Organizational Knowledge Management: A Contingency Perspective

Author(s): Irma Becerra-Fernandez and Rajiv Sabherwal

Source: Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, Knowledge Management
(Summer, 2001), pp. 23-55
Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40398516 .
Accessed: 12/04/2011 06:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Management Information Systems.

http://www.jstor.org
OrganizationalKnowledge
Management:A Contingency
Perspective
IRMA BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND RAJIV SABHERWAL

Irma Becerra-Fernandez is currently teachingatFloridaInternational

University.
Herresearch focuseson knowledge management, knowledge management systems,
artificial andenterprise
intelligence, resourceplanning leadingfour
(ERP). Currently
NASA grants, shehas obtainedfunding forovertwomilliondollarsfromKennedy
SpaceCenter(KSC), AmesResearchCenter(ARC), andGoddardSpace FlightCen-
ter(GSFC) to developinnovative knowledgemanagement systems.She has pub-
lishedextensivelyin leadingjournalsincludingCommunications of theACM,
Knowledge Based Journal
Systems, ofTechnology Transfer,andInternational
Jour-
nal ofEntrepreneurshipand Innovation
Management. She earnedherPh.D. inelec-
tricalengineering
fromFloridaInternationalUniversity.

Rajiv Sabherwal is theEmeryC. Turner Professor

ofInformation SystemsatUni-
versityofMissouri,St.Louis.He servesas anAssociate
EditorforMIS and
Quarterly
frequentlypublishesin JournalofManagement Information Systems,Information
Systems Research,MIS Quarterly, OrganizationScience,DecisionSciences,Com-
municationsoftheACM,Accounting, Management, andInformation and
Technology,
otherjournals.His researchfocuseson strategic
alignment of theinformationsys-
temsfunction,knowledge management, andsocialaspectsofsystems development.
He earnedhisPh.D.from theUniversity
ofPittsburghandpreviously atFlorida
taught
International
Universityand FloridaState University.

Abstract: Priorresearch examinesseveralknowledge management processes,con-

sideringeach as universally
appropriate.Instead,we proposethatthecontextinflu-
encesthesuitabilityofa knowledge management process.Wedevelopa contingency
framework, including twoattributesofthe subunit's
organizational tasks:processor
contentorientation,andfocusedorbroaddomain,andlinksknowledge management
processestothem:internalizationforfocused, tasks;externalization
process-oriented
forfocused,content-oriented tasks;combination forbroad,content-orientedtasks;
andsocializationforbroad,process-orientedtasks.The empirical
researchwas done
at theKennedySpace Center(KSC), based on severalinterviews and surveydata
from159individuals across8 subunits.
Theresultssupportedthecontingency frame-
work.Alltheknowledge management processesexceptexternalization
hada positive
impactintheexpectedcell.Attheoveralllevel,combination andexternalization,but
notinternalizationand socialization,
affectknowledgesatisfaction.
Some implica-
tionsforpracticeandresearch areidentified.

Key words and phrases: contingencytheory,

knowledge structural
management,
taskcharacteristics
equationmodeling,

JournalofManagement
Information /Summer2001,Vol. 18,No. 1,pp.23-55.
Systems
© 2001 M.E. Sharpe,Inc.
0742-1222/2001 $9.50 + 0.00.
24 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

The impactof effectiveknowledgemanagement(KM) onbusinessperformance

is wellrecognized[1,7, 9, 18,38,40, 50, 54]. The widelyheldbeliefthattherichest
resourceoftoday'sorganizations is theknowledge residingindividually andcollec-
tivelyamongtheiremployees reflects theimportance ofprocessesforpromoting the
creation, andleveraging
sharing, ofknowledge [9, 12, 13,22, 33]. A varietyoftools
andmethodologies forthispurposehavebeenrecommended [e.g.,10, 17],andsome
overallknowledge management processes have been examined [e.g.,13, 18]. How-
ever,thesetools,methodologies, andprocesseshaveimplicitly beenconsidered uni-
versally Thispapermakesa fundamental
appropriate. departure fromthisassumption
by proposingthattheeffectiveness of a knowledgemanagement processis influ-
encedbytheparticular context inwhichtheknowledge is beingused.Morespecifi-
cally,thepaperaddressesthefollowing questions:
1.Do theknowledge management effectiveness?
processesimpactknowledge
2. Does theireffect
on knowledge management effectiveness
varydependingon
(a) whetherthetasksperformed that
using knowledge arefocusedor broadin
natureand(b) whetherthesetasksfocuson"whattodo?"oron "howtodo it?"

Thispaperpursuestheseobjectivesbasedon an empiricalinvestigation ofone of

thebest-known knowledge-based theNationalAeronautics
organizations: andSpace
Administration (NASA). Specifically,thestudywas conductedat NASA's JohnF.
Kennedy SpaceCenter (KSC). KSC isresponsible
forthecheckout, andlanding
launch,
of thespace shuttleand itspayloads.The startingpointforall U.S. human space
KSC is considered
flights, a worldleaderinprocessingandlaunching that
spacecraft
haveexploredandstudiedtheearth,themoon,andplanetsinoursolarsystem.
The paperis organizedas follows.The followingsectiondevelopsthetheoretical
arguments leadingto theresearchhypotheses examinedin thisstudy. The nextsec-
tiondescribesthemethods usedandtheresultsofthestudy.Finally,thelastsection
identifies
someofthelimitations ofthestudyandexaminesitsimplications forboth
researchandpractice.

Theoretical
Development
TheNatureofKnowledge
Knowledge has been definedas "justified truebelief [33,p. 21]. Morespecifi-
cally,definitionsof knowledgerangefrom"complex,accumulated
organizational
expertisethat residesin individuals
andis partly or largelyinexpressible"to "much
morestructured andexplicitcontent" [10,p. 70].
Thetypesoforganizational knowledge arereflectedinseveralclassification
schemes.
Forexample,Venzinet al. [48] identify a numberof categoriesof knowledge - in-
cludingtacit,embodied, encoded,embrained, embedded, event,andprocedural. Kogut
andZander[23] distinguish between"information" and"know-how" as twotypesof
knowledge, viewingthemas "whatsomething means"and"knowing howtodo some-
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 25

thing"[23,p. 386, emphasisin original].Theyalso identify theparalleldistinction

[41] betweendeclarativeknowledge (facts)andproceduralknowledge (howtoridea
bicycle).Another of knowledgeviewsitas tacitor explicit[e.g.,37].
classification
Explicitknowledge canbe expressed innumbers andwordsandsharedformally and
systematicallyin theform of data,specifications, and
manuals, thelike.In contrast,
tacitknowledge - whichincludesinsights, and hunches
intuitions, - is difficult
to
express andformalize, and therefore to
difficult share.

ofKnowledge
TheManagement
Effective knowledge management is considered keyto thesuccessofcontemporary
organizations. Indeed, some authors view organizations as distributedknowledge sys-
tems[46],streams ofknowledge[e.g.,51], andsystems ofdistributed cognition[4,
53],wherein individuals actautonomously whileunderstanding theirinterdependence
withothers. WeickandRoberts[53] usethetermcollective mindrather thanorganiza-
tionalmindtohighlight thatorganizations consistofindividuals whocoordinate their
actionswitheachother. They define collectivemind as a set ofheedful interrelation-
shipsratherthana repository of knowledge. Theyalso contendthatthecollective
minddoesnotexistoutsideofhumanactionandthatitis theseactionsthatgenerate
themindrather thanvice versa:"We conceptualize mindas actionthatconstructs
mentalprocessesrather thanas mental processes construct
that action"[53,p. 374].
Theorganization thenservesas a knowledge-integrating institution,
integrating the
of
knowledge many different individuals and groups inthe process ofproducing goods
and services[17, 21, 23, 31]. Knowledgeintegration mayoccurin organizations
through organizational routines [30],direction or
[7], processesinvolving thesharing
ofexplicitor implicitknowledge[16]. The focusofthispaperis on thelastaspect,
thatis, knowledgemanagement processesfacilitating thesharingof explicitor im-
in
plicitknowledge organizations.
Explicitknowledge canbe sharedthrough variouscommunication media,butthatis
notpossibleinthecase oftacitknowledge. Tacitknowledge can sometimes be com-
municated through the establishment of shared understanding between individuals
[37]. In othercircumstances, tacitknowledge needsto be converted intoan explicit
form, andsuchconversion typically involvessubstantial knowledge loss.Focusingon
thewaysin whichknowledge is sharedthrough theinteraction betweentacitandex-
plicit knowledge,Nonaka [31] identifiesfourpossible modes: socialization,
externalization,internalization, andcombination.
Socializationis thesharing oftacitknowledge between individuals,usuallythrough
jointactivitiesrather thanwritten orverbalinstructions [31].Forexample,bytransfer-
ringideasandimages,apprenticeships allownewcomers to see thewayothersthink.
is in a
Knowledge produced groupsetting onlythrough not mereacquisition of the
individuals'knowledge, butalso through thesharing ofcommonunderstanding [14].
Socialprocessesplayan important roleinthetransition ofknowledge acrossindividu-
alsorgroups[20,52,53].Forexample, oneinterviewee fromtheEngineering director-
ateremarked: "Eachengineer hada mentor whowouldtransfer hisknowledge to the
26 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

