The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0368-492X.htm

Organizational
The effect of knowledge intelligence
management, e-learning systems
and organizational learning on
organizational intelligence 2455
Zeynab Soltani and Batool Zareie Received 13 December 2018
Revised 26 February 2019
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, 15 May 2019
Tabriz, Iran 22 June 2019
17 August 2019
Accepted 27 September 2019
Leila Rajabiun
University of South Florida, Florida, USA, and
Ali Agha Mohseni Fashami
Department of Public Administration, Faculty of Management,
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – Nowadays, organizations are facing fast markets’ changing, competition strategies, technological
innovations and accessibility of information. In such highly dynamic situations, many factors must be
coordinated to realize effective decision-making. In addition, the definition of organizational intelligence is as
follows: intellectual ability to answer organizational issues and focus on the unification of human and mechanical
abilities for solving problems. This paper aims to investigate important factors (organizational learning,
knowledge management and e-learning systems) that influence organizational intelligence.
Design/methodology/approach – Data have been collected from 290 personnel of tax administration of
East Azarbaijan, Iran. For measuring the model’s elements, a questionnaire has been proposed. Surveys have
been reviewed by experts with significant experiences in the organizational intelligence field. For statistical
analysis of questionnaires, the statistical package social sciences 25 and SMART-partial least squares 0.3
have been used.
Findings – Findings from the study verify the validity of the design for an organizational intelligence
assessment. The outcomes indicate that e-learning systems positively affected organizational intelligence. In
addition, they show that the influence of knowledge management and organizational learning on
organizational intelligence is important.
Originality/value – Organizational intelligence’s multidimensional nature makes it a very useful and
essential management tool. Therefore, it provides beneficial results for the organizations’ managers to study
the important factors affecting it.

Keywords Knowledge management, Organizational learning, Organizational intelligence,

E-learning systems
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Kybernetes
The idea of organizational intelligence (OI) has been suggested in 1967. It had a huge impact Vol. 49 No. 10, 2020
pp. 2455-2474
on the efficiency of the organization (Rezaei, 2012). Harold (1967) has observed OI regarding © Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
inferring, collecting and processing the required data for making decisions. OI is the mixture DOI 10.1108/K-12-2018-0672
K of skills and knowledge used to perform activities of organizations using inside both
49,10 organization’s intangible and tangible assets (Jung, 2009). OI tries to collect data, to produce
knowledge and to perform efficiently according to the created knowledge (Magala et al.,
2007). OI is a group of mental capabilities of a supposed business (Matsuda, 1992), wherein
artificial and human intelligence both seen as the tactical capability to produce knowledge
for using in trade. The OI theory aims at detecting weak and strong points of the
2456 organization and offering the required tactics to help organizational functioning by the
evaluation of intelligence state of the business (Bahrami et al., 2016). So, OI addresses a
procedure of transforming (data into knowledge and knowledge into performance) for
organizational advantage, enhancing novelties and producing and sharing knowledge
(Keshavarz et al., 2018; Staskeviciute-Butiene et al., 2016).
On the other hand, the recent well-known belief is that the essential factors in the global
economy’s competitive success are creativity, skills and knowledge’ influential exploitation
(Damodaran and Olphert, 2000). Organizations should be capable of getting proper
knowledge at the right moment and applying the knowledge in their proper procedures.
Therefore, updating knowledge is essential in the company. Similarly, the system of
management of knowledge must be available for organizations. So, organizations need to
learn how they will acquire the knowledge and apply it (Demirel et al., 2013). Furthermore,
an organization’s ability in managing and learning the knowledge, using the knowledge to
effective decision-making, and adapting to environmental changes of the business, is
referred to as organizations intelligence. As Argote (2012) has said, companies in the service
sector are progressively mounting, and they have different rates of learning affecting
efficiency, functioning and tactical managing choices. Cyert and March (1963) have
indicated that learning is a useful tactic to increase the productivity of a company and
occurs when behaviors change (Bahrami et al., 2016). Learning can enhance the efficiency of
managing to capture chances (Li et al., 2014). Electronic learning is a novel kind of learning
for organizations nowadays (Seok, 2008). It can help employees both to gain and apply the
skills, knowledge and attitudes required for the expert performance (Dwyer, 1999). The
organizational learning has been defined as the procedure of identifying and modifying
mistakes concluded from distributing knowledge, suppositions and beliefs between persons
and groups by Argyris and Schön (1997).
Beside many constructs used to prophesy variability’s modest amounts in OI, the need
for studying the predictors in a broader range has been considered by scientists. The claim’s
analysis says that organizational learning, knowledge management and e-learning systems’
combination construct could be the important factors in OI prediction. Therefore, to reduce
the lack of empirical research in this area, the relationships between e-learning systems,
knowledge managing, organizational learning and OI have been examined in the current
study. Current research’s specific goal is developing the basis of a theory for a new
methodology for achieving and modeling OI. In addition, other core objectives are:

providing a framework and a model for specifying the OI’s effective factors;

examining the roles of systems of e-learning, knowledge management and
organizational learning in OI; and

exploring the future challenges in OI.

