Knowledge reuse through electronic

knowledge repositories: a multi

theoretical study
Peter P. Chhim, Toni M. Somers and Ratna Babu Chinnam

Abstract Peter P. Chhim is based

Purpose – This study provides insight into factors surrounding knowledge reuse through electronic at the Department of
knowledge repositories (EKR). Industrial and Systems
Design/methodology/approach – A multi-theoretical framework is proposed that views knowledge Engineering, Wayne State
reuse from both socio-technical and expectation confirmation model perspectives. Survey data are University College of
used to test associated hypotheses derived from the literature. Engineering, Industrial
Findings – Results confirm the explanatory power of this approach to predict greater knowledge reuse Systems, Michigan, USA.
and greater continuance of use. Toni M. Somers is
Research limitations/implications – Results suggest social and technical factors modelled Associate Dean at the
interdependently affect knowledge reuse and lead to greater performance, knowledge sharing and
Mike Ilitch School of
continuance of use.
Business, Wayne State
Practical implications – Practical and managerial recommendations for enhancing enablers of
University, Detroit,
knowledge reuse via EKR are offered.
Michigan, USA.
Originality/value – This study models enablers to knowledge reuse and resulting downstream effects
on organizational outcomes. It provides an original framework for studying knowledge reuse within an Ratna Babu Chinnam is
EKR or knowledge management system perspective. based at the Department
Keywords PLS-SEM, Knowledge management, Knowledge sharing, Knowledge reuse, of Industrial and Systems
Continuance of use, Electronic knowledge repositories Engineering, Wayne State
Paper type Research paper University, Detroit,
Michigan, USA.

1. Introduction
In an increasingly globalized world where competition advances at a fierce pace, the
strategic management of knowledge is a significant organizational challenge.
Consequently, both interest and investment in the collection, codification and storage of
organizational knowledge are soaring. In a 2014 survey conducted by the Technology
Services Industry Association, nearly 60 per cent of respondents revealed plans to spend
on knowledge management (KM) (TSIA, 2014). KM has also been newly added to the ISO
9001: 2015 quality management standard (Palmes, 2014), a noteworthy inclusion given
over 1.1 million companies were certified to the standard as of 2013 (ISO, 2014). Among
knowledge management systems (KMS), a form known as an electronic knowledge
repository, or EKR is attracting significant interest.
An EKR is defined as an electronic location in which knowledge is stored (Liebowitz and
Beckman, 1998). Knowledge, as defined by Nonaka (1994) is a justified belief that
increases an entity’s capacity for effective action. When knowledge or “actionable
information” (Maglitta, 1996) is stored in EKRs it can be efficiently reused in times of need
Received 21 March 2016
(Akgun et al., 2005). Unfortunately, while tens of billions are spent on KM software (Murphy Revised 5 January 2017
and Hackbush, 2007), well-documented examples of success are sparse (Kimble, 2013). Accepted 24 March 2017

DOI 10.1108/JKM-03-2016-0126 VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017, pp. 741-764, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 741
 EKR studies to date have focused on knowledge contribution (Kankanhalli et al., 2005a;
Wasko and Faraj, 2005; Watson and Hewett, 2006), knowledge seeking (Kankanhalli et al.,
2005b; Bock et al., 2010) and EKR usage (Wu and Wang, 2006; Lin and Huang, 2008). The
key output of EKR usage – knowledge reuse or KRU – has, however, not been thoroughly
examined. Surprisingly little empirical research on KRU has been conducted and little is
known about the factors affecting it (Markus, 2001; Kankanhalli et al., 2011). This may be
because of what Dixon (2000) contends is a unitary view of KRU – the same regardless of
who, how and why it’s done.
Among the few studies that have tackled problems related to KRU, Majchrzak et al. (2004)
explored how person-to-person reuse takes place in radical innovation. Watson and Hewett
(2006) conducted an empirical study to identify factors affecting frequency and reuse of
knowledge contributions, Boh (2008) and Filieri and Alguezaui (2015) conducted
exploratory studies, and Kankanhalli et al. (2011) and Filieri and Willison (2016) completed
empirical studies on knowledge reuse. In contrast to previous studies concerned with
individual level usage of EKRs, we focus on both individual- and system-level usage
seeking insights about factors that affect them. We also develop an output framework to
assess the effect of KRU on downstream organizational outcomes. This multi-theoretical
approach views KRU from both an antecedent and resulting outcome perspective and
captures the flow of knowledge to and from recipients (Watson and Hewett, 2006).

2. Theoretical background and literature review

2.1 Knowledge reuse
To define KRU, we first differentiate it from similar terms found in the literature, that is,
knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and EKR usage. Knowledge transfer is the process
by which knowledge is moved within an organization (Argote and Ingram, 2000). According
to Majchrzak et al. (2004), knowledge transfer can be separated into knowledge sharing,
that is, the process of locating distributed organizational knowledge and transferring it to
another context where it is needed (Alavi and Leidner, 1999) and KRU – the process by
which an entity can locate and use shared knowledge (Alavi and Leidner, 1999). While
knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing emphasize the movement of knowledge, reuse
instead focuses on its application. Finally, EKR usage is not to be mistaken for KRU given
usage can generally be described as either knowledge contributing or knowledge seeking
(Lin and Huang, 2008). In both cases, neither affirms whether the knowledge contributed,
or sought after is actually reused. Given these distinctions, the focus of our paper is KRU.

2.2 Knowledge reuse via electronic knowledge repositories

EKRs represent the explicit view of knowledge, that is the ability to codify and store
knowledge (Hanh and Subramani, 2000) for reuse (Dixon, 2000). Gray and Meister (2005)
found that technology-based methods of knowledge sourcing were neither superior nor
inferior to traditional person to person or group knowledge exchange and concluded that
knowledge repositories may be justified if the organizational intent is replication versus
adaptation or innovation. Watson and Hewett (2006) used expectancy theory to identify
factors influencing KRU. The theory suggests that people will be motivated to perform an
activity when they anticipate positive outcomes from doing so (Vroom, 1964). Boh (2008)
building on the work of Argote (1999) and Szulanski (1996) found support for KRU when the
user sought assistance from the author of the knowledge asset. Kankanhalli et al. (2011),
using a socio-technical perspective, found both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation influences
knowledge, the latter, however, only when moderated by high perceived knowledge
capability. Filieri and Alguezaui (2015) conducted an exploratory study within the R&D
department of a large automotive supplier and found that employees preferred to obtain
knowledge via person to person exchanges rather than through the repository. The authors
found that poor quality of codified knowledge along with knowledge complexity were

PAGE 742 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

inefficiencies hindering repository usage. Finally, Filieri and Willison (2016) conducted a
quantitative study consisting of 121 respondents from a large European automotive
supplier. The researchers used DeLone and McLean’s (1992) information system (IS)
success model to study antecedents of KRU and knowledge sourcing from a knowledge
quality and system quality perspective. The study found that the higher the quality of the
knowledge stored in the repository, the more likely it would be reused. Additionally, the
higher the quality of the knowledge repository, the more likely users would use it. A deficit
of these studies is that they do not examine the effect of KRU on downstream organizational
outcomes. As a result, we build upon the efforts of Kankanhalli et al. (2011) to advance that
understanding.
Once IT is implemented, it must be continually used to meet an organization’s expectation
(Wasko and Faraj, 2005). IS scholars use the term continuance to describe this usage
(Bhattacherjee, 2001). Bhattacherjee (2001) developed and validated the Expectation
Confirmation Model (ECM) to explain continuance of use, finding that user satisfaction and
perceived usefulness influence it. While additional research has advanced understanding
of IS continuance, for example, Hong et al., 2006, there has been surprisingly little in the KM
literature (Li and Lin, 2006; He and Wei, 2009). This may be because of differing
continuance needs of KMS. In particular, continuance within KMS requires two streams of
ongoing activity:

1. users must part with their codified knowledge; and

2. users must seek and reuse other’s knowledge (Watson and Hewett, 2006; Kankanhalli
et al., 2011).
Thus, we integrate ECM on the backend of our model as a result of enablers to KRU and
performance. Additionally, we supplant the ECM constructs with contextual variables from
the KM literature to provide a more KMS-specific view of continuance of use. From a
technical perspective, IT has been the predominant variable when studying KM, with,
however inconsistent results. While IT has been seen to facilitate knowledge sharing by
some (Lee and Choi, 2003), others have found its effect nonsignificant (Choi et al., 2008).
And when used as a moderator, IT has been found to help moderate the strength of
extrinsic rewards and KRU (Kankanhalli et al., 2011). These differing results emphasize the
need for a holistic approach beyond a simple IT lens, and the inclusion and interplay of
social and technical factors (Hanh and Subramani, 2000; Choi et al., 2008). Hence, we
adopt a socio-technical perspective to help shape our model and to strike a balance
between the social and technical aspects of the EKR.

2.3 Socio-technical perspective within the knowledge management field

The socio-technical perspective has gained popularity in the KM field as researchers
leverage the connection between human practices and technology (Choi et al. 2008;
Kankanhalli et al., 2011). It has been argued that a production system is not a strictly
technical or social system, but one in which the two co-exist interdependently (Trist and
Bamforth, 1951). In particular, the social aspect uses an organization’s culture,
structure and people as its enablers, whereas the technical element uses Information
Technology (Kankanhalli et al., 2011). Studies using this approach have focused on the
identification of both social and technical antecedents for knowledge creation,
knowledge sharing and KRU. From a social standpoint, collaboration has been
identified as an enabler for knowledge creation in part because creativity increases
when members work together (Hanh and Subramani, 2000). Additionally, trust has been
found to play a significant role in both knowledge creation (Hanh and Subramani, 2000)
and knowledge sharing (Evans et al., 2015), because it encourages a collaborative
climate by reducing fear and risk and allows members to open up with one another
(Hanh and Subramani, 2000; Evans et al., 2015). Also, both extrinsic and intrinsic

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 743

 rewards are social enablers of KMS (Choi et al., 2008; Kankanhalli et al., 2011). Of the
two, however, extrinsic rewards have been found to have a transient effect and a
weaker relationship than intrinsic rewards (Choi et al., 2008).

3. Research model
We propose a model that combines both social and technical factors and continuance that
results from KRU. Our research model does not attempt to exhaustively identify all
influencing factors, but rather highlights key enablers that can be used to explain a large
proportion of the variance in our constructs. Consequently, our hypotheses are largely
derived from theoretical findings from the KM literature (Hanh and Subramani, 2000). We
use these findings to help improve our understanding of KRU via EKRs, and the resulting
effect it has on continuance of use.

3.1 Worker interaction and collaboration

Collaboration is the degree to which people in a group actively help one another in their
work (Hurley and Hult, 1998). It has been found to have a positive relationship with
knowledge creation (Choi et al., 2008) and innovation (Tsai et al., 2010). When a
collaborative culture is present, knowledge exchange can increase as a result of reduced
fear and greater openness (Choi et al., 2008). From a KRU perspective, Boh (2008) found
greater KRU when there is person-to-person interaction between the knowledge seeker
and the author of the knowledge asset. Similarly, Gray and Meister (2005) found
group-based knowledge exchange delivers greater performance outcomes than
technology approaches or dyadic person-person based exchanges. Thus, we believe that
a collaborative environment will enhance KRU through EKRs.
H1. Worker interaction and collaboration positively influences knowledge reuse through
EKRs.

3.2 Learning culture

Learning culture is the degree to which organizations encourage learning through
education, training and mentoring (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Scholars have long
acknowledged the importance of a learning orientation in overall firm performance
(Calantone et al., 2002). Studies have also shown that a learning culture has a positive
influence on both knowledge process capabilities (Lee et al., 2012) and knowledge
creation processes (Hanh and Subramani, 2000). Given the impact of culture on
organizations and its ability to permeate organizations (Schein, 2010), we posit that it will
have multiple effects on EKRs. We propose a learning culture facilitates greater KRU and
can play a mediating role in worker interaction and collaboration and in KM strategy.
H2. Learning culture positively influences knowledge reuse through EKRs.
H2a. Learning culture mediates the influence of work interaction and collaboration on
knowledge reuse through EKRs.
H2b. Learning culture mediates the influence of KM strategy on knowledge reuse
through EKRs.

3.3 Knowledge management strategy

Knowledge strategy is “the overall approach an organization intends to take to align its
knowledge resources and capabilities to the intellectual requirements of its strategy” (Zack,
1999). Two commonly applied KM strategies are the system-oriented or codification
approach, and the human-oriented or personalization approach (Hansen et al., 1999). In
the case of EKRs, the codification approach applies as knowledge is extracted and made
independent for the purpose of reuse. While the selection of a particular approach varies
depending on organizational need, both have been found to impact innovation and
organizational performance (Lopez-Nicolas and Merono-Cerdan, 2011). Additionally, the

PAGE 744 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

differences between each choice and their respective impact has been found to be
negligible (Lopez-Nicolas and Merono-Cerdan, 2011). Finally, an ancillary benefit to
implementing a KM strategy is that knowledge worker retention is enhanced when
employees see that top leaders exhibit understanding and support of intellectual capital
through structures, process and systems (Gold and Malhotra, 2001). Hence, we posit that:
H3. Knowledge management strategy positively influences knowledge reuse through
EKRs.

3.4 Information technology support of knowledge repository

Information Technology Support (ITS) refers to the extent to which KM is supported by IT
(Gold and Malhotra, 2001). Unfortunately, its effectiveness in facilitating KM remains
unclear (Li and Lin, 2006; Kankanhalli et al., 2011). Recently, there have been some studies
aimed at better understanding this relationship, e.g. researchers found that ITS had a
positive impact on knowledge sharing, knowledge application (Choi et al., 2010) and
knowledge creation (Lee et al., 2012). Given the wide ranging impact of ITS, we suspect
that it will play a dual role as both a mediating variable and a direct enabler. Specifically,
it will have a positive influence on KRU through EKRs, and given its connection to
computing satisfaction, it will mediate the role of user satisfaction (US) on KRU through
EKRs.
H4. Information technology support positively influences knowledge reuse through
EKRs.
H4a. Information technology support mediates the influence of user satisfaction on
knowledge reuse through EKRs.