younger engineer.Thiswasa remarkably successful program.Theengineers wouldtell

themallthestories, forexample, aboutApollo. The old were
Apolloengineers assigned
as mentors. Butnowwe arelosingpeople,so howwillwe captureknowledge?"
Externalization involvestheexpression oftacitknowledge anditsconversion into
comprehensible forms thatare easier to understand. Conventional learning method-
ologiesrequiretheexternalization oftheprofessor's knowledge as theinitialstepin
thestudent'slearningprocess[39]. Moreover, externalization involvestechniques
thathelpto expressideas or imagesas words,concepts,visuals,or figurative lan-
guage(e.g.,metaphors, and
analogies, narratives), and deductive/inductive reasoning
orcreativeinference [31,32, 33].
Internalization is theconversion ofexplicitknowledge intotheorganization's tacit
This
knowledge. requires the individual to identify theknowledge relevant tooneself
withintheorganization's explicitknowledge.In internalization processes,theex-
plicitknowledge maybe embodiedin actionandpractice, so that theindividual ac-
quiringthe knowledgecan reexperience whatothersgo through. Alternatively,
individuals couldacquiretacitknowledge in virtualsituations,eithervicariously by
or
reading listening to others' or
stories, experientially through simulations or experi-
ments.Learningbydoing,on-the-job training, learningbyobservation, andface-to-
facemeetings aresomeoftheinternalization processesbywhichindividuals acquire
knowledge[31,33].
Combinationinvolvestheconversion of explicitknowledgeintomorecomplex
setsofexplicitknowledge[31]. Focusingon communication, diffusion,integration,
andsystemization ofknowledge, combination contributestoknowledge atthegroup
levelas wellas at theorganizational level[33]. Innovative organizations seektode-
velop new concepts that are created,justified,and modeled atthe organizational, and
sometimesinterorganizational, level.Moreover, complexorganizational processes
requirethecooperation of variousgroupswithintheorganization, andcombination
supports theseprocessesbyaggregating technologies andknowledge[31].
All oftheaforementioned processes facilitateknowledge management [33]. Each
processis expectedtoenhancetheeffectiveness ofknowledge management bypro-
vidingindividuals and groupsin organizations withtheknowledgeneededto per-
formtheirtasks.Moreover,our focusin thisstudyis on perceivedknowledge
satisfactionratherthanan objectivemeasureofknowledge effectiveness. We there-
foreproposethefollowing:

HI: Internalization associatedwithperceivedknowledge

processis positively
satisfaction.
H2: Externalization associatedwithperceivedknowledge
processis positively
satisfaction.
H3: Combination
processispositively sat-
associatedwithperceivedknowledge
isfaction.
H4: Socialization
processispositively sat-
associatedwithperceivedknowledge
isfaction.
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 27

TheModerating
Effects
ofTaskCharacteristics
Thispaperdepartsfrompriorresearchon knowledgemanagement by arguingthat
theeffectiveness ofa knowledge management processdependsonthecircumstances
underwhichitis used.In otherwords,insteadof following theuniversalistic view
thatall fourknowledge management are
processes alwayseffective, ittakes a contin-
gencytheoretic view,suggesting thattheimpactofa knowledge management process
is moderated by thecontextin whichtheknowledgeis beingused.The focusis on
one specificaspectof thecontext, namelythenatureofthetasksperformed bythe
individuals andgroupsusingtheknowledge resulting from the knowledge manage-
mentprocesses.Figure1 summarizes theoverallcontingency modelappliedin the
researchstudy.
The underlying argument hereis thattheknowledgemanagement processthata
subunit shoulduse dependsonthenatureoftasksitperforms. Thisinvolvesviewing
eachsubunit attheaggregate levelbasedonthepredominant nature ofitstasks,while
recognizing thateachsubunit performs numerous tasksthatarenotall similar.This
approachenablesthedevelopment ofmid-range theories atthesubunit level,instead
oftheextreme of
approaches viewing theentire organization as one or considering
eachtaskindividually. Furthermore, thisapproachhas considerable support inprior
literature. Forexample,Vande VenandDelbecq [47] offered a contingency viewof
therelationship betweensubunit tasksandorganization structure, suggesting thatthe
structure appropriate for a subunit depends on task difficulty (or the problemsin
analyzing theworkandstating performance procedures) andtaskvariability (or the
varietyof problemsencountered in thetasks).Lawrenceand Lorsch[25] also fo-
cusedona taskcharacteristic - taskuncertainty - atthesubunit levelandfoundsub-
unitsthatperform certain,predictable tasksto be more effective whentheywere
formally structured.Thus, a number of taskcharacteristics have been studiedat the
leveloforganizational subunits. Twotaskcharacteristics areexaminedin thisstudy
as influencing theappropriate knowledge management processes,thatis,taskorien-
tationandtaskdomain.Wearguethatthesetaskdimensions requiredifferent typesof
organizational knowledge, whichin turnimplies that different knowledgemanage-
mentprocesseswouldbe appropriate [43].
Task Orientation.Recentresearchinthefieldofstrategic management andorga-
nization theory has focused on the concept oftask orientation for differentiating firms
andorganizational subunits within on
thefirm[36].Based taskorientation, organiza-
tionalsubunits havebeenclassifiedintotwobasic categories: process-oriented and
content-oriented. Content-oriented tasksfocuson thespecificendsor goals to be
achieved.Theyconcernissuessuchas whatproducts needto be developedandthe
specificdesignfeatures that need to be achieved in theproducts. In contrast, process-
oriented tasksfocusontheprocessesormeansthatshouldbe usedtoattainthegoals.
Theyconcernissuessuchas how to perform theprocessesneededto achievethe
specificproduct design.
Content-oriented tasksrelyupon"know-what" [23] ordeclarative knowledge[41].
In contrast, process-oriented tasksrelyon"know-how" [23] orprocedural knowledge
28 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

I TaskCharacteristics

Knowledge Knowledge
Management * £ Management
Processes Satisfaction

Figure1. The Basic ResearchModel

[41]. Moreover, "know- what"and "know-how" havebeenassociatedwithexplicit

andtacittypesofknowledge, respectively. Forexample, Grantstates:"I identifyknow-
ing how with tacit and
knowledge, knowing about facts and theories with explicit
knowledge9' [17,p. 111].
Therefore, content-oriented tasksare morelikelyto benefitfromexternalization
and combination, bothof whichresultin explicitknowledge.In contrast, process-
orientedtasksaremorelikelytobenefit fromsocialization andinternalization, which
produce tacit knowledge.
Task Domain.Thisdimension distinguishes betweenfocusedandbroadtaskdo-
mains,whicharereflected inthematerial-based andsystem-based industries, respec-
discussed
tively, by Kusonaki etal. [24]. Subunits performing focused taskshave low
taskvariability butgreater specialization, while subunits performing broad tasks have
greatertaskvariability andgreater needforworking withothersubunits withinthe
organization [47].
Performing tasksthatarefocusedin domainprimarily requirestheknowledge di-
rectlyavailable to theindividuals within the subunit. These tasksrelymainly on distinc-
tiveunitsofknowledge, suchas "functional knowledge embodied ina specific groupof
engineers,elemental technologies,information processing devices,databases, andpat-
ents"[24].Theyoftenrequiredeepknowledge ina particular area[36],orknowledge
thatis highin specificity [6]. Withinternalization (suchas whenindividuals acquire
knowledge byobserving orbytalking toothers), as wellas withexternalization (such
as whentheytryto modeltheirknowledge intoanalogies,metaphors, or problem-
solvingsystems), thelearningprocessesarepersonal andindividualized [27].Through
externalization, the individualmakes the knowledge more and
agreeable understand-
abletoothers inthegroup, whilethrough internalization theindividual absorbsknowl-
edgeheldbyothersinthegroup[28,48]. Internalization andexternalization arethus
fundamental toknowledge management in a focused taskdomain.
Performing tasksthatarebroadindomainreliesmainlyon dynamicinteraction in
whichindividual unitsofknowledge arecombined andtransformed through commu-
nicationandcoordination acrossdifferent functional groups[24].The complexity of
suchbroad-scale integrationcreates greater causal since
ambiguity, knowledge is be-
ing integrated acrossmultiplegroupsthatmaynothave a highlevelof common
knowledge[17].As NahapietandGhoshalsuggest,"Significant progressin theere-
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 29

ation of intellectualcapital oftenoccurs by bringingtogetherknowledge fromdis-

parate sources and disciplines" [29, p. 252]. Socialization and combinationpro-
cesses, bothof whichhelp integratepriorknowledgeto createnew knowledge [3 1],
are thereforeappropriateforbroad task domain [17]. When the areas of knowledge
being integratedare explicit, combinationcan help produce new explicit knowl-
edge, whereas when the areas of knowledgebeing integratedare tacit,socialization
processes are moreappropriate.
Thus, externalizationand internalization processes seem suitable forfocused task
domain,while combinationand socialization processes seem appropriateforbroad
taskdomain.Moreover,externalizationand combinationprocesses seem appropriate
forcontent-oriented tasks,whereas internalizationand socialization processes seem
suitable forbroad process-orientedtasks. To understand the implicationsforthe ef-
fectivenessof knowledgemanagementprocesses, it is useful to combine the above
task attributes,as shown in the matrixin Figure 2, which summarizesour expecta-
tions concerningthe task attributesforwhich each of the fourknowledge manage-
mentprocesses would be most appropriate.
In organizationalsubunitsperformingtasks with a process orientationand a fo-
cused domain (Figure 2, Cell 1), innovativecapabilityat the individuallevel would
be of the greatestvalue. Internalizationprocesses, enabling individuals to acquire
tacitknowledge fromexplicitknowledge available to others,would be most useful.
Accordingto Choo, "Organizationsrememberby doing,and actionand decision rou-
tinesbecome partof theorganization'sproceduralmemory"[5, p. 12]. The relevance
of internalizationfor focused, process-orientedtasks is also inherentin organiza-
tionalroutinesdiscussed by Grant:

Withinour knowledge-basedview, . . . individualsdevelop sequentialpatterns

of interactionwhich permitthe integrationof theirspecialized knowledge . . .
This coordinationrelies heavilyupon informalproceduresin the formof com-
monly-understood roles and interactionsestablishedthroughtrainingand con-
stantrepetition.[16, p. 379]

A senioremployee at the InternationalSpace StationHardwareIntegrationOffice

also seemed to agree: "There is some knowledge thatcomes fromexperience,and
thisknowledge does not get writtendown, so sometimesto capturethisknowledge
we would have someone traininganotherperson."We therefore propose the follow-
ing contingencyhypothesis.
H5: Compared to other organizationalsubunits,internalizationprocess has a
greater affecton perceived knowledgesatisfactionin organizational subunits
performing focused,process-orientedtasks.
In organizationalsubunitsperformingfocused, content-oriented tasks (Figure 2,
Cell 2), explicit,objectifiedknowledge, or "conscious knowledge" [43] is needed
ratherthantacitor "automaticknowledge" [43]. It is thereforeessentialto convertthe
employees' tacitknowledge intoan so
explicitform, that otherindividualswithinthe
subunitcan also utilizeitto addresssimilarproblems[16]. Externalizationthrough,for
30 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

Content

Externalization Combination

fj | Cell2 1Cell3
•c
O
M
M Intemalization Socialization

Process | 1Cell1 [ [ Cell4

Focused Broad
TaskDomain
Processes
ofKnowledgeManagement
Figure2. ExpectedAppropriateness

decisionsupport
example,models,prototypes, systems tacit
thatcaptureindividuals'
knowledge roleinsuchorganizational
playa critical
[31] wouldtherefore subunits.

H6: Comparedto otherorganizational

subunits, processhas a
externalization
greateraffecton perceivedknowledge
satisfaction subunits
in organizational
performingfocused, tasks.
content-oriented
In subunits performing tasks(Figure2, Cell 3), theneedto
broad,content-oriented
share"know-what," or moreexplicitknowledge acrosslargenumberof individuals
and groupsmaybe bestaddressedby combination processes.Underthesecircum-
stances, toextendexisting
itis important toencompassadditional
capabilities typesof
explicitknowledge andreconfigure existingknowledge intonewtypesofcapability.
Thereis consequently greateremphasison "architectural
knowledge" [11] ortheinte-
grationofknowledge andorganizational
acrossdisciplinary boundaries. Thiscan be
bestachievedthrough combination,whichhelpsintegrate explicitknowledge ofindi-
vidualsand produceknowledge thattranscends
multiple groups [32]. For example,
repositories ofinformation, andlessonslearnedcan helpan organiza-
bestpractices,
tionalsubunit obtainexplicitknowledgefromotherpartsoftheorganization [10,45].
H7: Comparedtootherorganizational
subunits, processhasa greater
combination
on perceivedknowledge
effect satisfaction subunits
in organizational perform-
ingbroad, tasks.
content-oriented

Finally,organizationalsubunitsperforming broad,process-oriented tasks(Figure

2, Cell 4) needtointegrate
multiplestreams ofknowledge. This limitsthepossibility
ofcommonknowledge, especiallysincethe need hereis for"know-how" andtacit
knowledge acquiredthrough personalexperience[7]. Moreover, knowledgeis
tacit
oftendifficult or "sticky"[49]. Sharingitrequiresa "commonperspec-
to transfer
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 31

tive,"whichcan onlybe obtainedthrough socialization[31]. Thereis also evidence

thatsocializationenablesusingweak tiesto helpbridgeacrossa diversepool of
people[8]. In a studyof twonewbiotechnology firms, Liebeskindand colleagues
foundthat"socialnetworks totheintegration
contributed ofknowledge9' [26,p. 439,
emphasisinoriginal].
H8: Comparedto otherorganizational subunits,socializationprocesshas a
greateraffecton perceivedknowledge in organizational
satisfaction subunits
performingbroad, tasks.
process-oriented
thedetailedresearch
Figure3 presents hypotheses,showingtheuniversalistic
hy-
potheses(HI through H4) concerningthe effects
of theknowledgemanagement
as well as thecontingency
processeson perceivedknowledgesatisfaction, hypoth-
eses(H5 throughH8) concerningthewayinwhichtheseeffects aremoderated
bythe
twotaskcharacteristics.

TheEmpirical
Study
The empirical study was conducted in two major phases. Phase 1 involved
a qualitative tounderstand
investigation thetasksperformed andknowledge usedat
ofKSC.
variousdirectorates Thisstudy was conducted inearly 1998 anda was
report
submitted toKSC inAugust1998.Phase2 involvedtheuse ofquantitative question-
nairedatato testtheresearchhypotheses. Thissurveywas administered at KSC in
May 1999.Somekeyassumptions underlying theanalysisinPhase2 werelatervali-
datedin twointerviews,conducted part a three-day
as a of visitto KSC in October
2000.Thenexttwosubsections describethemethods andresultsfromthetwoPhases
indetail.

Qualitative
Investigation
Methods.This phasewas intended to identifytheimportant knowledgeareas for
KSC and theknowledgemanagement processes that are currentlybeingused. For
thispurpose,a seriesof groupinterviews wereconducted. These interviews, con-
ductedbetweenFebruary 1
andApril 998,obtainedinputs from 6 1 individuals
atvari-
ous levels in 9 groups:Administration Office(8 individuals),InternationalSpace
StationHardwareIntegration Office(3 individuals), BiomedicaiOffice(4 individu-
als), Shuttle
ProcessingDirectorate(12 individuals),PayloadProcessing Directorate
(14 individuals),EngineeringDevelopment Directorate (8 individuals),Safetyand
MissionAssuranceDirectorate PublicAffairs
(6 individuals), Office(4 individuals),
andKSC's ChiefInformation Office(2 individuals).
Priortotheinterviews,theinterviewees receiveda packagedesignedtofamiliarize
themwithknowledge management withintheirsubunit. Theywereaskedtoreview
thematerial inpreparationfortheupcoming meeting andtoreflect uponthefollow-
ingtopics:
32 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

L H1
Internalization IFocusedknowledge+
1 ' ^x. orientation
process
I : 1 H2' /H5
Extemalizationk^^^ ^S%SC

/h6
^^^^-^^
Focusedknowledge+ ^^^^'CT^Na
orientation
content ^"^^^^s^ Knowledge
Management
Broadknowledge+ ^^^ Satisfaction
orientation
content ^ '^' j

Combination »"""^ ^"ISttq

*>r ' rio

H4^^ '
I Socialization '^ Br°adknowledge +
'
processorientation

Model
Research
Figure3. Detailed

1.Whatis theroleofthisdirectorate/office? Whatkindsoftasksareperformed

here?
2. Who/what do youconsidertobe thebestsource(s)ofknowledge within
your
organization?
3. Whyis thisknowledgeso important?
4. Who/what uses thisknowledge?
5. Whatknowledge Devel-
is eithercreatedorabsorbedinsuchareasas Product
opment, ResearchandDevelopment, Marketing,andso on.
6. Foreachoftheaboveareas,whatsourceofknowledge is used?
7. How is thisknowledge captured? Disseminated?Accessed?
8. For each of theabove areas,who/what uses thisknowledge?How do they
accessthisknowledge?

Duringeachinterview,threebroadstepswerefollowed.First,thespecifictypesof
knowledgeandtheirinternalorexternalsourcesanduses wereidentified.Next,we
KM needsforeachgroup.Finally,theinterviews
theparticular
identified wereused
usedandtobrainstorm
thetoolscurrently
toidentify possibleenhancements inknowl-
edgemanagement.
Followingthecompletion bothauthorsexaminedthenotesand
oftheinterviews,
to
transcriptsprepare forthenext A
phase. detailedreport andsubmitted
was written
toKSC.
Results.Table 1 summarizesthefunctional ofeachoftheeightorga-
descriptions
in thesecondphaseof thestudy.The
nizationalsubunitsat KSC thatparticipated
 33

"D ^

li 11H ! !I!I!II «
go |o $ .g lì
«8.
l5ío|?Si=
|| i| ë.i É¿§£^iil?

Hü
d o 2 g - 3 c
l II iififilJi
.E g e e e $ E
£ t; ä tf
•£ co 8 S o

í Ifiillfüil
gä 5OS3Ì2^-5 0c§5

îl|I|
ili! li lllïtillîll
a «lièi il il Sfilili«!
Ì Ijill I IfUlulili
</3
<D
O
¡ Ilin. Hill iiïllf li
T3
n
U I^SS*^
û. 0) i: CD w Û. |ï^l=Q. CD
(LcO co |^2||^
lu c/) O> ^- C
loi
(D O vJ C
cd
C/3

cd
2
e

liîli !ll!liilîHlfi
5
u

lîîll HÎÎ UIHHfl!

o
o
cd
o
s
iS™l.igiflfg îi-lllSêîii
lüüliliiliiliíiiti
</}
cd
u
I

Io 1 l.||§î|
"cd ¡ill! Ipt^lüfl
S
C/3

"cd

"co ç H o) o

(D 1
¿le la
^t«
o > o §§^
">,o2
e2 c/dcqO lu û û cl cl û
34

<ß . £ ©Su.