This remaining of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the previous works.
Section 3 describes the design and hypotheses of the research. Section 4 discusses the
practice of the research by the participants and the collection of data description. Section 5
presents the analysis of data (measurement model, the R2, path coefficient, the Goodness of
Fit (GoF), T-test results). Section 6 provides the discussion. Finally, part 7 presents Organizational
conclusions. intelligence
2. Related work
OI includes developing insights using inferring and the recall of previous knowledge to help
awareness and act using the established explanations (Choo, 2002; Edelman and van
Knippenberg, 2018). It refers to a method of turning data into knowledge and knowledge
into action for organizational improvement (De Angelis, 2013; Miao et al., 2018). It also
2457
addresses the capability of a company to gather data, perform efficiently and produce
knowledge, according to the produced knowledge (Magala et al., 2007; Saberi and Ekhtiyari,
2019). It has been deliberated in previous works that OI relies on an organized network of
professional analysts using their practical ability, knowledge, and individual experiences to
back the decision-making and sense-making procedures (De Angelis, 2013) and this is how
these two have a connection with each other (Keshavarz et al., 2018). Research on OI began
many years ago, and many researchers such as Liebowitz (1999), March (1999), Matsuda
(1992) and Albrecht (2003) have discussed it. However, in the limited articles, the
relationship between OI and the three identified variables has been investigated (especially
e-learning). The remainder of the current part presents an overview of the current research
in this field.
Pratiwi et al. (2019) have examined the effect of intelligence, knowledge, work experience
and additional employee income on the functioning of state civil device. The result has
shown that all the variables (intelligence, knowledge, work experience and additional
employee income) influence the functioning of the state civil device. Moreover, employee
income is the most influential variable compared to other independent ones.
Keshavarz et al. (2018) have explored the probable association among knowledge
managing infrastructures (KMI) and OI. This study was a survey in a descriptive manner.
Data have been investigated via statistical package social sciences (SPSS) and partial least
squares (PLS). The result has shown the value of the two variables (KMI and OI) along with
their strong association and connection.
Thannhuber et al. (2017) have investigated the managing of OI and knowledge in auto-
poietic procedure managing mechanisms. A new approach of knowledge management (KM)
in engineering fields has been introduced in the cooperative institutional research program
General Assembly 2001 titled “An Autopoietic Approach for building KM in manufacturing
enterprises” (Thannhuber et al., 2001). According to this novel procedure, the managing
system has been improved and applied. It stimulates business behavior through imitating
intelligence and knowledge gaining.
Also, Bahrami et al. (2016) have examined the mediating role of organizational learning in
the association between agility and OI. The results have shown that organizational learning
performs as a facilitator in the association between organizational agility and intelligence.
Moreover, there is a statistical association between organizational agility and organizational
learning. The outcomes have shown that the development of organizational learning
capabilities may have an effect on the organization’s agility that is vital for its existence.
As another research in this scope, Istudor et al. (2016) have proposed a hypothetical
outline of OI backed with a cross-perspective investigation of some characteristics: economic
intelligence and KM processes, entropy procedures and organizational enablers. A pilot
examination for analyzing the outline has been elaborated. The results have demonstrated
that the components of the OI outline need to be further developed. The results have also
shown that OI is a multi-dimensional construct that provides the company the capability to
handle the peripheral problems in a “new economy”.
K Also, Oh and Kim (2016) have developed the indicators and the framework for evaluating
49,10 organizational knowledge’ levels. The experimental analysis shows that OI measurement
contributed to finding the status of organizational KM. The quantitative findings from this
paper provide applicable visions into strategy development for organizational KM.
Furthermore, De Angelis (2013) has investigated KM and OI model; the development of
KM and empirical tests using structural equation modeling (SEM) have also explored. Based
2458 on the obtained results, the importance of KM and OI is confirmed.
Lefter et al. (2008) have discussed the insights of OI aspects in Romanian organizations
by considering the grade of personnel awareness and the overall investments. The results
can be extended to analyze the areas of progress via relating the aspects of the OI to the
macroeconomic, developing criteria. Moreover, the results have shown the association
among the quality of the human organizational capital and the learning processes at the
organizational level.
As another research in this scope, Magala et al. (2007) have examined the leveraging of
understanding the OI by the structure theory. The paper tries to unify the disjointed
opinions on OI from the perspective of Giddens’ theory. The result has shown that a
structured approach of OI eliminates the organization/personal level intelligence
contradiction.
Furthermore, Williams (2006) has studied the critical terms in KM to propose an outline
for a practical and theoretical understanding of KM; In addition, a complete valuation of the
implicit/explicit distinction technique to KM has provided. New differences among formal
and informal data, the procedure of proposing objective data, procedural information and
contextual examination and a model of knowledge have also presented.
Finally, Carneiro (2001) has examined the role of intelligent resources in KM. The
relationships between human value and technology have also inspected. In this paper, a
theoretical model of KM productivity by the mixture of intelligent mechanisms’ resources
and intelligent factors’ role has proposed. The results of this research have provided
substantial evidence to verify that IT, the intelligent factors and strategic decision-support
systems are important.

3. Proposed research model

Current part investigates the association among electronic learning systems, KM
and organizational learning and OI by several indicators. The significant variables and
indicators affecting the OI by KM (knowledge-creating, knowledge accumulation and
knowledge sharing), organizational learning contains (training availability, knowledge level
and technical expertise) and e-learning systems (problem-solving, experienced effectiveness
and interactive intent to apply electronic learning) have been investigated. The remainder of
the present part inspects and deliberates the above factors.

3.1 Organizational intelligence

OI has been defined as the coefficients quantifying the organizational activity levels for
decision-making. As a theoretical concept, OI is very important in organizational theory. Its
definition is the intellectual skill and capability of a business to solve the related issues. The
emphasis is on the unification of human and practical aptitudes for responding to the
problems. The ability of a business to produce knowledge and use it through tactically
applying it on a condition/market is OI. The investigation of OI demonstrates the intellectual
capability of the entire organization, so we compute the intelligence of individuals via
intelligence quotient (IQ). It is the same as IQ but used at a business area as organizational
intelligence quotient (Shabbir et al., 2016).
3.2 Electronic-learning systems Organizational
Electronic learning has been defined as the application of the internet and novel technologies intelligence
to promote the learning by allowing the on-demand access to resources and services, by the
European Commission (Jafari Navimipour and Zareie, 2015). Many new companies provide
several amenities to activate the efficient theme of IT-oriented learning answers (Alavi and
Leidner, 2001). E-learning can be defined as the technique of delivering awareness and
training using any electronic media (Al-Omari et al., 2015; Carpenter, 2017). It has been
considered as an emerging technology that makes an impact on the workforce (Chang, 2016). 2459
An e-learning approach mixes electronic learning with direct speeches where pupils can
have the opportunity to enhance more personal and team capabilities (Reyes, 2012). Many
organizations use e-learning as an approach to learning, it has been a popular and essential
trend in recent years. Tarhini et al. (2016) have shown that corporate e-learning can use
online training to support individual purposes and enterprise purposes. The present paper
examines the impact of electronic learning mechanisms on OI. This variable includes the
following indicators: problem-solving, experienced practicality and behavioral intent to
apply electronic learning.