3.5 Information and system quality proxies for user satisfaction

US has been a widely used single measure of IS success (DeLone and McLean, 2003).
Researchers (Bailey and Pearson, 1983; Doll and Torkzedah, 1998) have developed
instruments to measure user satisfaction. However, many of the items in the satisfaction
instruments readily map to items measuring system quality and information quality (Gable
et al., 2003). For example, Doll and Torkzadeh developed an instrument to measure end
user computer satisfaction (EUCS), which consists of items measuring the systems content,
accuracy, format, timeliness and ease of use. Rai et al. (2002) argue that user satisfaction
can be measured indirectly through information quality, system quality and other variables.
Consequently, we combine the dimensions of the EUCS instrument to measure two
system-based evaluations – information quality and system quality (Doll and Torkzadeh,
1998). Thus, content, accuracy, format and timeliness are measures of information quality
and ease of use represents system quality. Similarly, Nelson et al. (2005) have used the
constructs of accuracy, completeness, currency and format for information quality. In prior
IS success models, information and system quality have been combined (Rai et al., 2002;
Sabherwal et al., 2006). User satisfaction as modelled here is more representative than
other approaches because it integrates all aspects of IS success previously examined. It
merges characteristics of the application into user satisfaction to provide a comprehensive
view of the user’s attitude towards the IS. Davis (1989) explains that the application must
not be too difficult to use, or require more effort than it delivers in performance or users may
reject it. Additionally, the quality and content of the EKR are important to the success of
KRU because, as Markus (2001) points out, there are different types of knowledge reusers,
for example, novices, experts, data miners, the repository must be capable of adequately
meeting their needs. If this is the case, an increase in user satisfaction likely increases use
and, by extension, greater KRU. Thus, we posit:
H5. User satisfaction positively influences knowledge reuse through EKRs.

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 745

 3.6 Knowledge validation process
A knowledge validation process (KVP) begins when a repository contributor submits
codified knowledge for inclusion in it, and ends when that contribution is either accepted
or rejected (Durcikova and Gray, 2009). The KM literature maintains that strict validation
processes will have a beneficial impact on the quality of knowledge in a repository, and that
it will increase the value of a repository to knowledge seekers (Zack, 1999; Markus, 2001).
Moreover, strong and visible validation mechanisms help to negate the tendency of
risk-averse users from avoiding knowledge repositories (Gray and Durcikova, 2005). Given
the role KVP plays in the quality of a repository’s knowledge inventory, we posit that it will
have a dual impact in our study.
H6. Knowledge validation process positively influences knowledge reuse through
EKRs.
H6a. Knowledge validation process mediates the influence of end user computing
satisfaction on knowledge reuse through EKRs.

3.7 Performance
Ultimately, KM programs are effective when performance improves. As a result, it is
important to measure the contribution KM programs have on performance (Tseng, 2008).
Reusing knowledge is considered an intermediate outcome that enhances work
performance (Kankanhalli et al., 2011). This outcome includes quicker and less costly
performance because the reuser can effectively leverage previously validated solutions. In
the context of IT, leveraging knowledge has been found to enhance performance by
producing better outcomes such as knowledge contribution, product innovation and sales
(Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Few studies have empirically tested the link between
knowledge and performance (Tseng, 2008), however, and there is no clear understanding
of the real impact KM has on performance (Choi et al., 2008). Thus, we posit:
H7. Knowledge reuse through EKRs positively influences worker performance.
H8. Performance positively influences continuance of use of EKRs.
H8a. Performance positively influences knowledge sharing.

3.8 Knowledge sharing

Alavi and Leidner (1999) describe knowledge sharing as the process of locating distributed
organizational knowledge and transferring it to another context where it is needed. Past
research has clearly identified knowledge sharing as a positive contributor to team
performance in different contexts (Choi et al., 2010). As Hendriks (1999) indicates,
technology can enhance knowledge sharing by lowering temporal and spatial barriers
between knowledge workers and by improving access to information about knowledge.
Applying an alternative view, we speculate that as users draw and reuse knowledge from
the EKR, their performance improves which, in turn, leads to greater knowledge sharing
and continuance of use. As the association between performance and knowledge sharing
has yet to be investigated in the KM literature, we hypothesize that:
H9. Knowledge sharing positively influences continuance of use of EKRs.
H9b. Knowledge sharing mediates the influence of performance on continuance of use
of EKRs.

3.9 Continuance
Continuance refers to the continued use behaviour of a particular IS (Bhattacherjee, 2001).
Given the resources and efforts required to implement a KMS, it is crucial to understand the
factors that impact continued usage to maximize its returns. As Wasko and Faraj (2005)
indicate, once IT is implemented the organization’s expectations can be met only if the

PAGE 746 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

technologies are used continuously by employees. This is important given that reported
failure rates for KMS are as high as 80 per cent (Sheehan and McMillan, 1999). Within KM,
there has been surprisingly little research on continuance (Li and Lin, 2006). Our model
adapts the ECM framework and substitutes factors to fit within the EKR context.
Specifically, we use KRU in place of confirmation, performance in place of satisfaction and
tie performance to both knowledge sharing and continuance of use. We also add the
intermediary benefit of knowledge sharing as a result of performance, assuming as users
gain performance benefits, their tendency to share knowledge will increase. Ultimately, we
believe our contextual restructuring of this ECM approach will lead to better understanding
of KRU and its effect on these downstream organizational outcomes. Our research model
is depicted in Figure 1.

4. Methodology and construct operationalization

To test our hypothesized model, a survey instrument was developed using validated items
from prior research adapted to the context of EKRs. The constructs and their respective
sources are provided in Appendix.

4.1 Method
We conducted a survey using an electronically mediated data collection method. The
utilization of electronic distribution of surveys online and via email is now widely used as it
offers researchers low cost, good response rates and quick response times (Sheehan and
McMillan, 1999). The survey was both pre- and pilot-tested prior to launch, resulting in
several minor changes to the instrument.
4.1.1 Data analysis and results
4.1.1.1 Sample demographics. Survey respondents were sought from knowledge intensive
industries where KM efforts are common, for example, automotive, IT, service and

Figure 1 Research model of knowledge reuse via electronic knowledge repositories

Individual & system enablers to knowledge reuse Expectation confirmation model influence

LC
H2
H2a

WIC H6
KVP
H8 CON
H1
H2b

KMST H3
H7
KRU PER
H9/9a
H6a
H5

US KS
H8a
H4a
H4
ITS

Notes: WIC – worker interaction and collaboration; KMST – knowledge management

strategy; US – user satisfaction; LC – learning culture; KVP – knowledge validation
process; ITS – information technology support; KRU – knowledge reuse;
PER – performance; KS – knowledge sharing; CON – continuance of use