Sis ..l Sï Sì
IIS 111 11 i{
i!ï ¡If si «Sj

SHISSMill!»
fllüilllu i
1 liliïlfï ¡llîif
c
'c
1 ¡1e¡iíi¡ ilsiij
1 111 s1i §I
o
U
iiii!s
1
J ipll^l
sf leg 3 gi
III§|1
§ï? g¡i
I
1 ?! S <
(O
"S
ë
S 00 « <d -r, ta « - cÄiS
u lliliil ¡îJa
c-?|§oï8 5 S2 o
O"- WT5
O oSÍSgÍA
|

S
"S
O
iSSiîïl sul
liofile Uli
C/3
03
U
■S
Si 8| 88
a I§ SIsf 8"al ï
Ss*!!
|
lp|I
S
Q áí §I¿£S ¿|SS§
C/3

•e (0
¿5 ^
1- H < § c?
1 .2 cd >o5 5

e2
Ico il
û. O
fJ§!
co 2 < û
 35

S?- ? "S "§8

¡1 Sili I! «|l!, 1
ti !Si* if 1*1*1 Si
^5cS?fe¡ f€ 11 Si 8 e|
S-S51: ss «« §ïflflîié
^giSSls f-s i^isiB.aa'i.g
ÜÍ-PI 1! ilïïï Ifil
PlJlll Hip! îll!
Ifflî IHillUStll
lilillî ïlllllfif il
ÜlliUI ¡lllílüi?!!
2?Po'õco)"§
û.(ocLu.i5.Ç£w
8088-olS
û.i au. 2£
ßS'sS
w.Ç Ë fs Es S
> o So S

ìli î

^ | 8§ Icol 18 tl^-S
i S. =5 ? ? = S g 8 ä 8 :s
§:

i!?"!
-80S
g-g
«»«93«
il i. fi-Jii
S S* .S §

§ §2S g»s ili?". SSII

Z-^B|¡ I § I. i I I -s11

!lî fîiiH
um uuv uni!
0S « 2

ci ¡ SI «
5S
0) W O
ïîfil
« (0
Ilì1
-O ^ 0.
o ^ g

WÍ5 £wí¡ hÍT.S 2

36 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ
AND SABHERWAL

qualitativedatawas usedto examinethesesubunitsintermsoftaskorientation and

taskdomain.The two authorsdid thisindependently. When they later discussed
theirconclusions, theyfoundno disagreement.
Based on theanalysisof thesubunitsin termsof taskorientation and usingthe
of
descriptions process and content task orientation providedby Pisano [36],Engi-
neering Development andShuttle Processing Directorates andtheInternational Space
StationHardwareIntegration Officewereclearlyviewedas process-oriented. These
subunits'responsibilities centeraroundengineering, appliedresearchand develop-
and
ment, engineering management. The Biomedicai Officewas also considered as
process-oriented,sinceitsfunctional responsibility centersaroundexperimentation
andscientificanalysis.In contrast,theothersubunits (including theSafetyandMis-
sionAssuranceandPayloadProcessing Directorates andthePublicAffairs andAd-
ministrationoffices)were believedto focus more on "what to do" kind of issuesand
weretherefore classifiedas content-oriented. ThelastcolumnofTable1 summarizes
someoftherationaleforthewaywe classifiedeachsubunit.
Next,thesubunits werecharacterized onthebasisoftaskdomain,usingthedefini-
tionsforfocusedandbroaddomains.TheInternational Space StationHardware Inte-
grationOffice,the ShuttleProcessingDirectorate,and the Safetyand Mission
AssuranceDirectorate wereconsidered toperform a limitednumber ofcomplicated
tasks,requiring highlyspecialized and deep knowledge that is local to them,and
weretherefore classifiedas focusedin taskdomain.In contrast, theorganizational
subunits atKSC thatperform a greatervariety ofdissimilar tasks,requiring consider-
ableinteractionswiththeothersubunits, wereclassifiedas beingbroadinknowledge
domain.TheyincludedtheBiomedicai,Administration, and PublicAffairs offices,
andtheEngineering and
Development PayloadProcessing Directorates.
Thus,basedon theinsights fromthequalitative studyandthetheoretical expecta-
tions,theorganizational subunitsatKSC wereplacedinthetwo-dimensional matrix
involving taskorientation andtaskdomainas shownin Figure4. Theseclassifica-
tionswerelaterusedinthequantitative partofthestudy. However,inordertofurther
establishthevalidityofourclassification oftheKSC subunits intothefourcells,we
conductedtwodetailedinterviews on thisaspectduringa visitto KSC in October
2000.l Duringthefirst interview, we spoketooneexecutiveatKSC foraboutanhour
and a halfand askedherto classifytheeightsubunitsfirstbased on thecontent/
processdimensionand thenbased on thefocused/broad dimension. Later,we met
withanother executiveofKSC forthreeanda halfhours.In thismeeting, we went
overthepaperwithher,explaining thefour-cell matrixinquitesomedetail.Wethen
requested herto examineourmappingoftheeightsubunitsintothefourcells.We
discussedeachsubunit insomedetail.Thereweresomeconcerns abouttheAdminis-
trationOffice,as thefirst interviewee classifieditinCell 4 (unlikeourperception of
itbelonging inCell 3), whereasthesecondinterviewee classifieditinCell 1.There-
fore,we decidedto excludetheAdministration Officefromtheanalysisfortesting
thehypotheses. However, basedonthetwointerviews, andespeciallythesecondone,
whichwasverydetailed, we feelquiteconfident aboutthemappingoftheotherseven
subunits. Afterdevelopinga goodunderstanding ofthefour-cell matrix, thesecond
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 37

Content ■Safetyand Mission Assurance ■Public AffairsOffice

Directorate ■Payload ProcessingDirectorate

|
| I Cell 2 I I Cell 3
1 ' ' '
4¿ ■Shuttle
'£ Directorate r BiomedicaiOffice
Processing
M ■International
Space Station *;EngineeringDevelopment
c§ HardwareIntegrationOffice Direcorate

Process | | Cdl 1 | '^A

Focused Broad
Task Domain
Subunits
Figure4. Organizational attheKennedySpace Center. Theplacement ofthe
andofficesinthismatrix
directorates was determinedbasedon Phase1 (i.e.,thequalitative
study)andwas latervalidatedduring inOctober2000.Based on these
twodetailedinterviews
whichwas mappedbytheauthors
one officeAdministration,
interviews, as belongingtoCell
3, was droppedfromfurtheranalysisduetoambiguity aboutitsmappingon thismatrix.

interviewee
stronglyagreedwithourclassification Table 1
ofthesesevensubunits.
summarizestherationale the
underlying of
classification each subunit.

Questionnaire
Survey
Methods

Questionnaire development and administration. Based on thepriorliterature on

knowledge management andthefindings ofthefirstphase,we developeda question-
naireto empirically testtheresearchhypotheses. Feedbackon theinitialquestion-
nairewasobtainedfromthreeemployees ofKSC's ChiefInformation Officer's(CIO)
office(thisgroupwasnotusedfortheactualsurvey). Minor modificationsweremade
basedon thesuggestions received.
KSC's Administration OfficehelpedconductthesurveyateightKSC subunits. We
250
provided questionnaires to thesecretaryin theAdministrationOffice,with the
number of questionnairespergroupvarying from20 forsmallgroupsto 40 for the
largeones. Followinga discussionbetweentheDeputyCenterDirectorand the
variousAdministrative Officers, 200 questionnaires to potential
were distributed
respondents.Table 2 provides thenumber ofquestionnairesdistributed
as wellas the
number ofresponses receivedineachgroup.A letter fromtheDeputyCenterDirector
the
accompanied surveys, which helpedto increasetheresponserate.A totalof 159
completedsurveys was received,representing a 79.5 percentresponserate.2The
38 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

oftheSample
Table2. SomeCharacteristics

Numberof
Numberof Surveys
orOffice3
Directorate Respondents Distributed

Administration Officeb 12 15
Space Station Hardware IntegrationOffice 22 25
Biomedicai Office 15 20
Shuttle Processing Directorate 14 20
Payload Processing Directorate 38 40
EngineeringDevelopment Directorate 28 35
Safety and Mission Assurance Directorate 24 30
Public AffairsOffice 6 15

Standard
Characteristics
Respondent Mean Deviation

Total experience at KSC 15.35 6.93

Number of directoratesor officespreviouslyserved in 1.20 1.17

Level
Hierarchical Frequency Percent

1 . Directorof a Directorate 1 0.6

2. Deputy Directorof a Directorate 18 11.3
3. Chief,Ground Systems Division 43 27.0
4. Personal Management Specialist 77 48.4
5. Systems Engineer 14 8.8
Missing 6 3.8
Total 159 100
a These directorates
and officesexistedat thetimeof thesurvey(early 1999). They were later
affectedby theKSC 2000 reorganization in 2000.
bData fromtheAdministrationOfficewas notused to testthehypothesisdue to some ambiguity
in mappingit on thetaskmatrix,as discussedin thepaper.

responseratesdiffered acrossgroups, beingthelowestatPublicAffairs andthehigh-

estat PayloadProcessing. However,theoveralldifferences acrossgroupswerenot
significant(x2= 4.66,degreesoffreedom = 7, notsignificant
atthe0.10 level).
Table 2 also summarizes othercharacteristics ofthesample.Therespondents were
generally quiteexperienced (averageexperience of15.35years).Theyusuallyworked
inoneormoreothergroupsatKSC priortojoiningtheircurrent group,whichmaybe
expected to increase theirawareness of knowledgemanagement in areas of KSC
beyondtheircurrent group.Sixty-two oftherespondents verysenior,beingat
were
thelevelofa Director, DeputyDirector, ora Chiefofa Division,whiletheremaining
91 respondents whoidentified theirlevelswereat lowertomiddlemanagement lev-
els. Overall,thesampleofrespondents seemsto be quitediverse,representing vari-
ous hierarchical levels,experiences,andgroups.
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 39