3.3 Knowledge management

The role of knowledge has become a hot debate for organizations to gain the potential
advantage (Quintas et al., 1997). Knowledge is the most powerful tool that can last for
centuries (Rajabion et al., 2012). Generating and applying knowledge has been thought as
the main capability of a business to produce a maintainable competitive benefit (Nonaka and
Toyama, 2003; Rajabion et al., 2019). Also, according to (Drucker, 1995) and (Demarest,
1997), knowledge is the key to effective competition. To achieve a sustainable competitive
advantage in organizational life, experts have acknowledged that KM can play an important
role (Pandey et al., 2018; Vahdat et al., 2020). In the IT-based industry, the competitiveness of
a firm is primarily determined by the knowledge. The knowledge of an organization is
considered to be derived from its staffs but is not systematically managed (Akhavan et al.,
2019; Zhu et al., 2015). KM gets the information of the customer and continually shares it
through the organization (Kim et al., 2018). Also, it addresses the procedure by which
businesses investigate existing information and data (Aggestam, 2015; Kezar, 2005). A KM
system supports KM actions using a set of tools. These tools are more complicated
compared to simple information mechanisms as they are in charge of creating a condition to
simplify the generating, transmission and usage of knowledge (Calvo-Mora et al., 2015). KM
includes the following indicators: knowledge creating, knowledge accumulation and
knowledge sharing.

3.4 Organizational learning

Organizational learning has been defined as a procedure of identifying and modifying errors
derived from distributing knowledge, opinions and suppositions about people and groups
(Zappa and Robins, 2016). It is a kind of learning that is studying the learning method of
organizations and so it increases novelty, competitiveness and efficacy. Also, in the context
of information systems, semantic learning can extend the notion of organizational learning
into a semantic dimension (Abel, 2015). Argyris and Schön (1978) have discussed single-loop
and double-loop learning as two levels of organizational learning. Neefe (2001) has
suggested that business learning is obtained from five scopes: personal abilities, mental
models, vision, group learning or teamwork and mechanisms’ thinking. There are many
applications for the notion of OI and the idea of the intelligent organization links intimately
with that of the learning organization (Yolles, 2005). This study considers organizational
K learning as a vital feature in OI. Organizational learning comprises the following indicators:
49,10 training availability, knowledge level and technical expertise.

3.5 The proposed model

The aim of the present paper is to establish a new model for assessing the impact of
electronic learning mechanisms, KM and organizational learning on OI. Table I shows the
2460
used variables of e-learning systems, KM, organizational learning and OI in the presented
model and other related works.
Also, Figure 1 illustrates the proposed conceptual framework in this paper.

3.6 Research hypotheses

To assess the proposed model, the following hypotheses have been provided:
This research has considered e-learning systems as important factors in OI. These
variables include the following indicators: problem-solving, perceived usefulness and

Variables
E-learning Knowledge Organizational Organizational
Reference systems management learning intelligence

Carneiro (2001) * *
Lefter et al. (2008) * *
Abel (2008) * *
De Angelis (2013) * *
Schneckenberg et al. (2015) * *
Istudor et al. (2016) * *
Bahrami et al. (2016) * *
Sasaki (2017) * *
Table I. Thannhuber et al. (2017) * *
Documentation of the Carayannis et al. (2017) * *
paper’s variables The proposed model * * * *

E-learning systems Knowledge management

• Problem-solving • Knowledge creating
• Perceived usefulness • Knowledge accumulation
• Behavioral intention to use e- • Knowledge sharing
learning

Organizational
Intelligence

Organizational learning
Figure 1. • Training availability
• Knowledge level
The conceptual
• Technical expertise
model
behavioral intention to use e-learning. According to those theoretical and empirical models, Organizational
the first hypothesis has been expressed as follow: intelligence
H1. A positive association exists among electronic learning systems and OI.
OI is a new fascinating concept to solve the issues in tactical managing. Its principle bolds a
business’ ability to extend an effective performance guaranteeing a correct reflex to the
situation’s changes and insecurity. Since OI relies heavily on KM, it has been considered as 2461
an important factor in OI. KM includes the following indicators: knowledge creating,
knowledge accumulation and knowledge sharing. So, the effect of the KM efforts on OI is
examined through H2 as follows:

H2. A positive association exists among knowledge managing and OI.

Many papers have shown that organizational learning is an important factor in OI (Bahrami
et al., 2016). We have considered organizational learning as one of the factors influencing OI.
Organizational learning includes the following indicators: training availability, knowledge
level and technical expertise. Based on the above opinions, H3 is expressed as follow:

H3. A positive association exists among organizational learning and OI.

4. Methodology
The research model of this study contains e-learning systems, organizational learning and
KM as three main independent elements and OI as a dependent one. Measurement
instruments of them have been taken from current and usually used sources, which are
accepted in the international field. The remainder of the present part defines the data
collection, the measurement model, the R2 value, path coefficients, the GoF and T-test
outcomes.

4.1 Measurement instruments

This study examines organization intelligence at the employees’ level and the organization
management one. A questionnaire has been proposed for assessing the components of the
model. Questionnaires have been reviewed by specialists experienced in the organization
intelligence field. Questionnaires have been delivered to personnel of the tax organization.
The measurement scales used in the current research are based on previously validated
scales. The scales have been evaluated based on a Likert scale (a five-point one from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”). Whole measures of the related constructs including
e-learning systems, knowledge management, OI and organizational learning have been
presented in Table III. For the statistical investigation of the questionnaires, the SMART-
PLS 3.2 and SPSS 25 have been used. The PLS escapes numerous limiting suppositions of
fundamental covariance-oriented SEM methods. Moreover, the PLS enables formative and
reflective constructs to be verified in the model. Therefore, this study, which contains
formative structures, uses the PLS for data analysis. This study also has some limitations
despite its advantages. The first one is that the assessment of the model on r-squares of the
various facilitating and dependent variables complicates the comparison between the model
and the other ones (Shackman, 2013). Also, smart PLS has to determine the trustworthiness
and validness by fewer statistical means in comparison to covariance structures (Fuchs,
2011).
K 4.2 Data collection
49,10 OI increases access to knowledge in organizations and creates a competitive advantage to
improve efficiency and effectiveness in tax organization. Tax organization can review the
existing situation of structural organizational dimensions to offer an essential field for
developing and implementing OI. The desired samples of the present paper are the
personnel of the tax administration of East Azarbaijan, Iran. Based on Morgan table, the
2462 population has been selected. So, 300 subjects have been arbitrarily chosen. Of the 297
responded questionnaires, seven have been considered ineffectual (unfinished); It has led to
a total of 290 personnel’ questionnaires for the analysis. In the questionnaires of the study,
the five-point Likert scale has been used and 21 questions have been designed. A high ratio
of the respondents (72 per cent) was male and belonged to the age group of 35-45. Table II
presents the subjects’ demography.