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 747

 consulting. Consistent with prior EKR studies, respondents from the IT (Kankanhalli et al.,
2005a; He and Wei, 2009) and consulting (Boh, 2008) fields constituted a large
percentages of respondents. However, the manufacturing industry, an empirically
under-represented sector in the EKR literature, was the primary target audience for our
research.
In this sector, designers prefer to use concepts and lessons of past designs (Khadilkar and
Stauffer, 1996), primarily because the largest accumulation of expertise is stored within
them (Shahin et al., 1999). Unfortunately, KRU in manufacturing organizations is low,
averaging only 28 per cent (Ettlie and Kubarek, 2008). This has researchers (Ettlie and
Kubarek, 2008; Shahin et al., 1999) interpret a weak KMS as a significant barrier to KRU.
We sought as manufacturing sector respondents, members of the Original Equipment
Supplier Association (OESA) warranty management council, LinkedIn’s largest KM
automotive and manufacturing groups, and relevant level 1 LinkedIn contacts. These
efforts yielded 334 survey responses of which 258 were usable.
Over half of the respondents were male (62 per cent), and had more than 10 years of
experience in their current professions (51 per cent). Eighty-one per cent of respondents
had at least a two-year college degree, and nearly half (49 per cent) worked in
organizations with more than 1,000 employees. Fifty-one per cent of respondents came
from traditional functional departments in large organizations (i.e. quality, research and
development, design, production, human resources, sales and customer service). Thirty
per cent were independent consultants or employed by third party consulting firms. Finally,
the manufacturing industry represented the highest sector of respondents with 36 per cent.
Other sectors represented included transportation, government, software and banking/
finance.
The survey included four questions pertaining to EKR experience and exposure. On
average, respondents reported their organizations used three EKRs with an average 3.5
years in service. Additionally, on average, respondents revealed using their company’s
EKRs for nearly three years, while having four years of overall EKRs experience. Finally, to
capture where the knowledge from these EKRs was being reused, respondents were asked
to identify affected areas. As shown in Table I, over 70 per cent of respondents selected
design and launch of new products and/or processes, training, continuous improvement
and addressing customer issues (internal or external). These areas are logically in line with
the theoretical benefits of KRU, that is, in applications where efficiency gains can be
attained by reusing past solutions.

5. Analysis and modelling approach

Partial least squares (using SmartPLS V.3.2.6) was chosen as the primary analytical tool.
Lacking theories that apply directly to KRU via EKRs makes partial least squares (PLS) a
more suitable parameter estimation methodology (Chin, 1998; Ettlie and Kubarek, 2008).
Furthermore, our approach is predictive rather than causal.

Table I EKR experience and exposure survey questions

Areas where knowledge is being reused N (Samples) % of respondents

Design and launch of new products and/or

processes 194 73.5
Training 192 72.7
Continuous improvement 188 71.2
Address internal or external customer
issues 187 70.8
Other (e.g. project management, material
planning, e-req, etc.) 46 17.4

PAGE 748 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

5.1 Measurement model
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted given the number of constructs and
the potential threat to construct validity. EFA informs a priori theory about the measure’s
factor-structure and psychometric properties. EFA followed by CFA is one of the most
common approaches to construct validation (Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). Principal
axis factoring with Promax rotation revealed an acceptable factor structure where
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) ⫽ 0.90, Bartlett’s test of sphericity ␹2 ⫽ 8,923.87, df ⫽ 1378,
p ⬍ 0.001 and MSA’s ⬎ 0.65.

5.2 Confirmatory factor analysis: validity and reliability

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was done to verify that the factor structure for the
structural modelling was both valid and reliable. Here, we assess convergent and
discriminant validity.
Convergent validity can be assessed by the average variance in the items accounted for by
the latent construct they represent (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Fornell and Larcker (1981)
have argued that for a construct to possess convergent validity, the majority of the variance
in its items (i.e. more than 50 per cent) should be accounted for by the underlying construct
rather than by measurement error. Convergent validity is demonstrated by examining the fit
of three standards (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988):

1. all indicator CFA factor loadings should exceed 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010);
2. composite reliability (CR) should be above 0.70; and
3. the average variance extracted (AVE) of every construct should exceed 0.50 (Fornell
and Larcker, 1981).
Table II shows the factor loadings of all the measures range from 0.60 to 0.92
demonstrating convergent validity at the item level and at the construct level – each
construct’s CR exceeds the 0.70 recommendation and AVE equals or exceeds 0.50.
Table II indicates the convergent validity for the proposed constructs is acceptable.
Next, discriminate validity is assessed by comparing the square root of a construct’s average
variance extracted with that construct’s correlations with the other constructs in the model. If the
square root of the AVE is greater than the correlations with other constructs in the model (the
off-diagonals in a correlation matrix), then discriminate validity is demonstrated (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). As Table III shows each construct is more closely related to its own measures
than to those of other constructs providing evidence of sufficient discriminant validity. Finally,
to examine the discriminate validity of the measurement model, the correlations among latent
constructs were examined. High correlations exceeding 0.85 (Kline, 1998), should be noted as
an indication of a problematic level of inter-correlated constructs. As shown in Table III, no
correlation among the latent constructs is greater than 0.61. Thus, the measurement model
shows satisfactory reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.

5.3 Common method bias

The data collection method for the study was in the form of a self-reported survey; thus,
both the dependent and independent variables were measured with the same instrument
and consequently the possibility of common method bias (CMB) exists (Siponen and
Vance, 2010). To address this, several efforts were taken to both limit and assess the
impact of CMB in the study.
Following the recommendations of Podsakoff et al. (2003), various procedural remedies
were used to reduce common method bias. First, to reduce the likelihood of socially
desirable responses, respondents were informed of their response anonymity prior to the
start of the survey. Next, to reduce order bias and to avoid disclosure of the underlying
structural model, the survey questions were randomized. To statistically assess the impact

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 749

Table II Summary of results for outer models
Indicator reliability Composite
Latent variable Indicators Loadings t-statistic* (loadings2) reliability AVE

Continuance of use (CON) CON1 0.906 5.161 0.821 0.890 0.677

CON2 0.925 48.564 0.856
CON3 0.894 63.255 0.799
User satisfaction (US) US1 0.846 41.355 0.716 0.946 0.639
US2 0.806 30.703 0.650
US3 0.820 34.681 0.672
US4 0.763 21.671 0.582
US5 0.829 31.691 0.687
US6 0.844 37.147 0.712
US7 0.749 19.779 0.561
US8 0.757 22.219 0.573
US9 0.754 20.469 0.569
US10 0.817 28.031 0.667
Information technology support (ITS) ITS1 0.730 13.974 0.533 0.882 0.716
ITS2 0.882 38.174 0.778
ITS3 0.916 73.777 0.839
Knowledge reuse (KRU) KRU1 0.865 41.009 0.748 0.912 0.675
KRU2 0.874 45.152 0.764
KRU3 0.800 19.911 0.640
KRU4 0.747 14.558 0.558
KRU5 0.817 23.284 0.667
Knowledge sharing (KS) KS1 0.763 12.569 0.582 0.830 0.551
KS2 0.785 12.865 0.616
KS3 0.757 12.236 0.573
KS4 0.660 7.265 0.436
Knowledge validation process (KVP) KVP1 0.763 15.131 0.582 0.848 0.584
KVP2 0.711 12.633 0.506
KVP3 0.744 10.714 0.554
KVP4 0.833 27.812 0.694
Learning culture (LC) LC1 0.781 29.145 0.610 0.900 0.643
LC2 0.854 45.987 0.729
LC3 0.779 23.205 0.607
LC4 0.785 19.932 0.616
LC5 0.808 31.568 0.653
Performance (PER) PER1 0.832 22.549 0.692 0.918 0.692
PER2 0.831 36.922 0.691
PER3 0.851 36.741 0.724
PER4 0.831 28.752 0.691
PER5 0.813 24.618 0.661
Knowledge management strategy (KMST) KMST1 0.800 28.227 0.640 0.928 0.648
KMST2 0.797 31.585 0.635
KMST3 0.795 25.782 0.632
KMST4 0.849 41.773 0.721
KMST5 0.806 32.814 0.650
KMST6 0.830 36.109 0.689
KMST7 0.752 20.665 0.566
Worker interaction and collaboration (WIC) WIC1 0.661 7.920 0.437 0.833 0.558
WIC2 0.692 10.117 0.479
WIC3 0.739 19.844 0.546
WIC4 0.866 7.611 0.750
Note: *t-value ⬎ 1.96 are significant @ 0.05 level

