previous research. In this respect, new concepts such as customers voice, staff-
turnover, and knowledge connectivity were suggested and tested, even though only
customers voice was positively associated with higher performance in the two systems.
Furthermore, the present study found that all of the CSFs are intertwined with each other,
based on a broader concept of high managerial level support. People who have used KMS
thought that customers voice was emphasized since its implementation and also thought that
it had not met the expectations to the degree originally supposed. As a result, high
managerial level support and knowledge sharing culture, including customers voice, were
significantly important in successful implementation of PKMS. Considering the inter-
connectivity, all of the factors require the sponsorship and support of senior management, in
addition to the support from managers in the business units and IT department. Behind the
management support, there must be substantial initial and ongoing commitment of financial
and organizational resources for the success PKMS as well.
Third, this study found that integrated IT infrastructure may well hinder the higher
performance of KMS and PKMS rather than promoting it, contrary to commonly accepted
practices associated with KM initiatives. IT is, in general, perceived as an ad hoc solution or
panacea that enhances business process and knowledge sharing; however, this was not
associated with common belief. More technically advanced systems may result in too diverse
and unstandardized sources because of their high complexity, which makes people unwilling
to use them. Further descriptions are in the next section about limitations and future research.
117
Contributions from this study will be great assets for successful PKMS implementation in the
future.
5.3 Limitations and Future Research
As explained in the previous pages, there are few academic empirical studies on
PKMS, and this study provided several contributions in this regard. However, outcomes from
this study also must be interpreted in the light of its limitations and future research needs.
First, data in this study were collected based on cross-sectional method; as a result,
the data do not provide long-term effects of independent variables on dependent variables.
Churchill and Iacobucci (2005, p. 109) noted that if the same variables were not measured at
multiple points in time, data patterns might vary not as a result of promotions on brand equity,
say, but perhaps simply due to different households providing the data. So, a cross-sectional
study provides a snapshot of variables at one point in time. In this respect, the cross-sectional
method in this study does not provide the effects of independent variables on system usage
and satisfaction on KMS and PKMS at more than one time. In addition, a longitudinal study
has an advantage in that it provides a great deal of demographic information for complicated
analysis of the data.
Second, because data collection was limited to KOSHA, findings in this study should
not be interpreted as applicable to the private sector or to other public organizations and
governments. Generally accepted important success factors such as high managerial level
support and knowledge sharing culture in KMS were not perceived as important in the
organization, even though they were important success factors in PKMS. The user
118
satisfaction for KMS was very low compared to system usage in KMS and usage and
satisfaction in PKMS, and this was not scrutinized because it is out of scope in this study.
Third, reliabilities among each construct in KMS were very low except for one
variable that was significantly related with higher performance, and those results were not
explained in detail in this study. Even though the same measures were used for the same
respondents on both systems, this study found very a different reliability result: reliability in
PKMS was overall satisfied with the threshold level suggested by Nunnally and Bernstein
(1994). A reliability test is to estimate how well the different items complement each other
in their measurement of different aspects of the same variable or quality (Litwin, 1995,
p.24). Considering the concept of reliability and the results from PKMS, PKMS is a very
specific system in that business processes are routinely identified by knowledge workers
every day and PKMS had been implemented in only two business processes in KOSHA.
Meanwhile, the concept of knowledge management is vague for general workers that have
not been exposed to that environment much; as a result, it is believed that respondents may
not pinpoint success measures accurately and that leads to the low reliability. However,
further empirical study should be done on this as well.
Given the above limitations, it is strongly encouraged that researchers examine the
findings in this study through scrupulous research designs and across different organizations.
First, most of independent variables were used from different fields such as KM, KMS, and
IS, and variables originally generated from PKMS are recommended for use in future studies.
Exploratory research can be conducted in advance to look at broad concepts of important
factors on PKMS and confirmatory research can be followed to verify the relationships
between those factors and their success measures. Second, studies on organizational and
119
societal impacts from PKMS should be measured. For example, KOSHA was established to
prevent occupational accidents; therefore, how PKMS contributes to the reduction of
occupational accidents could be assessed. In addition, the organizational level impact by
PKMS can also be checked. As mentioned in the limitations, the reliability of the overall
constructs for KMS was very low, and further study can find the reasons for this
phenomenon, compared to those in PKMS. Lastly, IT-related questions were negatively
related with higher performance and more studies can be carried out on why that unexpected
result was found. It could be that IT is seen as useless unless workers are actively involved in
the technology use, in spite of having advanced technology available. The concept of
integrated IT infrastructure has not met the standards of current knowledge workers, although
satisfaction with its usage has been verified in other fields. Moreover, the IT infrastructure
should provide customized systems to those workers because more technically advanced
systems may produce diverse and unstandardized sources due to its complexity. Future
studies can focus on factors to help offset the negative opinions.