4.3 Measurement model

The convergent and the discriminant validness tests can be done to investigate the
measuring ability of the pointers of every one of the elements (Table III) for the matching
variables. Reflective measurement models should be measured about their validity and
reliability. Convergent validness has been assessed with the composite reliability (CR), the
Cronbach’s alpha (CA) and the average variance extracted (AVE) (Zhao and Cao, 2015).
Also, reflective measurement models’ validity assessment emphasizes on convergent
validness (AVE > 0.5, i.e. the latent variable describes the variance of its pointers higher
than 50 per cent), and CA (the lowest value of it is 0.7) (Cronbach, 1951). In this study, CA is
greater than 0.7, the CR is more than 0.7 and the AVE is more than 0.5. Based on the findings
of Chin and Dibbern (2010), the convergent validness of the sample is appropriate for more
analyses. The convergent and discriminant validness have been indicated in Tables III and
IV, correspondingly.
Table IV offers each structure’ AVE amounts and the square of the assessed
relationships for each couple of the constructs. The above evidence supports the presence of
discriminant validness among the constructs as the AVE amounts are more than the
estimated squared relationships.

5. Results and discussion

For evaluating the fitness of the model, the following three indexes have been employed:
The T- values, the GOF index, the path coefficients index and the R2 value

Measure Item Frequency (%)

Gender Female 80 27.6

Male 210 72.4
Age Under 25 15 5.2
25-35 67 23.1
35-45 161 55.5
Over 45 47 16.2
Education Associate 30 10.3
Table II. Bachelor 59 20.3
Respondents’ Master 174 60.0
demography PhD 27 9.3
 Constructs References Loadings CR CA AVE Mean SD

E-learning Problem-solving Liaw et al. 0.61 0.90 0.85 0.69 1.5739 0.50208
systems ES1: The e-learning system enhances my problem-solving (2007) 0.96
skills
ES2: The e-learning system improves my thinking skills
Perceived usefulness
ES3: I believe using e-learning environments is helpful for 0.71
learning
Behavioral intention to use e-learning
ES4: I intend to use e-learning to assist my job 0.96
ES5: I intend to use online instruction to help my job 0.89
Knowledge Knowledge creation by information understandings Lee et al. (2005) 0.86 0.85 0.62 1.6164 0.54430
management KM1: I understand that computer programs need to perform 0.70
the tasks and use them well
Knowledge sharing
KM2: We share the necessary information and knowledge for 0.95
the tasks 0.93
KM3: We improve task efficiency by sharing information and
knowledge
Knowledge accumulation
KM4: We try to store expertise on new tasks’ design and 0.85
development 0.96
KM5: We can systematically administer the necessary
knowledge for the tasks and store it for further usage
Organizational Training availability García-Morales 0.89 0.80 0.73 1.5679 0.41616
learning OL1: My organization considers employee training as an et al. (2012), 0.63
investment, not an expense Lin and Lee
Knowledge level (2005)
OL2: The organization acquires and shares much new and 0.94
relevant knowledge that provided a competitive advantage 0.92
OL3: Organizational improvements have been influenced by
new knowledge entering the organization

(continued)

Table III.
Organizational
intelligence

model measuring
2463

reliability of the
validity and
The convergent
 K
49,10

2464

Table III.
Constructs References Loadings CR CA AVE Mean SD

Technical expertise 0.84

OL4: IS employees are generally very knowledgeable 0.79
regarding technical matters
OL5: My organization contains considerable technical
expertise
Organizational OI1: Is there an ongoing “strategic conversation” throughout Albrecht (2002) 0.86 0.94 0.93 0.63 1.7630 0.41970
intelligence the organization, i.e. a discussion of the business environment 0.59
and ways to meet its challenges? 0.84
OI2: Do people in diverse departments help others to share 0.87
information and ideas freely? 0.86
OI3: Are the products and services continually evolving with 0.88
the changing demands of the business environment? 0.87
OI4: Do managers work with energy, fervor and hopefulness?
OI5: Do ICT empower the employees to work effectively?
OI6: Do managers show respect and thankfulness for
knowledge and education as the key resources and workers’
abilities?
5.1 R2 value and path coefficients index Organizational
Primary estimation indices for the architectural model are the R2 measure and the intelligence
significance level of the path coefficients (Hair et al., 2011). The R2 assesses the quality
of the internal model; it is computed for every endogenous variable based on latent
variables that are describing it (Stan and Saporta, 2010). Based on the effect volumes
determined for R2 by Cohen (1977), they can be categorized into small, medium and
large (R2small = 0.02; R2medium = 0.13; R2large = 0.26) (Wetzels et al., 2009). The alteration
possibility of R2 for the presented model was 0.359, which indicates a good fit for the 2465
selected independent variables. By analyzing Figure 2, it is possible to determine that
the three hypotheses are supported.
Figure 2 shows the three path coefficients. The normalized path coefficients show the
comparative strength of the effect of every precursor. Initially, the path coefficient among
e-learning systems and OI was 0.42, p < 0.01, which shows that e-learning systems have a
meaningful and positive effect on OI. Second, the path coefficient between KM and OI was
0.17, p < 0.01, showing that KM has a meaningful and positive effect on OI. Third, the path
coefficient among organizational learning and OI was 0.23, p < 0.001, which shows that
organizational learning has a meaningful and positive effect on OI. The outcomes indicate
that all hypotheses are verified.

E-learning Knowledge Organizational Organizational

systems management learning intelligence

E-learning systems 0.84

Knowledge management 0.27 0.79
Organizational learning 0.24 0.20 0.85
Table IV.
Organizational intelligence 0.52 0.33 0.36 0.80 The discriminant
validity of the
Note: The italic amounts (diagonal ones) are the square roots of AVE measurement model

E-learning systems
• Problem-solving Knowledge management
• Perceived usefulness • Knowledge creating
• Behavioral intention to use e- • Knowledge accumulation
learning • Knowledge sharing

Organizational
Intelligence
R 2 = 0.36

Organizational learning Figure 2.