Measures.Phase 1 ofthestudyled to theidentification of37 knowledge manage-

menttoolscurrently usedatKSC. Thesetools,alongwithsomeadditional toolsthat
werenotmentioned intheinterviews buthavebeenhighlighted intheliterature [10,
35],were used to prepare a listof tools.These were examined by the two authors for
possibleoverlaps.Wetriedtoidentify a number oftoolsthatsupport eachknowledge
management processandalso decidedto limitthenumber oftoolsto 25 to prevent
thequestionnaire from becomingexcessively demanding. A question(on a five-point
scale) was included to evaluate the use of each of these tools.Exploratory factor
analysisfound6 itemstoload onmultiple dimensions.3 Theremaining 19 itemspro-
duced4 factors, eachwiththeexpectedsetofitems.Thereliabilities ofthemeasures
forinternalization,externalization, combination, andsocialization processesare0.74,
0.85,0.80,and0.66,respectively. Table 3 provides some illustrative remarks from the
literature
supporting theuse ofitemsusedtomeasureeachknowledge management
process.
Confirmatory factor analyseswerethenconducted usingLISREL 7.20toassessthe
overallmeasurement modelsinvolving the 19 indicators ofknowledge management
processes.Appendix A providestheresultsofthisanalysis.Wefirst testedtheuncon-
strainedmodel,witheachitemloadingonlyon theprocessitwas intended to mea-
sureandwiththecorrelations among the four latent constructs made free. As shown
inthebottom frame ofAppendix A, thismodel performed with
satisfactorily, x2/d.fa .
ratioof0.99,a p-valueof0.514,GoodnessofFitIndex(GFI) andNormedFitIndex
(NFI) exceeding0.90,4theAdjustedGoodnessofFitIndex(AGFI,whichadjustsGFI
fordegreesoffreedom) of0.88,anda rootmeansquareresidual(RMSR) of0.056.
To examine the discriminant validityofthefourknowledge management processes,
we examinesevenalternative constrained models.For each alternative model,chi-
squaredifferences from theunconstrained modelwereexamined toevaluatediscrimi-
nantvalidities[2]. The firstsix modelscombineda pairof latentconstructs, while
the
leaving remaining two constructs separate. The last model combined all four la-
tentconstructs. All thesemodelsproducedlargeandsignificant <
(p 0.001) increases
in x2,indicating thatthefourprocessesshouldbe considered distinct. The 19 items
measuring these are
processes given in the top frame ofAppendix alongwiththeir
A
loadings on the corresponding processes. All the X's are largeand significant (p <
0.001),providing further support tothemeasures. Thus,careful consideration ofprior
followedbya seriesofstatistical
literature, testsincluding exploratory factoranaly-
and comparative
sis,reliabilities, confirmatory factoranalyses,led to thedevelop-
mentof theoretically andpsychometrically strongmeasurement scales forthefour
knowledge management processes[15].
Elevenquestionswereusedtomeasureperceivedknowledge satisfaction. Explor-
atory factoranalysisprovidedstrongsupport for this measure, which was further
validatedbya reliability of0.92.AppendixB providesfarther detailsaboutthismea-
sure,including the11 items.
Results.Table 4 givesthemeans,standarddeviations, reliabilities (standardized
Cronbach alphas), and zero-order correlations among the research variables. Threecon-
-
trolvariables the number of directorates and offices the had
respondent previously
40

lì I x ÍÍ
d Ig g- ¿r | §>o ã|

ISH li II fi
IfIf II il li! .1
HIS ¡i lì ¡li III
11 ï 2 §1 tS 5¡ I 1 £ s,
§ E^l-i II Si lîi H S
I
ë
II *|
8 S II ÎS?I|
S£a §§
11 îït
¿ISS fils
"s g -g i S eis lg ¿Sê -ffiYï
C/3
" "Sill 2 11 I ¡ S^s-
C/3
<D 4¡{
! ili! ifìII Iff pi
1 IfilUli 11 i U¡
S
S»
s 1 II ?IS ill IS Ì^8 8Î*
1 n»iinn i»?111
(D
Où

I1 »Hit ilk! fill!

O
â
C/3

S
11 m m if& nit ¿Ha
s
" »S? &
C/3

iO
•è
õ
-
«i
i °
g ig
i
5Ï
Sl
°>

g § i 5 Ji i
ca
o
S
H- »
§> i Ì I II 1 I
's
c2
rn "8
'S
lì
= c"
ÏS i«
S03
Sì
0) S
Sï
(0 m
Ito
e2
 41

■- c? ^

1 11! |f 1! !i î I ê
U, ¡Ì If t! If lì 11
fi? lì if lì il i¡ I? I
¡î; 1* fî us H« si la j
»! ! n t î « i i i
^Sg» õl^l 111 liS § 1 Ä Í? ?l

AÍS h £88 l!¡ jS« !« §ll!

«i* iS IIe1 ii"iSSt: ?¿ lì
S o tö=. i g? I i 8 § S

i .11IHM ii!il tilt

ti# SS ïl

lì!îijifîlî
ifllfl flïî
1||5 lïË^lî ÍÜ S'il Ï1 |! |i
II I Hilil us Hf Ii_ Uli*
Iliïîlîlli 11! Ili Jil |ì Iti
1E »
S I

1 } H I I Ifli
I I siili I ili |l
O ïî. EÛDC-S5 5 (dOoO'd
Ü UJ
42

S . »

->- J2 <D >: "*- S <0

1 Î f t fof
11 n i* ni
!?l II il iff
Î5i s i !» i':t
ÌJJ lì I! II
il: II 11 ¡i»
0) C « ^
COÎS "(Õc WU O

i 1IH15 i! Ü1
Î i sï $a
§i;i s?
¥ ï ïlli lî II III
^^ S s ^2 ^~ §
C/i

•f í's
C

IS c « • S « .«2o o« «Sot

I I
Sfili S?5
ssi-sfaSciio«i I*
^^ |oiw-
fsiêa
« ! !*■§ if
Ec« M-2 "f ?
1EBo§
f £-^ë
1
¡S
"C
1/3
CO
! IfHili 111
J
Uli
ft| g E ft| I ||w- ft^^l
<D
S
s
ï •1 2
I < E gS I I1
s
Mìliti, î ü
O

Jfliîlli i If
I filili SS I
cn
J£o o<5 = û (D 8 S
lì
£^
e2 ^ UJ
 43

§g k «
° -s

; . .i î
»

0 í Î ^ o
° ° § &
1
I I

I S °° ° 1 I

le «: i i í
§C¿ * ö ó ö ö Z *

1 ¡I
ô« Î8S5 M S
w ^ ^
«S 'S o

2 cviqqooqoüVi
>; ödodöo[2wD-
<*> y «g g
*j * ° e a,
H î S S *
P S5888S5S|s
^ d ddodd d
c/î
dg * « VI
Dh w
<Ü

I 1 : *
ï £
2 il i S S S S
S jï 1 I S
S ^ S â 8s
1 .^S 'dodo o ^ vi -o u
^ ?. ° g •
& «
£
í
I ¿ i i 'gI
C/5

1
o ? S S^p:§P: 12 § 1 s 1 3
co ^«^ «oöööci «= S S I I 1
í s S g s
» 1 8 si is
§ CVI ^ CO -r- O> CVJ ^ »- Ä > S « 3
ü Wt-^ in^T^côcsi ri o Ö H .2 Ë
"~ 'S "S -a -S 8
■g S
cd
o
C/3

C/5

ûQ ¡Jj ? uj ü w ^cS^'Sfc
>2 Q.OOOO û_^2f^c«8

1a*
ÛCUJ X DC OC CC DC ^ö^^Sü
OlCO LU Û_ CL CL Û_ Q^.SIlsx
ig 'S s si
S G S tu

i 11II
e o o

. iiss.s
co í- Q

lì
cu £|i^g«f«ll?i ¡ìli I
¡
44 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

workedin,theseniorityoftherespondent, and therespondent'sexperience(in years)-

in
wereused in thestudyand are included thistable.
It may be noted fromTable 4 thatKSC makes considerableuse of internalization
(mean of 4.13, with all means mentionedin this paragraphbeing on a five-point
scale) but littleuse of externalization(mean of 1.94). Combinationand socialization
are both used to a moderateextentwithmeans of 3.24 and 2.70, respectively.Per-
ceived knowledgesatisfactionis also moderatewitha mean of 3. 13. Withtheexcep-
tionofthecorrelationbetweenexternalizationand internalization, all thecorrelations
among the four knowledge managementprocesses are statisticallysignificant(p <
0.001). Moreover,all fourknowledgemanagementprocesses have statisticallysig-
nificantcorrelations(p < 0.001) withperceivedknowledge satisfaction.
To testthehypotheses,we used hierarchicalregressionanalysiswiththeperceived
knowledgesatisfactionas thedependentvariable.We firstexaminedtherelationships
in the entiresample. The threecontrolvariables were enteredfirst,followedby the
maineffects ofthefourknowledgemanagement processes(testingHypotheses1 through
4), and thenthe interactionterms corresponding toHypotheses5 through8. This proce-
dureeliminatedthemain effectof each knowledgemanagementprocess priorto our
examiningthe interaction effects[44]. Moreover,enteringall theinteraction termssi-
multaneouslycontrolsforpossible multicollinearity amongthevariables.Evidence of
moderationis presentwhentheinteraction termsaccountforsignificant residualvari-
ance in the dependentvariable.Therefore,the changes in R2and the F-statisticwere
examinedforeach step.Throughoutouranalysis,we paid attention to thestandardized
beta coefficientsiftheF-statisticforthathierarchicalstepwas significant (p <0.10).5
As shown in Table 5, the controlvariables,when enteredas a set in Step 1, do not
explain a statisticallysignificant(at p < 0. 10 level) proportionof thevariancein per-
ceived knowledge satisfaction.The fourknowledgemanagementprocesses, entered
in Step 2, do producea significant(p < 0.001) increaseof 0.365 in R2.All fourknowl-
edge managementprocesses have significantstandardizedbetas in this step at p <
0.05 or better.
When the interactiontermsare introducedin Step 3, a significant(p < 0.10) in-
crease in R2results.As expected, some changes occur in the standardizedbetas of
controlvariablesand themain effectsoftheknowledgemanagementprocesses.More
senior(p < 0.05) and less experienced(p < 0.05) respondentsapparentlyhave lower
perceived knowledge satisfaction.Moreover,externalizationand combinationcon-
tinueto have a significant(p <0.05) positiveeffect,providingsupportforhypotheses
H2 and H3, respectively.However,internalization and socializationno longersignifi-
cantly affectperceived knowledge satisfaction, and hypothesesHI and H4, respec-
tively,are thus not supported. The interactionterms involvinginternalization(p <
< <
0.05), combination(p 0.05), and socialization (p 0.10) are also significant,pro-
vidingsupportforhypothesesH5, H7, and H8, respectively.But hypothesisH6, con-
cerningthe greaterimpactof externalizationin Cell 2, is not supported.
The hypotheseswere furthertested throughregressionswithineach of the four
cells. As may be seen fromTable 6, which summarizesthe results,the controlvari-
ables did not explain a significantportionof the variance in perceived knowledge
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 45