of CMB, Harmon’s one-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) was conducted. No single factor
accounted for more than 28 per cent of the variance suggesting a lack of CMB. However,
given Harmon’s one-factor test is increasingly contested for its ability to detect CMB
(Podsakoff et al., 2003), an additional test as suggested by Pavlou et al. (2006) was
performed. The construct correlation matrix was examined to determine if any constructs
correlate extremely high (⬎ 0.90). As shown in Table III, no constructs met this condition
further supporting a lack of CMB.

PAGE 750 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

Table III Correlations among constructs
Constructs CON US ITS KRU KS KVP LC PER KMST WIC

CONa 0.91b
US 0.34 0.80
ITS 0.22 0.49 0.85
KRU 0.53 0.50 0.29 0.82
KS 0.34 0.38 0.35 0.37 0.74
KVP 0.19 0.33 0.09 0.25 0.16 0.76
LC 0.32 0.55 0.44 0.45 0.51 0.33 0.80
PER 0.50 0.56 0.36 0.58 0.26 0.23 0.43 0.83
KMST 0.19 0.53 0.47 0.47 0.34 0.32 0.61 0.40 0.81
WIC 0.29 0.20 0.14 0.34 0.33 0.04 0.39 0.24 0.24 0.75
a
Notes: Continuance of use (CON); user satisfaction (US); information technology support of
knowledge repository (ITS); knowledge management strategy (KMST); knowledge reuse (KRU);
knowledge sharing (KS); learning culture (LC); knowledge validation process (KVP); performance
(PER); worker interaction and collaboration (WIC); bthe italicized diagonal elements are the square
root of the variance shared between the constructs and their measures (i.e. the square root of the
average variance extracted). Off-diagonal elements are the correlations between constructs. For
discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be larger than any other corresponding row or
column entry

Lastly, the final test for CMB is a latent method factor test that was adapted from Liang
et al. (2007). The results indicate that the average variance because of substantive
constructs is 0.80, whereas the average variance because of the method construct was
0.0003. Additionally, the majority of method factor loadings were not significant. Given
these results, CMB does not appear to be a concern.

5.4 Test of the structural model

The evaluation of the structural model was conducted by assessing the following metrics:
Cohen’s (1998) coefficient of determination (R2) and effect size (f)2, Geisser (1975) and
Stone (1974) estimated structural path coefficients and their significance levels, and
Stone-Geisser (Q)2 test for predictive relevance. Finally, to test for mediating effects of the
model, the Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2008) procedure was followed.
Following Chin’s (1998) guidelines, R2 values of 0.67, 0.33 and 0.19 are considered to be
“substantial”, “moderate” and “weak”, respectively. In the case where an endogenous
variable is predicted by only one or two exogenous variables, a moderate R2 may be
acceptable (1998). To test for significance of R2, Falk and Miller’s (1992) F-test is used.
Figure 2 summarizes the results of the R2 assessment. All dependent variables are
significant at the 0.001 level based on the F-test. Using Chin’s (1998) R2 guideline: PER,
KRU and LC qualify as “moderate”.
Next, effect size f2 assesses the explanatory power of the PLS model (Chin, 1998; Gotz
et al., 2010) and measures the change in R2 as a predictor variable is removed from the
model. The f2 values of 0.02, 0.15 and 0.35 respectively are used as guidelines for small,
medium and large effect sizes variables (Chin, 1998). The results show that the significant
predictors of KRU explain approximately 35 per cent of the variance. The largest predictor
for KRU is US with a value of 0.30 (p ⬍ 0.000). When US is excluded from the model, the
remaining predictors explain 30 per cent of KRU variance and the effect size is between
small and medium. The Stone-Geisser Q2 assesses the structural model (Stone, 1974;
Geisser, 1975). The predictive relevance is demonstrated for all endogenous variables
when Q2 is greater than zero and lacks predictive relevance when Q2 is close to zero or
negative (Chin, 1998). Similar to the f 2, the relative impact of Q2 can be assessed by its q2
effect size (Hair et al., 2013). The results for Q2 are provided in Figure 2. Five of the seven
constructs have Q2 values considerably higher than zero, providing further support for the

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 751

 Figure 2 Structural model results

model’s predictive relevance. However, KS and KVP are close to zero and in line with their
corresponding low R2 values, lack predictive relevance.
As Figure 2 shows, f2 can be considered large for KMST to LC, and small to medium for US
to KRU, KMST to KRU, WIC to KRU and KS to CON. Correspondingly, q2 can be
considered large for KMST to LC and small to medium for WIC to LC, WIC to KRU and KS
to CON.

5.5 Mediation
To test for mediation, the Preacher and Hayes (2004, 2008) method was followed. The
method is a two-step process where we first assess whether the direct effect without the
mediator is significant. If the effect is not significant than there is no mediating effect;
however, if it is significant then the mediating variable is added to the model and then
bootstrapped to determine the significance of the indirect effect. If the indirect effect is not
significant then there is no mediation; however, if it is, then the amount of the mediator’s
direct effect is assessed through an index (variance accounted for, VAF). As Hair et al.
(2013) explain, VAF is simply the ratio of size of the indirect effect in relation to the total
effect (VAF ⬎ 80 per cent, full mediation; 20 per cent ⱕ VAF ⱕ 80 per cent, partial
mediation; VAF ⱕ 20 per cent, no mediation). Table IV summarizes the results of the
mediation analysis.
The assessment of the indirect effects of the mediating variables indicated only the PER ¡
K ¡ CON path was significant at the 0.10 level. Because the corresponding VAF value is
only 11.7 per cent, we consider this effect to be negligible, or has no mediation.