• Training availability The path coefficients
• Knowledge level of the model’s
• Technical expertise elements
K 5.2 T-test results
49,10 The hypotheses have been examined by a 21-element questionnaire delivered to 290
personnel of tax administration of East Azarbaijan. When the construct validity and
reliability have been verified, the next stage is to assess the hypotheses using Smart PLS
algorithm. Figure 3 shows the achieved results. Every hypothesis has been examined by
analyzing the statistical significance of path coefficients ( b ) between variables. The higher
2466 the b , the higher the impact of a predictor latent variable on the dependent variable.
The path coefficients ( b 1 to b 3) have been verified as significant by analyzing the
meaningfulness of the t amount for every path coefficient; it has been shown by using the
bootstrapping function of the Smart PLS 3.2.
The synopsis of the path outcomes and the relating t amounts can be seen in Table V. As
shown in Table V, the hypotheses are all meaningful and positive. The normalized
coefficient among e-learning systems and OI was 0.42 (t = 5.32). So, the H1 is verified. The
path coefficient between KM and OI was 0.17 (t = 3.92). Therefore, the H2 is verified, too.
Also, the path coefficient among organizational learning and OI is 0.23 (t = 3.09), p < 0.01,
showing that organizational learning has a meaningful and positive impact on OI.

5.3 The goodness of fit

Recently, the GoF (0 < GoF < 1) has been named as the geometric mean of the average
communality and average R2. GoFsmall = 0.1, GoFmedium = 0.25 and GoFlarge = 0.36; these
can be used as reference amounts for confirming the PLS model worldwide (Wetzels et al.,
2009). The GoF index is calculated by (1):

E-learning systems
Knowledge management
• Problem-solving
• Knowledge creating
• Perceived usefulness
• Knowledge accumulation
• Behavioral intention to use e-
learning • Knowledge sharing

Organizational
Intelligence

Organizational learning
• Training availability
Figure 3. • Knowledge level
T-test results • Technical expertise

Hypothesis Relationship B T-value Supported

H1 E-learning systems ! Organizational intelligence 0.42 5.32*** Yes

Table V. H2 Knowledge management ! Organizational intelligence 0.17 3.92*** Yes
Summarization of the H3 Organizational learning ! Organizational intelligence 0.23 3.09** Yes
results and
hypothesis tests Notes: **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
GOF ¼ AVE  R2 (1) Organizational
intelligence
The AVE is calculated via equation (2):

1 X n
m AVE ¼  xi (2)
n i¼1
2467
0:69 þ 0:62 þ 0:73 þ 0:63
m AVE ¼
4

m AVE ¼ 0:66

The outcomes of the primary model by the use of an internal model path weighting outline
indicate a considerable R2 of 0.36 for OI. The R2 average amount is computed by:

1 X n
m R2 ¼  xi (3)
n i¼1

m R2 ¼ 0:36

By replacing equations (2) and (3) into equation (1), the GoF is calculated by:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
GOF ¼ 0:66  0:36 ¼ 0:49

We acquired a GoF amount of 0.49, surpassing the cut-off amount of 0.36 for big impact
volumes of R2 and enabling us to find that the proposed model outperforms the primary
amounts. So, the architecture of the model fits well with the data.

6. Discussion and future works

For organizations, although it sounds necessary to accept the change’ nature, only a small
number of researchers investigate the company properties such as OI, electronic learning
systems, KM and organizational learning. Therefore, the objective of the present study is to
test the facilitating effect of electronic learning systems, KM and organizational learning on
the associations of OI. The data of this study have been gathered through questionnaire
from the personnel of the tax administration of East Azarbaijan, Iran. This study provides a
comprehensive OI framework and proposes a model of crucial issues for OI. The statistical
outcomes have indicated that the three proposed hypotheses are confirmed.
As indicated in Table V (outcomes of the sample t-test and path coefficient), organization
intelligence has a positive relationship with e-learning systems ( b = 0.42, t = 5.32, p < 0.001)
by which H1 is supported. Because of the recognition of the positive impact of OI on
e-learning, it is possible to provide the context for the development of e-learning by
increasing intelligence power and technology. For the first time, this study has studied and
confirmed the association between e-learning and OI. OI was significantly and positively
influenced by KM ( b = 0.19, t = 3.62, p < 0.001). Therefore, the results have indicated that
there is a significant relationship between the management of knowledge and OI. This
K finding means that the emphasis on KM and its observance by organizations can lead to the
49,10 influence of each variable on another successful implementation in the organization. Our
results have indicated that the last objective of KM in this organization is to increase the
intelligence or the intelligence quotient of the organization. H1 was consistent with the
research of De Angelis (2013). Also, H3 was supported ( b = 0.23, t = 3.09, p < 0.01). Results
have indicated a significant relationship between organizational learning and OI. The
2468 outcomes showed that attention to organizational learning could lead to the utilization of
appropriate information systems based on the organizational requirement and the creation
of KM and the increase of. Based on the obtained results, OI requires planning and
organizational learning. First, it should be planned, according to the organization vision.
Also, learning can be considered as the source and the foundation of the competitive
advantage. This hypothesis is consistent with the research of Bahrami et al. (2016).
The results of SEM have indicated that business learning directly affects OI and
indirectly affects organizational performance. According to the findings, increasing the
organizational learning capacity and OI could lead to the improvement, development and
consequently, the enhancement of the efficiency and effectiveness of organization activities.
Thus, H1, H2 and H3 are supported. Because of the fact that the tax organization faces a
turbulent and unrest environment in terms of scientific and technological developments
with a complex environment, environmental factors threaten all sides of the life and survival
of the organization, and hence it needs to analyze its strengths and weaknesses accurately
and use the opportunities and prepare themselves to deal with threats by relying on the
strengths. This issue is possible in the form of OI. Managers of the organization must have
the components of OI. They should progress on the path to the realization of the goals by
using e-learning and KM and drawing the goals and missions of the organization effectively
and successfully. Therefore, the organizations will be successful by acquiring knowledge,
awareness of environmental factors, their life and survival, at the same time providing the
basis for the growth and dynamism and the increase of the organization’s performance
through OI. Also, this procedure could be reinforced by fuzzy logic (Aghazadeh et al., 2015;
Ahmadian et al., 2014; Ghadimi, 2015; Hashemi et al., 2013) and neural networks (Abedinia
et al., 2018; Hagh et al., 2015; Razmjooy et al., 2018).
In addition, future challenges for OI can include many lines. Although OI helps
companies to make decisions consciously, many companies cannot easily use OI
capabilities. The first problem of businesses in implementing OI is finding suitable
solutions. Most companies examine internal and external requirements (as the most
important step). This step is an essential part of the process of finding the most appropriate
solution for organizations. Before anything, it needs to collect a set of needs and goals of the
organization. Consultation with important stakeholders such as the department of IT,
department of marketing, department of sales, department of exploitation and department of
operation is very useful. As these requirements are collected, the managers arrange a list of
requirements: must-haves, want-haves and nice-haves.
The second challenge is investment justification. Companies use OI to improve the
effectiveness of operations and financial savings. However, if the implementation of the
project and the establishment of OI in the company do not have a suitable return on
investment, there is no economic justification. Managers of any business wanting to set up a
justification plan of the implementation cost of the OI system should know the obvious
benefits of OI. In addition, lack of experts for data using is the third issue. Imagine a
situation that employees are not able to use data. Therefore, there is no doubt that
appropriate staff is vital in OI solution. In each industry, executives make their effort to put
up data orientation into their organizational culture. These efforts mean empowering Organizational
employees with new skills. intelligence
7. Conclusions, limitations and implications
OI is an appearance of information processing and expressive proficiencies, which is
regenerated and altered by the constructs of significance and legitimation, and vice versa.
However, researchers should also examine OI empirically. This study explored the impact of 2469
e-learning systems, KM and organizational learning on OI. The findings have shown a
significant relationship between e-learning system and OI. E-learning systems indicators
include the problem-solving, experienced practicality and interactive intent to apply
electronic learning. The findings have also indicated that KM is viewed as the main factor in
OI. KM indicators include knowledge creating, knowledge accumulation and knowledge
sharing. Furthermore, the results have indicated that the influence of the organizational
learning variable (training availability, knowledge level and technical expertise) on OI is
significant and positive.