Table5. The OverallEffects

ofKnowledgeManagement
Processes

Step1 Step2 Step3

ControlVariables3
No.ofpreviousdirectorates -0.06 -0.09 -0.06
Seniority -0.10 -0.12* -0.14*
Experience 0.16* 0.14* 0.14*
KnowledgeManagementProcesses
Internalization 0.15* 0.07
Extemalization 0.18* 0.20*
Combination 0.34*** 0.24*
Socialization 0.15* 0.07
InteractionEffects
X DummyforCell 1
Internalization 0.37*
Extemalization X DummyforCell 2 0.17
Combination X DummyforCell 3 0.48*
SocializationX DummyforCell 4 0.33*
Equation
AR2 0.026 0.365 0.036
R2 0.026 0.391 0.432
AF 1.12 18.16*** 2.27*
F 1.12 11.12*** 8.20***
n 129
Based on multiplelinearregressions. The variableswereenteredin theordershown,fromStep 1
to Step 3.
These resultsare producedwhileexcludingthedata fromtheAdministration Office.However,
thetwo authorshad mappedtheAdministration Officeon Cell 3, and theresultsconsistentwith
theabove wereobtainedwhentheanalysiswas repeatedwiththeresponsesfromtheAdministra-
tionOfficebeingincludedin Cell 3.
a The standardizedbetasare
givenforeach variableincludedin each step.Significancelevels are
indicatedas follows:*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, #p < 0.10.

satisfaction in Step1 in anyofthefourcells.The fourknowledge management pro-

cesses,on otherhand,explaina significant
the proportionofthevarianceinperceived
knowledgesatisfaction in Step 2 in threeof thefourcells (all exceptCell 2, i.e.,
focused,content-oriented tasks,thereby indicatinga lackofsupport forH6). In each
ofthesethreecells,thehypothesized knowledge management processhada signifi-
-
canteffect internalization inCell 1 <
(p 0.05),supporting hypothesisH5; combina-
<
tionin Cell 3 (p 0.01), supporting hypothesis H7; andsocializationin Cell 4 (p <
0.05), supporting hypothesis H8. Theseresultsforhypotheses H5 through H8 (in-
cluding the lack of for
support H6) are consistentwith those above,
reported based on
in
interactiontermsin regressions the entiresample. Moreover,outside of
extemalization havinga significanteffect(p < 0.10) inCell 1,noneoftheknowledge
management processessignificantly affectsperceivedknowledgesatisfaction in a
cellotherthantheonetheywereexpectedtoimpact.Thus,thereis strong support for
thecontingency framework suggested inthispaperfortheappropriateness ofthefour
processes.
management
knowledge
46

CN ^ O î Î JS 2
c« c'jf-T- io o) q -o °-
& q-i-cvjco ^
<2¿ ooó öoöö d ò s (o §
g o
^J y co *
SO« =5 in -S
U^-H .. coco ^^o|
S g. §§§ ÎÎ88 °=SVcT?
© -cá ood ò ö evievi y^*c5

c o ö

CN * î lOrî î S § { .g
O '-s y- Gi CO O>O>COt- COCO-î-C» C *C
^ H
c & t-cviT- qqior- co Tt co N g g h §

2 S ^ s vi!S
S -o
^ cd _ ( « COCO i <? 3
^aj**-*
S g. Skk 2282 !*•. S
^ ' T -
g | dp
S
|| | ¡
co Ti- 2 2 S* 'S 'S
O cm co m s co co m s i^cmcoco ^ 2 '« •§
c q^ i-co^t î- iq t- q coTfo>c'j o ^ g ^
B oödö ddr r o J ¿ c ^
2 çod §

USá co«) ^ g Já g .§

3 3
ê S
a, '•"P0^
ídd
q q c'j c'j
dddd8-S*-8|i
^ 6f 8 2

i
C/l

C/l
^
M
CS
a.
CMCvl^
PCO.T~
P) ^
^i1^;0^1"
r t-
. 11ï-f
»N* #
CvJCOOiCD
^t^00.1^ -a ta *a ü *
Sg^cag
odo dodo
I
o tì dd"tc'iogc^.S«

1
S ^ «i ^ ü 3 <_»

^1 W<N siel!
a
O)

I g
w oc?<? oooo8li|liS j) g ? s
S
d)

(D
s Hîïï
î 1 UïiS
o o £ >- s u S <2

o
£ e s -2« s s
w
(D
ILpIÜü Hill
8dSl||Si"8|2hMü. I sã
»a
Sã
««
?ZWU1 gÇUJOW S<IQC<1Ü. e I
e2
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 47

ConclusionsandDiscussion
This paper began with two simplequestions: (1) How does theuse of knowl-
edge management processesaffectknowledgemanagement effectiveness? and (2)
How does theeffectiveness of theseprocesseschangedependingon thetasksper-
formed within theorganizational subunit? To addressthesequestions, we drewupon
Nonaka's[31] internalization, externalization, combination, and socializationpro-
cesses,and developedempiricalmeasuresforevaluating theextentto whicheach
processis used.Fourhypotheses (HI through H4) linking theuse ofthesefourpro-
cessestoperceived knowledge satisfaction were proposed. also developeda con-
We
tingency framework, involvingtwo characteristics of thetaskperformed by the
organizationalsubunit, namely process or content task orientation,and focused or
broadtaskdomain.The fourcells of thematrixcombining thesetwodimensions
werethenrelatedtothefourknowledge management processesthrough fourcontin-
gencyhypotheses, withinternalization, externalization,
combination, and socializa-
tionprocessesbeingconsidered appropriate forfocused,content-oriented tasks(H5),
focused,process-oriented (H6), broad,process-oriented (H7), andbroad,
tasks tasks
content-orientedtasks(H8), respectively.
Theresearch hypotheses, developedbasedonpriortheory, wereempirically exam-
inedinoneorganization, NASA-KSC.Followinga detailedqualitative investigation,
we collectedempiricaldatafrom159 individuals across8 subunits ofNASA-KSC.
Exploratory factoranalysisandreliabilities wereusedtotestthepsychometric prop-
ertiesofourmeasuresofknowledge management processesandknowledge satisfac-
tion.Structural
equation modeling techniques wereusedtofurther testthemeasurement
modelfortheknowledgemanagement processes. Hierarchical regression analyses
wereusedtotestthehypotheses.
We nowexamineouroverallfindings and theirimplications forpractice,while
distancingourselves from the complexities of thedata andthe analytical procedures.
Upontesting theuniversalistichypotheses (HI through H4), we foundcombination
andexternalization processes,butnotinternalization andsocialization processes,to
affectperceivedknowledgesatisfaction. Thus,bothof theknowledgemanagement
processesthatprovideexplicitknowledge - thatis, combination processes,which
helpintegrate several codified areas of knowledge, and externalization processes,
whichhelpexplicatetacitknowledge - contribute toknowledge satisfaction. On the
otherhand,internalizationandsocialization processes,whichfocusprimarily onmore
tacitknowledge, do notcontribute to knowledge satisfaction.
Thesefindings should
be usefultomanagers inorganizations resembling KSC, thatis,organizations an
with
orientationtowardscienceandengineering.
The empiricaldataprovidedconsiderable supportto thecontingency framework
we proposedfortheappropriateness ofthefourknowledge management processes.
All theknowledge management processesotherthanexternalization had an impact
on perceivedknowledge satisfactionintheexpectedcell.Moreover, withoneexcep-
tion,noneoftheknowledge management processessignificantly affected perceived
knowledge satisfactionin a cell other than the one they were to
expected havean
48 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ
AND SABHERWAL