120
APPENDIX A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [ENGLISH]
KOREA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH AGNCY KOSHA 34-4 Gusan-dong,Bupyeong-gu,Incheon 403-711, Korea
January , 2011
Dear KOSHA officials,

Currently, KOSHA has implemented PKMS in 16 processes which are to combine business
process and previous knowledge management. Meanwhile, KOSHA will decide whether to
extend the PKMS to other processes depending on the status. In this regard, it would be very
important to find critical success factors that should be emphasized in PKMS. In addition,
factors that have previously emphasized in current KMS (KMS) will be great asset to make a
successful PKMS to compare two systems and their satisfaction and usage.
Therefore, I am writing to ask for your help in understanding KOSHA officials perception
on factors affecting KMS and process-oriented knowledge management system (PKMS),
how factors between KMS and PKMS are differently perceived by KOSHA officials, and
how KOSHA officials consider those systems in terms of satisfaction and usage. As a result,
the newly implemented PKMS will be enhanced for better utilization.
The questions should only take about 25 minutes to complete. Your responses are voluntary
and will be kept confidential; in addition, information submitted to this survey will not be
used for any other purpose except PKMS and KMS in KOSHA. If you have any questions
about this survey, please email at hkang@iastate.edu. This study has been reviewed and
approved by the Iowa State University Institutional Review Board, and if you have any
questions about your rights as a participant in this study, you may contact them by telephone
at +1-515-294-4566.
By taking a few minutes to share your thoughts and opinions about important factors that
affect KMS and PKMS you will be helping KOSHA out a great deal.
I hope you enjoy completing the questionnaire and look forward to receiving your responses.
Many thanks,
Hyun Kang
Manager
Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency
121
Factors emphasized in Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) and

that should be emphasized in Process-Oriented Knowledge Management Systems (PKMS)
Part I. Please complete the two scales of the importance in KMS and PKMS separately. Indicate your
degree of perception of importance in a successful KMS and PKMS. The left scale shows the
degree of importance for KMS and the right scale shows the degree of importance of PKMS.
1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neither Agree Nor Disagree 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree
Previously Emphasized Should be emphasized
in KMS in PKMS
FACTOR
Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 High managerial level leadership and commitment 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Actively participate in knowledge caf 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Financial incentives for actual usage and improvement by the 1 2 3 4 5
usage
1 2 3 4 5 Providing regular awareness training courses or seminars by 1 2 3 4 5
KOSHA staff at regional offices
1 2 3 4 5 Connecting with knowledge outside organization such as journals, 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Enhance knowledge quality eliminating unrelated knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
regularly
1 2 3 4 5 Well balanced personnel appointments in that right people works 1 2 3 4 5
at right tasks
1 2 3 4 5 Easy access to the majority of knowledge and process within my 1 2 3 4 5
organization
1 2 3 4 5 Enhancing customer satisfaction through integrated knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
and its quality
1 2 3 4 5 High managerial levels continuous concerns toward system 1 2 3 4 5
utilizations
1 2 3 4 5 Promote freely sharing wiki pages like knowledge iN at 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Promoting contribution by providing opportunities such as 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Encouraging employees to benchmark best practices from outside 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Connecting with OSH professionals or academic scholars outside 1 2 3 4 5
organization
1 2 3 4 5 Evaluate related and important knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Timely personnel appointments 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Easy data sharing among different works or different applications 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Applying customers needs into the systems 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Evaluating performance of usage by high managerial level 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 A system that easily accepts every employees opinions or ideas 1 2 3 4 5
122
1 2 3 4 5 Provide incentives in promotion as compensation 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 Encouraging employees to attend learning courses (e.g., university 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Sharing knowledge with safety managers in industries 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Evaluate usability and understandability of output 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Efficiency and ease of use of information systems 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Receiving customers feedback on the provided information 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Adequate supporting for budgeting or funding for projects 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Reducing hierarchical and bureaucratic knowledge management 1 2 3 4 5
procedures
Previously Emphasized Should be emphasized