6. Discussion
Our study aimed to provide two primary contributions:

1. offer a better understanding of KRU via EKRs by modelling both social and technical
factors from a socio-technical perspective; and

PAGE 752 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

Table IV Mediation analysis
Path Indirect Standard Total
Effects Path coefficient effect deviation effect VAF (%) t-value p-value Decision

Direct without mediator WIC¡ KRU 0.206 Not applicable 4.370 0.000 Accepted
Indirect with mediator WIC¡ KRU 0.205 Not applicable 0.225 8.889a 0.952b 0.341 Rejected
WIC ¡ LC 0.241 0.020 0.021
LC ¡ KRU 0.082
Direct without mediator KMST¡ KRU 0.242 Not applicable 3.168 0.000 Accepted
Indirect with mediator KMST¡ KRU 0.204 Not applicable 0.250 18.400 0.885 0.376 Rejected
KMST¡ LC 0.558 0.046 0.052
LC¡ KRU 0.082
Direct without mediator US¡ KRU 0.314 Not applicable 4.112 0.000 Accepted
Indirect with mediator US¡ KRU 0.301 Not applicable 0.318 5.346 0.773 0.440 Rejected
US¡ KVP 0.333 0.017 0.022
KVP¡ KRU 0.052
Direct without mediator US¡ KRU 0.298 Not applicable 3.789 0.000 Accepted
Indirect with mediator US¡ KRU 0.301 Not applicable 0.296 ⫺1.689 0.152 0.880 Rejected
US¡ ITS 0.242 ⫺0.005 0.033
ITS¡ KRU ⫺0.020
Direct without mediator PER¡ KRU 0.506 Not applicable 10.278 0.000 Accepted
Indirect with mediator PER¡ KRU 0.445 Not applicable 0.504 11.706 1.903 0.057 Rejected
PER¡ KS 0.263 0.059 0.031
KS¡ KRU 0.224
Notes: Continuance of use (CON); User satisfaction (US); Information technology support of knowledge repository (ITS); Knowledge
management strategy (KMST); Knowledge reuse (KRU); Knowledge validation process (KVP); Performance (PER); Worker interaction
and collaboration (WIC); aWorker interaction and collaboration and knowledge reuse calculations (typ.); Indirect effect ⫽ 0.241 ⫻
0.082 ⫽ 0.020; Total effect ⫽ Indirect effect ⫹ direct effect ⫽ 0.020 ⫹ 0.205 ⫽ 0.225; VAF ⫽ Indirect effect/Total effect ⫻ 100 ⫽
0.020/0.225 ⫻ 100 ⫽ 8.889%; bIndirect path (WIC ¡ LC ¡ KRU) t-value (typ.); t-value ⫽ Indirect effect/standard deviation ⫽
0.020/0.021 ⫽ 0.952

2. use the ECM as a lens to better understand continuance of use as a result of KRU
through EKRs.
The following findings are highlighted from our investigation (Table V).
First, our study confirms that both social and technical factors modelled interdependently
affect KRU and lead to greater performance, knowledge sharing and continuance of use.
To the best of our knowledge, ours is the first study to comprehensively model enablers to
KRU and their resulting effect on downstream organizational outcomes. Our model also
confirms that social factors – namely worker interaction and collaboration – and KM
strategy can predict greater KRU. This result is likely tied to the openness of a collaborative
environment where interaction with others increases information exchange and leads to
new insights, informational leads and the strengthening of credentials. This collaborative
performance shares roots with Boh’s finding (2008) that knowledge reuse increased when
knowledge seekers interacted with the author of the knowledge asset. Next, we found
support for a positive association between KM strategy and KRU. We surmise the use of
strategy in recognizing, developing and deploying a plan to support KM helps to create an
environment conducive for EKR effectiveness. This leadership effort is known to have
strong roots in developing organizational culture. As Schein (2010) indicates, if leaders do
not design systems and procedures as reinforcement mechanisms they run the risk of
weakening their message from the onset. Our study did not find support for an impact of
learning culture on KRU. This could be because of the sheer breadth of the construct and
the confusion and misunderstanding caused when trying to conceptualize it (Zheng et al.,
2010), or as Karkoulian et al. (2013) indicate, it may be because KM influences learning
organizations more so than learning organizations influence KM.
Next, our results confirm the strong predictive relationship between user satisfaction and
KRU. This particular path had the highest coefficient of all our enablers, and supports

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 753

Table V Summary of research hypotheses
Path coefficient
(t-value)
Hypothesis Path [VAF, if applicable] Hypothesis supported

H1. Worker interaction and WIC ¡ KRU 0.205 YES

collaboration positively (3.659***)
influences knowledge reuse
through EKRs
H2. Learning culture positively LC ¡ KRU 0.082 NO
influences knowledge reuse (0.786)
through EKRs
H2a. Learning culture WIC ¡ LC ¡ 0.082 NO
mediates the influence of work KRU (0.952)
interaction and collaboration [8.889%]
on knowledge reuse through
EKRs
H2b. Learning culture KMST ¡ LC ¡ 0.082 NO
mediates the influence of KM KRU (0.885)
strategy on knowledge reuse [18.400%]
through EKRs
H3. Knowledge management KMST ¡ KRU 0.204 YES
strategy positively influences (2.294**)
knowledge reuse through
EKRs
H4. Information technology ITS ¡ KRU ⫺0.020 NO
support positively influences (0.302)
knowledge reuse through
EKRs
H4a. Information technology U ¡ IT ¡ KRU ⫺0.020 NO
support mediates the (0.152)
influence of user satisfaction [⫺1.689%]
on knowledge reuse through
EKRs
H5. User satisfaction U ¡ KRU 0.301 YES
positively influences (3.875***)
knowledge reuse through
EKRs
H6. Knowledge validation KVP¡ KRU 0.052 NO
process positively influences (0.844)
knowledge reuse through
EKRs
H6a. Knowledge validation U ¡ KVP¡KRU 0.052 NO
process mediates the (0.773)
influence of user satisfaction [5.346%]
on knowledge reuse through
EKRs
H7. Knowledge reuse through KRU¡PER 0.578 YES
EKRs positively influences (9.389***)
worker performance
H8. Performance positively PER¡CON 0.445 YES
influences continuance of use (7.724***)
of EKRs
H8a. Performance positively PER¡KS 0.263 YES
influences knowledge sharing (3.560***)
H9. Knowledge sharing KS¡CON 0.224 YES
positively influences (4.099***)
continuance of use of EKRs
H9a. Knowledge sharing PER¡K ¡ CON 0.224 NO
mediates the influence of (1.903)
performance of continuance [11.706%]
of use of EKRs
Notes: **p ⬍ 0.01; ***p ⬍ 0.001