impactin.Thisstrongsupport forthecontingency framework has a potentially im-

portant implication forpractice.It suggeststhatmanagersshouldtryto understand
thecharacteristics of theirtasks,and then,based on taskdomainand orientation,
identify anddeveloptheknowledge management processesthataremostappropri-
ate.Thiswouldbe a better strategyratherthan efforts todevelopall fourknowledge
management processes,especiallyunderlimitedresourceconditions.
Finally,thelow use ofexternalization suggestsan areawhereimprovement needs
to be made.Although externalizationsignificantly influences perceivedknowledge
satisfaction,externalization was usedtoa verylowlevel.In contrast, internalization,
whichdidnotseemtoimpactperceived knowledge satisfactionatan overalllevel(it
doesimpactperceived knowledge satisfactionwithin Cell 1),exhibited a highlevelof
usage. This may be because internalizationbenefits more from traditional learning
andpedagogicaltechniques. Greater aretherefore
efforts necessary tobuildtoolsand
techniques thatfacilitate externalization.
Thefindings ofthisstudyshouldbeconsidered inthelightofitsinherent limitations.
First,itfocusedon one largeorganization. Although thisenabled us to examine the
research questions with considerable richness in an organization where knowledge is
ofparamount importance, itlimitedthegeneralizability oftheresults. Likeotherorga-
nizations,KSC has itsuniquestrategic, structural, and culturalattributes, and it re-
mainstobe seenwhether ourresults canbe generalized tootherkindoforganizations.
Second,thefindings of thepapermaybe limitedbythefactthatwe mappedthe
organizational subunits basedon qualitative assessments ofeachsubunit's taskchar-
acteristics.
Werecognizethatquantitative measuresoftaskdomainandtaskorienta-
tionmighthavefurther enhancedthevalueof thestudy.But we did notuse such
measures becausethatwouldhaverequired: (a) theidentification ofthespecifictasks
withineach subunit; (b) thedevelopment ofscalesto measuretaskdomainandtask
orientation; and(c) use ofthosemeasuresforeachtaskwithineach directorate. Al-
this
thoughacknowledging limitation, we remain confident about our assessments,
whichare based on interviews withnumerous individuals at KSC, and weresup-
portedintwointerviews specificallyfocusing on thisissue.
Third,ourfindings arebasedonself-report data,entailing potentialrespondent bias
(e.g.,socialdesirability or
effect) general method variance.However, the fact thatthe
studyreported goodpsychometric properties basedonmultiple assessments (reliabil-
ity,exploratory factoranalysis,andconfirmatory factoranalysis)supports thevalid-
ityofourresults.
Finally,likemostsocialsciencemodels,oursexcludessomepotentially important
factors.Weonlyconsidered theknowledge management processesas antecedent vari-
ablesaffecting knowledge satisfaction.
To prevent theanalysisfrom beingoverwhelm-
inglycomplex,we didnotincludeotherfactors affecting knowledge satisfaction. We
also reliedexclusively on Nonaka's[31] knowledge management processes did and
notconsidertherolesplayedbyorganizational routines,directions, and otherpos-
sibleknowledge management processes.
Thus,theabove limitations constrainthegeneralizability of ourresultsto other
organizations and contexts. However, we believe that,despitetheselimitations, this
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 49

studymakessomevaluablecontributions topracticeandidentifiessomepotentially
important directions forfuture research.
further
First, research is neededtotestourresults,obtained fromin-depth investiga-
tionofoneorganization, ina largenumber oforganizations.Suchfurtherresearch may
alsoexaminewhether ourfindings toengineering-oriented
applyprimarily and"knowl-
edge-intensive"organizations [34],suchas KSC, ortootherorganizations as well.
Second,detailedcase studiesperforming each ofthefourcells mayhelpprovide
furtherelaboration ofthiscontingency modelandmayalso producegreater insights
intotheeffects of thefourprocesseson perceivedknowledgesatisfaction. In other
words,thisstudyhascontributed tothe"know-what" byproviding someinsights into
theeffectsofvariousknowledge management but
processes, further
research is needed
togenerate the"know-how," thatis,thewayinwhichtheseeffects comeabout.
Third,themeasureswe havedevelopedforthefourknowledge management pro-
cessesandperceived knowledge satisfaction
maybeusefulinfuture researchonknowl-
edgemanagement. Similarmeasures should,however,be developedforotherrelevant
constructs,including the use of directions,
organizational taskdomain,and
routines,
taskorientation,as wellas theroleinformation technology playsinknowledge man-
agement. Moreover, considering theusuallimitationsofperceptualmeasures, objec-
tivemeasuresofperceived knowledge wouldbe usefulinfuture
satisfaction research
inthisarea.
Finally,furtherresearchis neededto buildon thecontingency modeldeveloped
andtestedhere.Otherknowledge management toolsandprocesses,suchas routines
anddirections,as wellas othercontingency factors,
including industryandproduct
and
characteristics, the business and
strategy organization structure
need to be in-
cludedin broader,and possiblymoregeneral,contingency modelsof knowledge
management.

Acknowledgments:The authorsgreatlyappreciatethe commentsVarunGroverand an anony-

mous reviewerprovided on an earlierdraftof thispaper. We thankNASA-KSC and Florida
Space GrantConsortiumfora researchgrant(#NAG10-0232) fromwhich thisstudywas par-
tiallyfunded.They are also gratefulto JamesJennings,Loren Shriver,and Pat Simpkins,who
championedthisinitiative,Shannon Roberts,who providednumerousinvaluable suggestions
duringthe course of this study,the large numberof KSC employees who participatedin this
project,and GreggBuckinghamand JunePerez fortheirhelp duringdata collection. Research
assistance providedby Hector Hartmann,Maria Ray, Jessica Riedel, and Aracelys Rodriguez
fromthe Knowledge ManagementLab at FIU is appreciated.

Notes
1. This visit was conducted afterthe questionnairesurvey.During this visit,a total of 13
interviewswere conductedwith 17 individuals,butonly 2 of these interviewsfocused on the
aspects relevantto this paper. Moreover,followingthe questionnairesurveyand before the
visitin October 2000, KSC was reorganized,and the numberof directoratesand officeswere
reduced from23 to 13.
2. Six respondentsdid not providetheirtitles,and therewere some othermissingitemsm
some responses. Following listwisedeletion,139 responses were used in the analysis.
50 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ
AND SABHERWAL

3. "Case studiesand stories," "Simulationsand game playing,""Drawing inferencesfrom

trendsin historicaldata,""Developmentofprototypes," "Learningfromprototypes," and "Learn-
ing fromconcept maps and expertsystem,"were dropped as theyloaded on multipledimen-
sions in exploratoryfactoranalysis.
4. NFI indicatestheextentto whichthehypothesizedmodel improvesover thenull model,
whereinall observed variables are specifiedas uncorrelated[3].
resultsof the
5. We chose to use a 0. 10 significancelevel as theinitialcutoffforinterpreting
analysis due to the exploratorynatureof the research.This liberal approach is oftenrecom-
mended forexploratoryresearchin orderto reduce theprobabilityof a Type II error[19, 42].

References
1. Alavi, M., and Leidner,D.E. Knowledge managementsystems:issues, challenges, and
benefits.CommunicationsoftheAssociationfor InformationSystems,1, 1 (1999), available at
cais.aisnet.org/authors.asp?auth=119.
2. Anderson,J.C., and Gerbing,D.W. Structuralequation modeling in practice: a review
and recommendedtwo-stepapproach. Psychological Bulletin,103, 3 (1988), 411-423.
3. Bentler,P.M., and Bonnett,D.G. Significancetestsand goodness-or-htin theanalysisor
covariance structures.Psychological Bulletin,88, 3 (November 1980), 588-606.
4. Boland, R.J.,and Tenkasi,R.V. Perspectivemakingand perspectivetakingin communi-
ties of knowing.OrganizationScience, 6, 4 (1995), 350-372.
5. Choo, C.W The Knowing Organization: How Organizations Use Informationto Con-
structMeaning, Create Knowledge,and Make Decisions. New York: OxfordUniversityPress,
1998.
6. Choudhury,V., and Sampler,J.Informationspecificityand environmentalscanning: an
economic perspective.MIS Quarterly,21, 1 (1997), 25-53.
7. Conner,K.R., and Prahalad,C.K. A resource-basedtheoryof thefirm:knowledgeversus
opportunism.OrganizationScience, 7, 5 (1996), 477-501.
8. Constant,D.; Sproull, L.; and Kiesler, S. The kindnessof strangers:the usefulnessof
electronicweak ties fortechnicaladvice. OrganizationScience, 7, 2 (1996), 119-135.
9. Davenport,TH., and Hansen, M.T. Knowledge managementat Andersen Consulting.
Case No. 9-499-032. Boston: HarvardBusiness School, 1999.
10. Davenport,TH., and Prusak,L. WorkingKnowledge: How OrganizationsManage What
TheyKnow. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press, 1998.
11. de Boer, M. Managing organizationalknowledgeintegrationin theemergingmultimedia
complex. Journalof ManagementStudies,36, 3 (1999), 379-398.
12. Drucker,P. Post-CapitalistSociety.New York: HarperCollins,1993.
13. Earl, M.J.,and Scott,I.A. Whatis a chiefknowledgeofficer?Sloan ManagementReview,
40, 2 (Winter1999), 28-38.
14. Fiol, CM. Consensus, diversity, and learningin organizations.OrganizationScience, 5,
3 (1994), 403-420.
15. Gerbing,D.W., and Anderson,J.C. Monte Carlo evaluationsof goodness of fitindices
forstructuralequation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 2 (1992), 132-160.
16. Grant,R.M. Prosperingin dynamically-competitive environments:organizationalcapa-
bilityas knowledge integration.OrganizationScience, 7, 4 (1996), 375-387.
17. Grant,R.M. Toward a knowledge-basedtheoryof thefirm.StrategicManagementJour-
nal, 77 (Winter 1996), 109-122.
18. Hansen, M.; Nohria,N.; and Tierney,T. What's yourstrategyformanagingknowledge?
Harvard Business Review,77, 2 (March-April 1999), 106-119.
19. Hartwig,F., and Dealing, B.E. ExploratoryData Analysis.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publi-
cations, 1979.
20. Hedlund, G. A model of knowledgemanagementand theN-formcorporation.Strategic
ManagementJournal,15 (Summer 1994), 73-90.
21. Holtshouse,D. Knowledge researchissues. CaliforniaManagementReview,40, 3 (1998),
277-280.
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 51