in KMS in PKMS
FACTOR
Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 Actively encourage employee to participate in decision processes 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Update related principles or adequate information regularly 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Regularly invites renowned professionals into KOSHA 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Update the most operating rules, and procedures for better process 1 2 3 4 5
implementations
1 2 3 4 5 Reducing clicking times when getting related knowledge 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Gaining knowledge about customer 1 2 3 4 5
Part II. Following questions describe the overall ideas on satisfaction and usage on KMS, and ideas on
perceived usefulness and intentions to use PKMS. Please complete the scales of the importance in
KMS and PKMS separately.
KMS
Strongly Strongly
Usage experience and satisfaction
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 I am required to use the system to complete my tasks
1 2 3 4 5 I usually choose to use the system if I need it
1 2 3 4 5 I am overall satisfied with the system
1 2 3 4 5 The KMS overall impacts on my performance of task/work
PKMS
Strongly Strongly
Intentions to use and perceived usefulness
Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5 I will be required to use the system to complete my tasks
1 2 3 4 5 I will choose to use the system if I need it
1 2 3 4 5 The PKMS will overall impact on my perceived performance of task/work
1 2 3 4 5 The information from the PKMS will be useful for my work
Part III. Please write any opinions or ideas that could make a successful PKMS.
123
Part IV. Following questions are to get demographic information.
1. What is your Gender? ___ Male ___ Female
2. What is your Age?

___ Under 31 years ___ 31 to 35 years ___ 36 to 40 years
___ 41 to 45 years ___ 46 to 50 years ___ Over 50 years
3. What is your Position?

___ Director General/Director ___ Deputy Director
___ Manager ___ Assistant Manager ___ Staff
4. Where is Your Branch?
___ Headquarters ___ OSHRI ___ OSHTI
___ Regional/Area offices (Name: _______________________)
5. What is your Major Field?

___ Mechanics ___ Electronics ___ Chemical Engineering
___ Industrial Hygiene ___ Ergonomics ___ Chemistry
___ Education and Promotion ___ Management Support ___ Construction
6. When did you joined KOSHA?

___ 1987 ___ 1988 ___ 1989 ___ 1990 ___ 1991 ___ 1992 ___ 1993 ___ 1994 ___1995 ___ 1996
___ 1997 ___ 1998 ___ 1999 ___ 2000 ___ 2001 ___ 2002 ___ 2003 ___ 2004 ___ 2005 ___ 2006
___ 2007 ___ 2008 ___ 2009 ___ 2010 ___ 2011
___ January ___ February ___ March ___ April ___ May ___ June ___ July ___ August ___ September
___ October ___ November ___ December
7. How Long have you worked in your Current Area/Position?

___ Less than 1 year ___ More than 1 and less than 2 ___ More than 2 and less than 3
___ More than 3 and Less than 4 ___ More than 4 and less than 5 ___ More than 5 years
8. How Many Knowledge have you created During Last Two Months?
___ 0 knowledge ___ 1 knowledge ___ 2 knowledge ___ 3 knowledge ___ 4 knowledge
___ 5 knowledge ___ 6 knowledge ___ 7 knowledge ___ 8 knowledge ___ 9 knowledge
___ 10 knowledge ___ More than 11 knowledge
9. How Many Cafare you attending now at KOSHA?