7.1 Limitations
The limitations of the study contain the low response rate to the review, the geographically
homogenous group of respondents and common variance bias. The present study only
adopts a cross-sectional method. So, one limitation of the study is the limited capability to
derive absolute causal implications. Considering the importance of OI role in the promotion
of an organization, organization managers can take active steps to develop OI based on
determining factors. Furthermore, the organizations are suggested to hold training
workshops and meetings and offer an improved understanding of the OI and functional
ways for using this type of intelligence to develop the OI and its positive results. On the
other hand, the organizations’ managers should create chances for using the employees’
experiences in different fields to expand the knowledge and information and teach the
employees needed skills for performing the organizational tasks. For competing with other
organizations, the organizations are recommended to assess the OI and expand the
knowledge, accordingly.

7.2 Theoretical contribution

By capturing several important issues in the model, the present paper could offer a
substantial notional influence on the related academics. The present paper provides
a valuable summary to understand the current state of OI. This review can serve as a
reference for scholars because it assesses the relationships among three organizational
aspects. Additionally, the paper provides a picture of the existing literature and highlights
the research gaps where further exploration is needed to assist organizations in enhancing
the success of OI.

7.3 Practical implications

At the managerial level, the findings have provided some recommendations to service firms.
The findings have confirmed the results of previous studies. It indicates a positive
association among e-learning, organization learning and OI. Hence, aspects relating to these
factors must be the focus of any organization in their endeavor to develop OI. This study
provides a valuable summary to understand the current state of OI. It can serve as a
reference for scholars because it assesses the relationships among three organizational
aspects. Additionally, the paper provides a picture of the existing literature and highlights
K the research gaps where further exploration is needed to assist organizations in enhancing
49,10 the success of OI. For instance, some factors (such as capital, equipment, infrastructure,
quality and quantity of training design, staff motivation and wise management to adopt
new technologies in education) can benefit from e-learning for improving OI. Managers have
enough precision in attracting and training human resources to enhance OI. In addition,
collaborative culture can be promoted for the participation of employees and knowledge
2470 enhancement to achieve the desired OI.
Finally, some tools (such as virtual meeting and exchanging experiences) can be
applied to KM and knowledge resources. In addition, using KM and OI is helpful for
businesses to take competitive benefits and enhance their functioning. So, as
organizations are dealing with the novel advancement of technologies and novelties,
the personnel will be more interested in working and finishing the jobs in an improved
and useful way.