22. Kim, L. Crisis constructionand organizationallearning:capabilitybuildingin catching-

up at Hyundai Motor. OrganizationScience, 9, 4 (1998), 506-521.
23. Kogut,B., and Zander,U. Knowledge of the firm,combinativecapabilities and the rep-
licationof technology.OrganizationScience, 3, 3 (1992), 383-397.
24. Kusonaki, K.; Nonaka, I.; and Nagata, A. Organizationalcapabilitiesin productdevelop-
mentof Japanesefirms:a conceptualframeworkand empiricalfindings.OrganizationScience,
9, 6(1998), 699-718.
25. Lawrence, P.R., and Lorsch, J.W.Organizationand Environment:Managing Differen-
tiationand Integration.Cambridge: HarvardUniversityPress, 1967.
26. Liebeskind,J.P.;OliverA.L.; Zucker,L.; and Brewer,M. Social networks,learning,and
flexibility:sourcingscientificknowledge in new biotechnologyfirms.Organization Science,
7, 4 (July-August1996), 428-443.
27. Magalhães, K. Organizationalknowledgeand learning.In G. von Krogh,J.Roos, and D.
Kleine (eds.), Knowingin Firms: Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge.Thou-
sand Oaks: Sage Publications,1998, pp. 87-122.
28. Maturana,H., and Varela,F. The Treeof Knowledge.Boston: New Science Library,1987.
29. Nahapiet,J.,and Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectualcapital, and the organizational
advantage.Academyof ManagementReview,23, 2 (1998), 242-266.
30. Nelson, R., and Winter,S. An EvolutionaryTheoryof Economic Change. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap, 1982.
31. Nonaka, I. A dynamictheoryof organizationalknowledge creation.Organization Sci-
ence, 5, 1 (1994), 14-37.
32. Nonaka, I., and Konno, N. The concept of "ba": buildinga foundationfor knowledge
creation.CaliforniaManagementReview,40, 3 (1998), 40-54.
33. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-CreatingCompany. New York: Oxford
UniversityPress, 1995.
34. Nurmi,R. Knowledge intensivefirms.Business Horizons (May-June 1998), 26-32.
35. O'dell, C, and Grayson,C.J. If Only We Knew What We Know. New York: The Free
Press, 1998.
36. Pisano, G.P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning:an empiricalanalysis of
process development.StrategicManagementJournal,15 (Winter1994), 85-100.
37. Polanyi,M. The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966.
38. Prahalad, C.K., and Hamel, G. The core competenceof the corporation.Harvard Busi-
ness Review,68, 3 (May/June1990), 79-91.
39. Raelin, J.A model of work-basedlearning.OrganizationScience, 8, 6 (1997), 563-578.
40. Schultz, U. Investigatingthe contradictionsin knowledge management.In T.J. Larsen,
L. Levine, and J.I. De Gross (eds.), InformationSystems:CurrentIssues and Future Changes.
Laxenberg,Austria:IFIP, 1999, pp. 155-174.
41. Singley,M., and Anderson,J. The Transferof CognitiveSkill. Cambridge: HarvardUni-
versityPress, 1989.
42. Snell, S.A., and Dean, J.W. strategiccompensationtor integratedmanufacturing:the
moderatingeffectsofjobs and organizationalinertia.AcademyofManagementJournal,37, 5
(1994), 1109-1140.
43. Spender,J.C. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theoryof the firm.Strategic
ManagementJournal. 77 (Winter1996V 45-63.
44. Stone, E.F., and Hollenbeck, J.R. Clarifyingsome controversialissues surroundingsta-
tisticalproceduresfordetectingmoderatorvariables: empiricalevidence and relatedmatters.
JournalofApplied Psychology,74, 1 (1989), 3-10.
45. Szulanski, G. Exploringinternalstickiness:impedimentsto the transferof best practice
withinthe firm.StrategicManagementJournal,17 (Winter1996), 27-43.
46. Tsoukas, H. The firmas a distributedknowledge system: a constructionistapproach.
StrategicManagementJournal,77 (Winter1996), 11-25.
47. Van de Ven, A., and Delbecq, A. The effectivenessof nominal,delphi, and interacting
groupdecision-makingprocesses. Academyof ManagementJournal,17, 4 (1974), 605-621.
48. Venzin,M.; von Krogh,G.; and Roos, J.Futureresearchintoknowledgemanagement.In
G. von Krogh, J. Roos, and D. Kleine (eds.), Knowing in Firms: Understanding,Managing
and Measuring Knowledge.Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,1998, pp. 26-66.
52 BECERRA-FERNANDEZ AND SABHERWAL

49. vonHippel,E. "Stickyinformation" andthelocusofproblemsolving:implications for

innovation.Management Science,40, 4 (1994),429-439.
50. von Krogh,G., and Roos, J.A perspective on knowledge, competenceand strategy.
PersonnelReview, 24, 3 (1995),56-76.
51. vonKrogh,G.; Roos,J.;andSlocum,K. An essayon corporate epistemology.Strategic
Management Journal.15 (Summer1994),53-71.
52. Walsh,J.P.Managerialand organizational cognition:notesfroma tripdownmemory
lane.Organization Science,6, 3 (1995),280-321.
53. Weick,K.E., andRoberts, K. Collectivemindinorganizations: on
heedfulinterrelating
flightdecks.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly. 38, 3 (1993), 357-381.
54. Zack,M.H. Managingcodifiedknowledge. Sloan Management Review,40, 4 (1999),
45-58.
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 53

FactorAnalysisfor
AppendixA: Confirmatory
KnowledgeManagementProcesses

Items3 Lambdas0

Scale 1: Externalization
Modelingbased on analogiesand metaphors 0.63
Captureand transfer ofexperts'knowledge 0.62
Decisionsupportsystems 0.67
A problem-solving systembased on a technology like
case-based reasoning 0.73
Pointersto expertise(skills"yellowpages") 0.67
Chatgroups/Web-based discussiongroups 0.62
Groupwareand otherteamcollaboration tools 0.71
Scale 2: Combination
Repositoriesofinformation, best practices,and lessons learned 0.53
Web pages (Intranet and Internet) 0.82
Databases 0.81
Web-basedaccess to data 0.86
Scale 3: Socialization
The use ofapprenticesand mentorstotransfer knowledge 0.68
Brainstorming retreatsorcamps 0.53
Employeerotation across areas 0.49
Cooperativeprojectsacross directorates 0.72
Scale 4: Internalizaron
Learningbydoing 0.46
On-the-job training 0.53
Learningbyobservation 0.43
Face-to-facemeetings 0.64
(continued)
54

I S-S
LL O

Ití
g

î|
&§
I li
I fa
0 CO)

? ! * |i.
il g OcococococococD^^lg
E g £ ^ ^ ^ ö
?- ! I s"=ív^
1 8 è1" n !
II 3 S 2 -S S
i I ». °
lïïl 3 § <u
Q- "5 * _g
> (Dîîîîîî* ^c^jh

11
¡o ícx)ir>i^<McocMÍ2.£2^1ñ

^ 3 ^ á I â" § í
3..
o S 8
§ g ^ g*

fifí!
nín T-cvioir-cvirsiio^^iiSc«
CM r00O)in(Olí)00wi)T3(N
T- C'jT-T--r-T-T-C'Jbûtoû'-lu(N
I 3 i -Ia
^t >» c 5 c m o
cjco^tco^í-Ti- "^-^b^rsd

-
??????"-!
(O(O(Ö(O(Ö(ÖW
!>-§s r Y!
3cg5.-a

o www««»)« chSü*

.E 2 DTJU-DXJ-DT] W38SS3<¡

T5 g sssssss.S««ee§8
äO <d oooooooißS^^^c:
S3 CQ ■r-cMco'^-incor^.o^cö^uT.
 ORGANIZATIONAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT 55

AppendixB: TheMeasuresofKnowledgeEffectiveness
Factoranalysis(principal
components method withVarimax rotation
andKaiserNor-
malization;
eigenvaluegreater than1) of the 11 itemsused to measureknowledge
effectiveness
produced two cleanfactorsonlyafter fiveofthe11 itemsweredropped.
Moreover,an examination of the screeplotindicated Factors1,2, and3
one factor.
hadeigenvalues of3.34,1.05,withthecorresponding variancesexplainedbeing0.64,
55.58,17.34,and10.39percent. Wetherefore usedthesinglefactor,includingthe11
itemsgivenbelow,to measureperceived knowledge effectiveness.

withtheknowledgeavailableto you,to
We wouldliketo access yoursatisfaction
ingeneral,andtoKSC atan overalllevel.Pleaseindicatetheextent
yourdirectorate
to whichyoudisagreeoragreewitheachofthefollowing statementbyCIRCLING
number
theappropriate from1 to 5.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
1. You aresatisfiedwiththeavailabilityof
for
knowledge your tasks. 12 3 4 5
2. The availableknowledge improves your
inperforming
effectiveness yourtasks. 12 3 4 5
3. You aresatisfiedwiththemanagement
ofknowledge youneed. 12 3 4 5
4. You aresatisfiedwiththeknowledge
availableforthetasksinyourdirectorate. 12 3 4 5
5. You aresatisfiedwithknowledge sharing
among individualsat yourdirectorate. 12 3 4 5
6. The availableknowledge improves the
ofyourdirectorate.
effectiveness 12 3 4 5
7. You aresatisfiedwiththemanagement of
at
knowledge your directorate. 12 3 4 5
8. You aresatisfiedwiththeknowledge
availableforvarioustasksacrossKSC. 12 3 4 5
9. You aresatisfiedwithknowledge sharing
among variousdirectoratesat KSC. 12 3 4 5
10. The availableknowledge improves KSC's
overalleffectiveness. 12 3 4 5
11. You aresatisfiedwiththemanagement
ofknowledge at KSC. 12 3 4 5