PAGE 754 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

similar findings in the literature (Sanders and Premus, 2005; Kankanhalli et al., 2011).
Moreover, given that our user satisfaction construct included items on knowledge quality,
our findings compliment those of Filieri and Willison (2016) who also found a positive
association between knowledge quality and KRU. Our remaining technical factors, namely
IT support and knowledge validation process, did not exert an influence on KRU through
EKR. In the case of IT support, the lack of influence may be because of the impertinence
of having to consult IT when trying to identify the application or utility of a reuse item. In
terms of knowledge validation process, unlike Durcikova and Gray’s (2009) finding
regarding the positive influence of a knowledge validation process on knowledge
contribution, our study did not find a statistically significant link between knowledge
validation and KRU. While this finding appears to be contradictory, referring back to the
studies of Boh (2008) and Filieri and Alguezaui (2015), it may be that knowledge reusers
prefer to vet the accuracy of a knowledge item through person to person interactions
instead of relying on the repository’s validation process.
Our findings confirm the use of modelling EKRs from a social and technical antecedent
perspective and extending this view to include the resulting effect on downstream
organizational outcomes. Contextualizing the ECM, we use KRU in place of confirmation,
performance in place of satisfaction and add the intermediary benefit of knowledge sharing
prior to our dependent variable, continuance of use. The resulting model is, to the best of
our knowledge, the first to supplant ECM constructs with those from a KM context and
specific to EKR usage. Additionally, our model is also the first to include both knowledge
sharing and KRU within the context of a KM process, and as a sequential effect of one
another. In particular, our study finds support for increased knowledge sharing as a result
of KRU’s effect on performance. Additionally, we find support for knowledge sharing’s
positive association to continuance of use. Here, we see that KRU plays a reinforcing role
in the continuance loop, in that as performance improves, users tend to share more of what
they know which ultimately leads to greater continuance of use. This belief based view
supports the work of He and Wei (2009) and their effort on modelling continuance based
on a knowledge seeking or contribution perspective.
From a practical standpoint, the research presents a number of actionable ideas. First, it is
critical to obtain top management buy-in. Without top level leadership support, the
practices and routines necessary to develop, implement and continually support EKRs will
not firmly take root. Next, organizations should look for strategies and tactics to enhance
greater workforce interaction and collaboration, because synergies from these efforts can
lead to greater KRU. For example, organizations can use technology to foster discussions
and communications through internal discussion boards, or establish “knowledge cafes”,
that is, events where individuals or other organizations come together to engage in
knowledge sharing, learning and innovating (Gurteen, 2009). Additionally, companies can
ensure that key business processes are integrated to include interaction with other
pertinent functional departments. Key business processes can include the ideation
process, product launch and customer and consumer problem-solving. Finally, from a
technical and usage standpoint, the design of the EKR can be enhanced to improve user
satisfaction. For example, organizations can improve search features by applying
interfaces that mimic traditional search engine windows. As well, the data architecture of
the EKR can be enhanced by using ontologies and semantic web tools. Here,
commensurate with the growing interest in the academic community, findings from
research efforts can be exported to industrial and commercial applications.

7. Limitations and future research

There are several methodological limitations in this study. First, the data collected are
self-reported. Consequently, this may result in measuring an impression of intent rather than
actual occurrence. Next, survey questions that required respondents to focus on a single EKR,

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 755

 could have skewed responses towards those more recent and valence positive. Likewise, the
limited possibility of generalization of the findings, because the study was restricted to a
specific EKR. As explained by D’Argembeau and Van der Linden (2004), a tendency to recall
positive experiences and recent events with greater clarity can influence a user’s response.
Further, because the data is cross-sectional and consequently represents a single point in time,
the research does not evaluate improvements made to the exogenous variables that could
potentially influence their impact on respective dependent variables.
Finally, the type of EKR used was not captured, and as a result it is unknown what if any
effect the various sophistication levels of these EKRs had on the study. For example,
Majchrzak et al. (2013) posits that using a Wikis model as a type of knowledge repository
can impact KRU in organizations. Additionally, the use of computer related technologies,
for example, ontologies, semantic web tools and computer programming, have been found
to enhance repositories by improving information recall and sharing (Tsui et al., 2014; Costa
et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2012). A direction for future research could be studying the
various types of repositories found in industry and identifying those components within
them that play a significant role in KRU.

8. Conclusions
Our timely research contributes to the growing industrial movement towards KM. First, we
developed and tested a multi-theoretical and sequentially logical model for KRU via EKRs.
This broader view of KRU provides exploratory power on both individual and organizational
antecedents as well as its effect on downstream organizational outcomes. Second, we
combined and validated the use of the socio-technical perspective as well as the ECM to
view enablers to KRU and its effect on performance, knowledge sharing and continuance
of use. Our results confirm the use of this approach when modelling KRU and its
organizational effects.

References
Akgun, A.E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G.S. and Imamoglu, S.Z. (2005), “Knowledge networks in new
product development projects: a transactive memory perspective”, Information & Management, Vol. 42
No. 8, pp. 1105-1120.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. (1999), “Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits”,
Communications of the AIS, Vol. 1 No. 7.

Argote, L. (1999), Organizational Learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge, Kluwer,
Norwell, MA.

Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-169.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

Bailey, J. and Pearson, S. (1983), “Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user
satisfaction”, Management Science, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 530-545.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2001), “Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation

model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 351-370.

Bock, G.W., Mahmood, M., Sharma, S. and Kang, Y.J. (2010), “The impact of information overload and
contribution overload on continued usage of electronic knowledge repositories”, Journal of
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 257-278.

Boh, F. (2008), “Reuse of knowledge assets from repositiories: a mixed methods study”, Information
and Management, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 365-375.

Calantone, R.J., Cavusgil, S.T. and Zhao, Y. (2002), “Learning orientation, firm innovation capability,
and firm performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 515-524.

PAGE 756 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modelling”, in
Marcoulides, G. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, pp. 295-336.

Choi, S., Kang, Y. and Lee, H. (2008), “The effects of socio-technical enablers on knowledge sharing:
an exploratory examination”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 742-754.

Choi, S.Y., Lee, H. and Yoo, Y. (2010), “The impact of information technology and transactive memory
systems on knowledge sharing, application, and team performance: a field study”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 855-870.

Cohen, J. (1998), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Costa, R., Lima, C., Sarrraipa, J. and Jardim-Goncalves, R. (2016), “Facilitating knowledge sharing
and reuse in building and construction domain”, Journal of Inelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 263-282.

D’Argembeau, A. and Van der Linden, M. (2004), “Phenomenal characteristics associate with
projecting oneself back into the past and forwardinto the future: influcence of valence and temporal
distance”, Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 844-858.

Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.

DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (1992), “Information system success: the quest for the dependent
variable”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 60-95.

DeLone, W. and McLean, E. (2003), “The DeLone and McLean model of information system success”,
Journal of Management Information System, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 9-30.

Dixon, N.M. (2000), Common Knowledge: How Campanies Thrive By Sharing What They Know,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Doll, W.J. and Torkzadeh, G. (1998), “The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 259-274.

Durcikova, A. and Gray, P. (2009), “How knowledge validation processes affect knowledge
contribution”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 81-107.

Ettlie, J.E. and Kubarek, M. (2008), “Design reuse in manufacturing and services”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 457-472.

Evans, M., Anthony, W. and IIja, F. (2015), “The mediating effects of trustworthiness on social-cognitive
factors and knowledge sharing in a large professional service firm”, Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 240-253.

Falk, R. and Miller, N. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press, Akron, OH.

Filieri, R. and Alguezaui, S. (2015), “Knowledge sourcing and knowledge reuse in the virtual product
prototyping: an exploratory study in a large automotive supplier of R&D”, Expert Systems, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 637-651.

Filieri, R. and Willison, R. (2016), “Antecedents of knowledge sourcing and reuse from a knowledge
repository in the virtual product prototyping: the role of knowledge and system quality dimensions”,
Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 147-160.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.

Gable, G., Sedera, D. and Chan, T. (2003), “Enterprise systems success: a measurement model”,
Proceedings Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Seattle, pp. 576-591.

Geisser, S. (1975), “The predictive sample reuse method with applications”, Journal of American
Statistical Association, Vol. 70 No. 350, pp. 320-328.

Gold, A.H. and Malhotra, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities
perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 185-214.

Gotz, O., Liehr-Gobbers, K. and Krafft, M. (2010), “Evaluation of structural equation models using
partial least squares (PLS) approach”, in Vinzi, V.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Partial Least Squares,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 691-711.

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 757

 Gray, P. and Durcikova, A. (2005), “The role of knoweldge repositories in technical support
environments: speed versus learning in user performance”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 159-190.