References
Abedinia, O., Amjady, N. and Ghadimi, N. (2018), “Solar energy forecasting based on a hybrid neural
network and improved metaheuristic algorithm”, Computational Intelligence, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 241-260.
Abel, M.-H. (2008), “Competencies management and learning organizational memory”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 15-30.
Abel, M.-H. (2015), “Knowledge map-based web platform to facilitate organizational learning return of
experiences”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 960-966.
Aggestam, L. (2015), “Learning organization or knowledge management – which came first, the chicken
or the egg?”, Information Technology and Control, Vol. 35 No. 3.
Aghazadeh, H., Germi, M.B., Khiav, B.E. and Ghadimi, N. (2015), “Robust placement and tuning of
UPFC via a new multiobjective scheme-based fuzzy theory”, Complexity, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 126-137.
Ahmadian, I., Abedinia, O. and Ghadimi, N. (2014), “The fuzzy stochastic long-term model with
consideration of uncertainties for the deployment of distributed energy resources using
interactive honey bee mating optimization”, Frontiers in Energy, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 412-425.
Akhavan, P., Khodabandeh, M., Rajabion, L. and Zahedi, M.R. (2019), “Extracting and prioritizing
knowledge risk components by considering the knowledge map: a case study of industrial
organization”, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 200-212.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Research commentary: technology-mediated learning – a call for
greater depth and breadth of research”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Albrecht, K. (2002), “Organizational intelligence profile, preliminary assessment questionnaire”, Karl
Albrecht International, available at: https://www.karlalbrecht.com/downloads/Albrecht
Albrecht, K. (2003), The Power of Minds at Work: Organizational Intelligence in Action, Amacom Books.
Al-Omari, M. Carter, J. and Chiclana, F. (2015), “A proposed framework to support adaptivity in
E-learning systems”.
Argote, L. (2012), Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, Springer
Science and Business Media.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978), Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Vol. 173,
Addison-Wesley Reading, MA.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1997), “Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective”, Reis,
Nos 77/78, pp. 345-348.
Bahrami, M.A., Kiani, M.M., Montazeralfaraj, R., Zadeh, H.F. and Zadeh, M.M. (2016), “The mediating Organizational
role of organizational learning in the relationship of organizational intelligence and
organizational agility”, Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 190-196.
intelligence
Calvo-Mora, A., Navarro-García, A. and Periañez-Cristobal, R. (2015), “Project to improve knowledge
management and key business results through the EFQM excellence model”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 1638-1651.
Carayannis, E.G., Carayannis, E.G., Grigoroudis, E., Grigoroudis, E., Del Giudice, M., Del Giudice, M.
and Sindakis, S. (2017), “An exploration of contemporary organizational artifacts and routines in 2471
a sustainable excellence context”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 35-56.
Carneiro, A. (2001), “The role of intelligent resources in knowledge management”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 358-367.
Carpenter, D. (2017), “Collaborative inquiry and the shared workspace of professional learning
communities”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 1069-1091.
Chang, V. (2016), “Review and discussion: e-learning for academia and industry”, International Journal
of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 476-485.
Chin, W.W. and Dibbern, J. (2010), An Introduction to a Permutation-Based Procedure for Multi-Group
PLS Analysis: Results of Tests of Differences on Simulated Data and Cross-Cultural Analysis of
the Sourcing of Information System Services between Germany and the USA Handbook of Partial
Least Squares, Springer, pp. 171-193.
Choo, C.W. (2002), Information Management for the Intelligent Organization: The Art of Scanning the
Environment, Information Today, Inc.
Cohen, J. (1977), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, (rev, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 297-334.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963), A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Vol. 2 No. 4, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
pp. 169-187.
Damodaran, L. and Olphert, W. (2000), “Barriers and facilitators to the use of knowledge management
systems”, Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 405-413.
De Angelis, C.T. (2013), “Knowledge management and organizational intelligence model for public
administration”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 36 No. 11, pp. 807-819.
Demarest, M. (1997), “Understanding knowledge management”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 374-384.
Demirel, Y., Arzova, B., Ardıç, K. and Bas , T. (2013), “Organizational learning on coopetition strategy:
an exploratory research on a Turkish private banks credit card application”, Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 99, pp. 902-910.
Drucker, P.F. (1995), “The information executives truly need”, InformationWeek, No. 525, pp. 89-93.
Dwyer, C.A. (1999), “Using emerging technologies to construct effective learning environments”,
Educational Media International, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 300-309.
Edelman, P. and van Knippenberg, D. (2018), “Emotional intelligence, management of subordinate’s
emotions, and leadership effectiveness”, Leadership and Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 592-607.
Fuchs, A. (2011), “Methodische aspekte linearer strukturgleichungsmodelle”, Ein Vergleich Von
Kovarianz-Und Varianzbasierten Kausalanalyseverfahren, Research papers on marketing
strategy.
García-Morales, V.J., Jiménez-Barrionuevo, M.M. and Gutiérrez-Gutiérrez, L. (2012), “Transformational
leadership influence on organizational performance through organizational learning and
innovation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65 No. 7, pp. 1040-1050.
K Ghadimi, N. (2015), “A new hybrid algorithm based on an optimal fuzzy controller in a multimachine
power system”, Complexity, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 78-93.
49,10
Hagh, M.T., Ebrahimian, H. and Ghadimi, N. (2015), “Hybrid intelligent water drop bundled wavelet
neural network to solve the islanding detection by inverter-based DG”, Frontiers in Energy,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 75-90.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
2472 Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Harold, W. (1967), Organizational Intelligence, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Hashemi, F., Ghadimi, N. and Sobhani, B. (2013), “Islanding detection for inverter-based DG coupled
with using an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system”, International Journal of Electrical Power
and Energy Systems, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 443-455.
Istudor, N., Ursacescu, M., Sendroiu, C. and Radu, I. (2016), “Theoretical framework of organizational
intelligence: a managerial approach to promote renewable energy in rural economies”, Energies,
Vol. 9 No. 8, p. 639.
Jafari Navimipour, N. and Zareie, B. (2015), “A model for assessing the impact of e-learning systems on
employees’ satisfaction”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 53, pp. 475-485.
Jung, Y. (2009), “An approach to organizational intelligence management”, (a framework for analyzing
organizational intelligence within the construction process).
Keshavarz, H., Esmaili Givi, M.R. and Shekari, M.R. (2018), “Knowledge management infrastructures
and organizational intelligence in Iranian research centers”, Data Technologies and Applications,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 2-15.
Kezar, A. (2005), “What campuses need to know about organizational learning and the learning
organization”, New Directions for Higher Education, Vol. 2005 No. 131, pp. 7-22.