___ 0 caf ___ 1 caf ___ 2 caf ___ 3 caf ___ 4 caf ___ 5 caf ___ More than 6 caf
9-1. If you are attending any Cafat KOSHA, How Many Postings have you uploaded during last two months?
___ 0 postings ___ 1 postings ___ 2 postings ___ 3 postings ___ 4 postings ___ 5 postings
___ 6 postings ___ 7 postings ___ 8 postings ___ 9 postings ___ 10 postings
___ More than 11 postings
124
[Questions at Part I according to each variable]
1) High managerial level support

High managerial level leadership and commitment
High managerial levels continuous concerns toward system utilizations
Evaluating performance of usage by high managerial level
Adequate supporting for budgeting or funding for projects
2) Knowledge sharing culture

Active participate in knowledge caf
Promote freely sharing wiki pages like knowledge iN at www.naver.com or knowledge Q&A
A system that easily accepts every employees opinions or ideas
Reducing hierarchical and bureaucratic knowledge management procedures
3) Knowledge sharing motivation

Financial incentives for actual usage and improvement by the usage
Promoting contribution by providing opportunities such as participations in overseas training
Provide incentives in promotion as compensation
Actively encourage employee to participate in decision processes
4) Education and training

Providing regular awareness training courses or seminars on usage by KOSHA staff at regional offices
Encouraging employees to benchmark best practices from outside organization or inside organization
Encouraging employees to attend learning courses (e.g., university classes, conferences, seminars)
Update related principles or adequate information regularly
5) Knowledge connectivity
Connecting with knowledge outside organization such as journals, information from related organizations,
current trends, etc.
Connecting with OSH professionals or academic scholars outside organization
Sharing knowledge with safety managers in industries
Regularly invites renowned professionals into KOSHA
6) Knowledge filtering and evaluation

Enhance knowledge quality eliminating unrelated knowledge regularly
Evaluate related and important knowledge
Evaluate usability and understandability of output
Update the most operating rules, and procedures for better process implementations
7) Staff-turnover
Well balanced personnel appointments in that right people works at right tasks
Timely personnel appointments
8) Integrated information technology infrastructure

Easy access to the majority of knowledge and process within my organization
Easy data sharing among different works or different applications
Efficiency and ease of use of information systems
Reducing clicking times when getting related knowledge
9) Customers voice
Enhancing customer satisfaction through integrated knowledge and its quality
Applying customers needs into the systems
Receiving customers feedback on the provided information
Gaining knowledge about customer
125
APPENDIX B. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [KOREAN]
KOSHA 34-4 Gusan-dong,Bupyeong-gu,Incheon 403-711, Korea
2011 1
,
16
(PKMS) , 16
PKMS
. PKMS .
(KMS)
(PKMS)
PKMS .
25 .

(KMS/PKMS ) .
(hkang@iastate.edu, +1-515-509-6257) .
(IRB) , IRB
. (IRB, +1-515-294-4566).
KMS PKMS
.
.
Manager
126
(KMS) (PKMS)
I. KMS PKMS .
KMS
PKMS .
1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 =
KMS PKMS

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 , , 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 iN Q&A 1 2 3 4 5
(wiki)
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 , , 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
127
KMS PKMS

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
II. KMS PKMS /

. KMS PKMS .
KMS
1 2 3 4 5 KMS
1 2 3 4 5 KMS
1 2 3 4 5 KMS
1 2 3 4 5 KMS
PKMS
1 2 3 4 5 PKMS
1 2 3 4 5 PKMS
1 2 3 4 5 PKMS
1 2 3 4 5 PKMS
III. PKMS / .
128
IV. .
1. ? ___ ___
2. ?
___ 31 ___ 31 ~ 35 ___ 36 ~ 40 ___ 41 ~ 45 ___ 46 ~ 50 ___ 51
3. ?
___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4 ___ 5 ___ 6 ___ 7
4. ? (, , , )
___________________________________
5. /?
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
6. ?
___ 1987 ___ 1988 ___ 1989 ___ 1990 ___ 1991 ___ 1992 ___ 1993 ___ 1994 ___1995 ___ 1996
___ 1997 ___ 1998 ___ 1999 ___ 2000 ___ 2001 ___ 2002 ___ 2003 ___ 2004 ___ 2005 ___ 2006
___ 2007 ___ 2008 ___ 2009 ___ 2010 ___ 2011
___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___4 ___5 ___ 6 ___7 ___8 ___9 ___10 ___11 ___12
7. ?
___ 1 ___ 1 2 ___ 2 3 ___ 3 4
___ 4 5 ___ 5
8. 2 ?
___ 0 ___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4 ___ 5 ___ 6 ___ 7 ___ 8 ___ 9
___ 10 ___ 11
9. ?
___ 0 ___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4
___ 5 ___ 6
9-1. , 2 ?
___ 0 ___ 1 ___ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4 ___ 5 ___ 6 ___ 7 ___ 8 ___ 9
___ 10 ___ 11
129
APPENDIX C. PKMS EXAMPLE [KOSHA]
1. Overview of PKMS project in KOSHA
2. ERP-Knowledge connections
130
3. ERP-Knowledge map connections (by knowledge professionals)
4. ERP-Laws/Regulations connections (by knowledge professionals)

131
5. ERP-knowledge connections (by knowledge professionals)
6. KMS and BMP connections through ERP (Procurement)

132
6-1. KMS and BMP connections through ERP (Procurement)
6-2. KMS and BMP connections through ERP (Procurement)

133
7. KMS and Law pages on the main Portal

134
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2006). Critical success factors of knowledge
management systems: A multi-case analysis. European Business Review 18(2), 97-113.
Al-Alawi, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational culture and
knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(2), 22-42.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges,
and benefits. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 1(7), 1-28.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25(1),
107-136.
Alazmi, M., & Zairi, M. (2003). Knowledge management critical success factors. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 14(2), 199-204.
Baloh, P., Uthichke, K., & Moon G. W. (2008). A business-process-oriented method of KM

solution design: A case study of Samsung Electronics. International journal of information
management 28(5), 433-437.
Bartol, K. M., & Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of
organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 9(1), 64-76.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation
in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological
forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly 29(1), 87-111.
Boynton, A. C., & Zmud, R. W. (1984). An assessment of critical success factors. Sloan
Management Review (pre-1986), ABI/INFORM Global. 25, 17-27.
Braganza, A. (2004). Rethinking the data-information-knowledge hierarchy: Towards a case-

based model. International Journal of Information Management 24(4), 347-356.
Byrne, J. A. (February 8, 1993). The virtual corporation. Retrieved from

http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1993/b330454.arc.htm
Calisir, F., & Calisir, F. (2004). The relation of interface usability characteristics, perceived
usefulness, and perceived ease of use to end-user satisfaction with enterprise resource
planning (ERP) systems. Computers in Human Behavior 20(4), 505-515.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
mulitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin 56, 81-105.
135
Chang, M. Y., Hung, Y. C., Yen, D. C., & Tseng, P. T. (2009). The research on the critical
success factors of knowledge management and classification framework project in the
Executive Yuan of Taiwan Government. Expert Systems with Applications 36(3, Part 1),
5376-5386.
Chase, R. L. (1997). The knowledge-based organization: An international survey. Journal of

Knowledge Management 1(1), 38-49.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G.
A. Marcoulides (ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, 295-336.
Choi, I., Jung, J., & Song, M. (2006). An integration architecture for knowledge management
systems and business process management systems. Computers in Industry 58(1), 21-34.
Choi, Y.S. (2000). An empirical study of factors affecting successful implementation of

knowledge management. Unpublished academic dissertation.University of Nebraska.
Chong, S. C., & Y. S. Choi (2005). Critical factors in the successful implementation of
knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice 6, June. Retrieved
from www.tlainc.com/articl90.htm
Churchill, G. A. Jr., & Iacobucci, D. (2005). Marketing research: Methodological fondations.