Kim, S.L., Son, S.Y. and Yun, S. (2018), “Abusive supervision and knowledge sharing: the moderating
role of organizational tenure”, Personnel Review, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 22-38.
Lee, K.C., Lee, S. and Kang, I.W. (2005), “KMPI: measuring knowledge management performance”,
Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 469-482.
Lefter, V., Prejmerean, M. and Vasilache, S. (2008), “The dimensions of organizational intelligence in
romanian companies – a human Capital perspective”, Theoretical and Applied Economics,
Vol. 10 No. 10, pp. 39.
Li, Y., Chen, H., Liu, Y. and Peng, M.W. (2014), “Managerial ties, organizational learning, and
opportunity capture: a social capital perspective”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 271-291.
Liaw, S.-S., Huang, H.-M. and Chen, G.-D. (2007), “An activity-theoretical approach to investigate
learners’ factors toward e-learning systems”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 1906-1920.
Liebowitz, J. (1999), Building Organizational Intelligence: A Knowledge Management Primer, Vol. 1,
CRC Press.
Lin, H.-F. and Lee, G.-G. (2005), “Impact of organizational learning and knowledge management factors
on e-business adoption”, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 171-188.
Magala, S., Akgün, A.E., Byrne, J. and Keskin, H. (2007), “Organizational intelligence: a
structuration view”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 272-289.
March, J.G. (1999), The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence: Decisions and Learning in Organizations,
Blackwell Publishers, Inc.
Matsuda, T. (1992), “Organizational intelligence: its significance as a process and as a product”, Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on Economics/Management and
Information Technology.
Miao, C., Humphrey, R.H., Qian, S. and Pollack, J.M. (2018), “Emotional intelligence and entrepreneurial Organizational
intentions: an exploratory Meta-analysis”, Career Development International, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 497-512.
intelligence
Neefe, D.O. (2001), Comparing Levels of Organizational Learning Maturity of Colleges and Universities
Participating in Traditional and Non-Traditional (Academic Quality Improvement Project)
Accreditation Processes, 5, University of WI stout Menomonie.
Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. (2003), “The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a
synthesizing process”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2-10. 2473
Oh, M.-R. and Kim, S.-W. (2016), “Developing framework and indicators for assessing organizational
intelligence”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 9 No. 26.
Pandey, S.C., Dutta, A. and Nayak, A.K. (2018), “Organizational capabilities and knowledge
management success: a quartet of case studies”, Kybernetes, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 222-238.
Pratiwi, N.M.P.P., Sukartha, I.M., Putri, I.G.A.D. and Suaryana, I.G.A. (2019), “Effects of intelligence,
knowledge, work experience and additional employee income on performance of state civil
apparatus”, International Journal of Contemporary Research and Review, Vol. 10 No. 01,
pp. 21245-21254.
Quintas, P., Lefrere, P. and Jones, G. (1997), “Knowledge management: a strategic agenda”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 385-391.
Rajabion, L., Wakil, K., Badfar, A., Mojtabavi Naeini, S. and Zareie, B. (2019), “A new model for
assessing the impact of ICT and digital knowledge on students’ thoughts and beliefs”, Journal of
Engineering, Design, and Technology.
Rajabion, L., Shah, S., Subramaniam, K. and Ariaeinejad, R. (2012), “Students’ knowledge management
and uses of Web 2.0 technologies in higher education: Comparative study between four different
countries-Canada, USA, India, and Saudi Arabia”, Paper presented at the 13th European
Conference of Knowledge Management.
Razmjooy, N., Sheykhahmad, F.R. and Ghadimi, N. (2018), “A hybrid neural network–world cup
optimization algorithm for melanoma detection”, Open Medicine, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 9-16.
Reyes, A. (2012), “Organizational learning and the effective management of complexity”, Kybernetes,
Vol. 41 Nos 3/4, pp. 318-326.
Rezaei, H. (2012), “The application of information technology and its relationship with organizational
intelligence”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 94-97.
Saberi, M.K. and Ekhtiyari, F. (2019), “Usage, captures, mentions, social media and citations of LIS
highly cited papers: an altmetrics study”, Performance Measurement and Metrics, Vol. 20 No. 1,
pp. 37-47.
Sasaki, Y. (2017), “A note on systems intelligence in knowledge management”, The Learning
Organization, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 236-244.
Schneckenberg, D., Truong, Y. and Mazloomi, H. (2015), “Microfoundations of innovative capabilities:
the leverage of collaborative technologies on organizational learning and knowledge
management in a multinational corporation”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 100, pp. 356-368.
Seok, S. (2008), “Teaching aspects of e-learning”, International Journal on e-Learning, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 725-741.
Shabbir, M.Q., Aslam, S. and Ali, M.H. (2016), “Organizational intelligence and employee performance:
the mediating role of distributive justice”, Information Management and Business Review, Vol. 8
No. 5, pp. 38-47.
Shackman, J.D. (2013), “The use of partial least squares path modeling and generalized structured
component analysis in international business research: a literature review”, International Journal
of Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, p. 78.
K Stan, V. and Saporta, G. (2010), Conjoint Use of Variables Clustering and PLS Structural Equations
Modeling Handbook of Partial Least Squares, Springer, pp. 235-246.
49,10
Staskeviciute-Butiene, I., Valantine, I. and Eimontas, E. (2016), “Relationship between organization
intelligence and innovation: the case of Lithuanian sports federations”, Baltic Journal of Sport
and Health Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 100, pp. 55-64.
Tarhini, A., Mohammed, A.B. and Maqableh, M. (2016), “Modeling factors affecting student’s usage
behaviour of e-learning systems in Lebanon”, International Journal of Business and
2474 Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, p. 299.
Thannhuber, M.J., Bruntsch, A. and Tseng, M.M. (2017), “Knowledge management: managing
organizational intelligence and knowledge in autopoietic process management systems–ten
years into industrial application”, Procedia Cirp, Vol. 63, pp. 384-389.
Thannhuber, M., Tseng, M.M. and Bullinger, H.-J. (2001), “An autopoietic approach for building
knowledge management systems in manufacturing enterprises”, CIRP Annals, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 313-318.
Vahdat, S., Rajabion, L., Naeini, S.M., Hassani, A. and Charband, Y. (2020), “A new model for
investigating the impact of social media and hospital climate on the intention toward medical
knowledge sharing: the mediating role of cultural willingness”, VINE Journal of Information
and Knowledge Management Systems.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Van Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS Quarterly,
pp. 177-195.
Williams, R. (2006), “Narratives of knowledge and intelligence. . . beyond the tacit and explicit”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 81-99.
Yolles, M. (2005), “Organizational intelligence”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 17 No. 1/2,
pp. 99-114.
Zappa, P. and Robins, G. (2016), “Organizational learning across multi-level networks”, Social
Networks, Vol. 44, pp. 295-306.
Zhao, Y. and Cao, H. (2015), “Risk management on joint product development with power asymmetry
between supplier and manufacturer”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 33
No. 8, pp. 1812-1826.
Zhu, H., Gao, J. and Cai, Q. (2015), “A product-service system using requirement analysis and
knowledge management technologies”, Kybernetes, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 823-842.

Corresponding author
Batool Zareie can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]