9th Ed., South-Western / Thomson Corporation.
Civi, E. (2000). Knowledge management as a competitive asset: a review. Marketing

Intelligence & Planning 18(4), 166-174.
Darrell, R., Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2002). Avoid the four perils of CRM. Harvard
Business Review, February, 101-109.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge

Management Projects. Sloan Management Review 39(2), 43-57.
Davenport, T. H., & Glaser, J. (2002). Just-in-time delivery comes to knowledge

management. Harvard Business Review 80(7), 107-111. Retrieved from
http://hbr.org/2002/07/just-in-time-delivery-comes-to-knowledge-management/ar/1
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage
what they know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davis, F. D. (1986). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-
User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
136
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly 35(3), 318-340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer
technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35(8), 982-1003.
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the
dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3(1), 60-95.
Delone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information
systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of management information systems 19(4), 9-30.
Demarest, M. (1997). Understanding knowledge management. Long range planning 30(3),

374-384.
Digman, L. (1999). Strategic management: Concepts, decision and cases. 2nd ed., Boston,
Massachusetts, BPI Irwin.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Surveys. 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Droege, S. B., & Hoobler, J. M. (2003). Employee Turnover and Tacit Knowledge Diffusion:
A Network Perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues 15(1), 50-64.
Drucker, P. (1995). Managing in time of great change. Truman Talley Books, New York,
NY.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Concept of the Corporation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Fahey, L., & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management.
California Management Review 40(3), 265-276.
Fiol, C. M. (1985). Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review 10(4),

803-813.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation model with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (18), 39-50.
Freund, Y. P. (1988). Critical success factors. Strategy & Leadership 16(4), 20-23.
Gartner Group (1998). Knowledge management. October 1997/June 1998. Avaiable at

http://gartnergroup.com
Gibbert, M., & Krause, H. (2000), Practice exchange in a best practice marketplace. in
Davenport, T.H. and Probst, G. (eds), Knowledge management case book: Siemen best
practices, Munich, Publicis MCD Verlag/Wiley, 68-84.
137
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An

organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of management information systems 18(1),
185-214.
Holsapple, C. W., & Whinston, A. B. (1987). Knowledge-based organizations. The

Information Society 5(2), 77-90.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2000). An investigation of factors that influence the
management of knowledge in organizations. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems
9(2-3), 235-261.
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2002). Knowledge management: a three-fold framework.

The Information Society 18, 47-64.
Ives, B., Olson, M. H., & Baroudi, J. J. (1983). The measurement of user information
satisfaction. Communications of the ACM 26(10), 785-793.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly 29(1), 113-143.
Khosla, V., & Pal, M. (2002). Real time enterprises: A continuous migration approach.
Information, Knowledge, Systems Management 3(1), 53-79.
Kogut, B., & U. Zander (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Organization Science 3(3), 383-397.
Koskinen, K. U. (2003). Evaluation of tacit knowledge utilization in work units. Journal of

Kulkarni, U. R., Ravindran, S., & Freeze, R. (2007). A knowledge management success
model: Theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management
Information Systems 23(3), 309-347.
Kwan, M. M., & Balasubramanian, P. (2003). Process-oriented knowledge management: A

case study. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 54(2), 204-211.
Lee, D. J., & Ahn, J. H. (2007). Reward systems for intra-organizational knowledge sharing.
European Journal of Operational Research 180(2), 938-956.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management
Leonard-Barton, D. (1998). Wellsprings of Knowledge: building and sustaining the sources

of innovation. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
138
Liebowitz, J. (1999). Key ingredients to the success of an organization's knowledge

management strategy. Knowledge and Process Management 6(1), 37-40.
Liebowitz, J. and Y. Chen (2003). Knowledge sharing proficiencies: The key to knowledge
management. In Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management: Knowledge
Matters, Springer, Berlin, 409-424.
Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. SAGE Publications.
Long, D. D. (1997). Building the knowledge-based organization: how culture drives

knowledge behaviors. Cambridge AM, 1997, Working Paper for Center For Business
Innovation, Ernst & Young LLP.
Lubit, R. (2001). Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to sustainable
competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics 29(3), 164-178.
Luen, T. W., & Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2001). Knowledge management in the public sector:
principles and practices in police work. Journal of Information Science 27(5), 311-318.
Mahmood, M. A., Burn, J. M., Gemoets, L. A., & Jacquez, C. (2000). Variables affecting
information technology end-user satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 52(4), 751-771.
Maier, R., & Remus, U. (2002). Defining process-oriented knowledge management strategies.
Knowledge and Process Management 9(2), 103-118.
Maier, R., & Remus, U. (2003). Implementing process-oriented knowledge management

strategies. Journal of Knowledge Management 7(4), 62-74.
Malhotra, Y. (2005). Integrating knowledge management technologies in organizational

business processes: getting real time enterprises to deliver real business performance. Journal
of Knowledge Management 9(1), 7-28.
Malhotra, Y., & Galletta, D. F. (2003). Role of commitment and motivation in knowledge
management systems implementation: theory, conceptualization, and measurement of
antecedents of success. The 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Hawaii, Society Press.
Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse

situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1),
57-93.
Mason, R. O. (1978). Measuring information output: A communication systems approach.

Information & Management 1(5), 219-234.
139
Menon, T., & Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing Internal vs. External Knowledge: Explaining the
Preference for Outsiders. Management Science 49(4), 497-513.
Misra, D. C., Hariharan, R., & Khaneja, M. (2003). E-knowledge management framework
for government organizations. Information Systems Management 20(2), 38-48.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review: 69, (Nov-
Dec), 96-104.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization

Science 5(1), 14-37.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Ong, C.-S., & Lai, J.-Y. (2007). Measuring user satisfaction with knowledge management
systems: Scale development, purification, and initial test. Computers in Human Behavior
23(3), 1329-1346.
Paradice, D.B., & Courtney, J.F. (1989). Organizational knowledge management.

Information Resources Management Journal 2(3), 1-13.
Park, H., Ribiere, V., & Schulte, W. D. (2004). Critical attributes of organizational culture
that promote knowledge management technology implementation success. Journal of
Polanyi, M. (1962). Tacit knowing: its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of
Modern Physics 34(4), 601-616.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Routledge & Kengan Paul: London, UK.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core compentency of a corporation. Harvard
Business Review 68(3), 79-91.
Pudlatz, M. (July 2, 2002). Case study: the Siemens ICN knowledge management challenge.
Retrieved from http://www.knowledgeboard.com/item/1790
Records, L. R. (September, 2005). The fusion of process and knowledge management.

Retrieved from http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/09-
05%20WP%20Fusion%20Process%20KM%20-%20Records.pdf
Remus, U., & Schub, S. (2003). A blueprint for the implementation of process-oriented
knowledge management. Knowledge and Process Management 10(4), 237-253.
140
Riege, A., & Lindsay, N. (2006). Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder
partnerships in the public policy development. Journal of Knowledge Management 10(3), 24-
39.
Roberts, J. (2000). From know-how to show-how? Questioning the role of information and
communication technologies in knowledge transfer. Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management 12(4), 429-443.
Schultze, U., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Studying Knowledge Management in Information

Systems Research: Discourses and Theoretical Assumptions. MIS Quarterly 26(3), 213-242.
Seddon, P. B. (1997). A respecification and extension of the DeLone and McLean model of
IS success. Information Systems Research 8(3), 240-253.
Shin, M. (2004). A framework for evaluating economics of knowledge management systems.

Information & Management 42(1), 179-196.
Suana, M. J. V., Herwijer, J. C., & McGuire S. R. (2003). Process based knowledge
management: Key to effective value delivery. AAPG International Conference, Barcelona,
Spain, 2003. Retrieved from
http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2003barcelona/extend/83526.pdf
Sullivan, P. H. (1999). Profiting from intellectual capital. Journal of Knowledge Management

3(2), 132-142.
Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling
to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1),
95-114.
Syed-Ikhsan, S. O. S., & Rowland, F. (2004). Knowledge management in a public

organization: A study on the relationship between organizational elements and the
performance of knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management 8(2), 95-111.
Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge
hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. Journal of Management
Woitsch, R., & Karagiannis, D. (2005). Process oriented knowledge management: A service
based approach. Journal of Universal Computer Science 11(4), 565-588.
Wu, J.-H., &Wang, Y.-M. (2006). Measuring KMS success: A respecification of the DeLone
and McLean's model. Information & Management 43(6), 728-739.
Yahya, S., & Goh, W. K. (2002). Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge
management. Journal of Knowledge Management 6(5), 457-468.
141
Yoon, Y., Guimaraes, T., & ONeal, Q. (1995). Exploring the factors associated with expert
systems success. MIS Quarterly 19(1), 83-106.

Critical Success Factors in Implementing Process-Oriented Knowleddge Management in Korea

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Success Factors in Implementing Process-Oriented Knowleddge Management in Korea

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate College

Critical success factors in implementing process-

Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd

A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Major: Information Systems

Program of Study Committee:

Iowa State University

Copyright Hyun Kang, 2011. All rights reserved.

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. ix

CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 1

1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE................................................................................................ 4

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................... 6

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................................ 8

2.1 KNOWLEDGE, KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) AND KMS .................................... 8

2.1.1 Hierarchical Views of Data, Information, and Knowledge ............................... 8

2.1.2 Definition of Knowledge ................................................................................... 9

2.1.3 KM in Organizations ....................................................................................... 10

2.1.4 Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) ...................................................... 11

2.1.5 KM in the Public Sector .................................................................................. 12

2.1.6 KM and its Limitations.................................................................................... 14

2.2 PROCESS-ORIENTED KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (PKM) ....................................... 16

2.2.1 Definition of PKM........................................................................................... 16

2.2.2 PKM Structure ................................................................................................. 17

2.2.3 Current Practices in the Public Sector in Korea .............................................. 21

2.2.4 PKMS in KOSHA ........................................................................................... 22

2.4 SUCCESS MODELS AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT .......................................... 31

2.5 APPLICATION OF CSFS AND PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ................................... 34

CHAPTER 3. METHOD AND PROCEDURES.................................................................... 37

3.1 METHODS OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 37

3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY .................................................................................. 38

3.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS AND FOLLOW-UPS ..................................................... 39

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 40

3.5 VARIABLES AND HYPOTHESES ................................................................................. 41

3.5.1 Dependent Variables ....................................................................................... 41

3.5.2 Independent Variables ..................................................................................... 43

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................ 54

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................. 54

4.2 PERCEPTION OF IMPORTANCE IN KMS AND PKMS .................................................. 65

4.2.1 Perception of Importance in KMS................................................................... 65

4.2.2 Perception of Importance about PKMS Attributes.......................................... 68

4.2.3 Differences of Perception of Importance between KMS and PKMS .............. 71

4.2.4 Comparison of Perceptions of Success between KMS and PKMS ................. 74

4.3 RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY TEST............................................................................ 75

4.3.1 Reliability and Validity Tests of KMS ............................................................ 76

4.3.2 Reliability and Validity Tests for PKMS ........................................................ 81

4.4 HYPOTHESES TESTS ................................................................................................. 86

4.5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GROUPS ................................ 90

4.5.1 Analysis of Perception of Importance on Variables for KMS ........................ 90

4.5.2 Analysis of Perceptions of Importance on Variables for PKMS ................... 100

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 110

5.1 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY ................................................................................. 110

5.1.1 Perception of Importance toward PKMS comparing to KMS ...................... 111

5.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY ............................................................................. 115

5.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ................................................................... 117

APPENDIX A. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [ENGLISH] ............................................... 120

APPENDIX B. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [KOREAN]................................................ 125

APPENDIX C. PKMS EXAMPLE [KOSHA] ..................................................................... 129

BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 134

TABLE 3.1 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES ............................................................................ 53

TABLE 4.1 OVERALL RESPONDENTS ........................................................................... 54