Gray, P. and Meister, D. (2005), “Knowledge sourcing methods”, Information and Management, Vol. 43
No. 2, pp. 142-156.

Gurteen, D. (2009), “Knowledge cafe”, Inside Knowledge, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 8-13.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective,
7th ed., Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hair, J.F., Jr, Hult, G.T., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Hanh, J. and Subramani, M.R. (2000), “A framework of knowledge management systems: issues and
challenges for theory and practice”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information
Systems, Brisbane, pp. 302-312.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing knowledge”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-116.

He, W. and Wei, K.K. (2009), “What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of
knowledge - contribution and seeking beliefs”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 826-838.

Hendriks, P. (1999), “Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge
sharing”, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 91-100.

Hong, S., Thong, J. and Tam, K. (2006), “Understanding continued information technology usage
behavior: a comparison of three models in the context of mobile internet”, Decision Support Systems,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1819-1834.

Hurley, R. and Hult, T. (1998), “Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an
integration and empirical examination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 42-54.

ISO (2014), The ISO Survey of Management System Standard – 2013, available at: www.iso.org;
www.iso.org/iso/iso_survey_executive-summary.pdf?v2013 (accessed 11 August 2015).

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. and Wei, K. (2005a), “Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge
repositories: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 113-143.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. and Wei, K. (2005b), “Understanding seeking from electronic knowledge
repositories: an empirical study”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 56 No. 11, pp. 1156-1166.

Kankanhalli, A., Lee, O.K. and Lim, K.H. (2011), “Knowledge reuse through electronic repositories: a
study in the context of customer service support”, Information & Management, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 106-113.

Karkoulian, S., Messarra, C. and McCarthy, R. (2013), “The intriguing art of knowledge management
and its relation to learning organizations”, Journal of Knowledge Mangement, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 511-526.

Khadilkar, D.V. and Stauffer, L.A. (1996), “An experimental evaluation of design information reuse
during conceptual design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 7 No. 4, p. 331.

Kimble, C. (2013), “What cost knowledge management? The example of Infosys”, Global Business and
Organizational Excellence, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 6-14.

Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press, New York,
NY.

Lansdale, M.W. (1998), “The psychology of personal information management”, Applied Ergonomics,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 55-66.

Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003), “Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational
performance: An Integrative view and empirical examination”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 179-228.

Lee, S., Kim, B. and Kim, H. (2012), “An integrated view of knowledge management for performance”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-203.

PAGE 758 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

Li, S. and Lin, B. (2006), “Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply chain
management”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1641-1656.

Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 59-87.

Liao, H. and Chuang, A. (2004), “A multilevel investigation of factors influencing employee service
performance and customer outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 41-58.

Liebowitz, J. and Beckman, T.J. (1998), Knowledge Organizations: What Every Manager Should Know,
CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Lin, T. and Huang, C. (2008), “Understanding the determinants of EKR usage from social,
technological and personal perspectives”, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 165-179.

Lopez-Nicolas, C. and Merono-Cerdan, A.L. (2011), “Strategic knowledge management, innovation

and performance”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 502-509.

Maglitta, J. (1996), “Smarten up!”, Computerworld, Vol. 29 No. 23, pp. 84-86.

Majchrzak, A., Cooper, P. and Neece, E. (2004), “Knoweldge reuse for innovation”, Management
Science, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 174-188.

Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C. and Yates, D. (2013), “The impact of shaping on knowledge reuse for
organizational improvement with Wikis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 455-469.

Markus, L.M. (2001), “Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations and
factors in reuse success”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 57-93.

Murphy, J. and Hackbush, J. (2007), The Knowledge Management Spending Report, AMR Research,
Stamford, CT.

Nelson, K. and McCann, J. (2010), “Designing for knowledge worker retention & organizational
performance”, Journal of Management and Marketing Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Nelson, R., Todd, P. and Wixom, B. (2005), “Antecedents of information and system quality: an
empirical test and theoretical analysis”, Information System Research, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 199-235.

Nicolaou, A.I. and McKnight, D.H. (2006), “Perceived information quality in data exchanges: effects on
risk, trust and intention to use”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 332-351.

Nonaka, I. (1994), “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation”, Organization Science,

Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 14-37.

Palmes, P. (2014), “A new look: 15 things you must know about the upcoming ISO 9001 revision”,
Quality Progress, pp. 19-21.

Pavlou, P.A., Liang, H. and Xue, Y. (2006), “Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in online
exchange relationships: a principal-agent perspective”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 105-136.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.

Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 717-731.

Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior research methods, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 879-891.

Rai, A., Lang, S. and Welker, R. (2002), “Assessing the validity of IS success models: an empirical test
and theoretical analysis”, Information System Research, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 50-69.

Sabherwal, R., Jeyaraj, A. and Chowa, C. (2006), “Information system success: individual and
organizational determinants”, Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1849-1864.

Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A. and Grover, V. (2003), “Shaping agility through digital options:
reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 237-263.

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 759

 Sanders, N. and Premus, R. (2005), “Modeling the relationship between firm IT capability,
collaboration, and performance”, Journal of business logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Schein, H.E. (2010), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, San
Fransicso, CA.

Shahin, T.M., Andrews, P.T. and Sivaloganathan, S. (1999), “A design reuse system”, Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, Vol. 213 No. 6, pp. 621-627.

Sheehan, K.B. and McMillan, S.J. (1999), “Response variation in e-mail surveys: an exploration”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 45-54.

Siponen, M. and Vance, A. (2010), “Neurtralization: new insights into the problem of employee
information systems security policy violations”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. A1-A12.

Stewart, T. and Ruckdeschel, C. (1998), “Intellectual capital: the new wealth of organizations”,
Performance Improvement, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 56-59.

Stone, M. (1974), “Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions”, Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 111-147.

Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within
the firm”, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 27-43.

Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W. (1951), “Some social and psychological consequences of the long wall
method of coal getting”, Human relations, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 3-39.

Tsai, M.T., Chen, C.C. and Chin, C.W. (2010), “Knowledge workers’ interpersonal skills and innovation
performance: an empirical study of Taiwanese high-tech industrial workers”, Social Behavior and
Personality, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 115-126.

Tseng, S.M. (2008), “Knowledge management system performance measure index”, Expert Systems
with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 734-745.

TSIA (2014), The State of Knowledge Management: 2014, TSIA, San Diego, CA.

Tsui, E., Wang, W., Cai, L., Cheung, C. and Lee, W. (2014), “Knowledge-based extraction of intellectual
capital-related information from unstructured data”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 4,
pp. 1315-1325.

Vroom, V. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, New York, NY.

Walker, S.L. and Fraser, B.J. (2005), “Development and validation of an instrument for assessing
distance education learning environments in higher education: the distance education learning
environments survey (DELES)”, Learning Environments Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 289-308.

Wasko, M. and Faraj, S. (2005), “Why should I share? Examing social capital and knowledge
contribution in electronic networks of practice”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-57.

Watson, S. and Hewett, K. (2006), “A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organization:

determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 141-173.

Worthington, R. and Whittaker, T. (2006), “Scale development research: A content analysis and
recommendations for best practices”, Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 34, pp. 806-838.

Wu, J. and Wang, Y. (2006), “Measuring KMS success: an attempt to extend and respecify DeLone
and McLean’s model”, Information and Management, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 728-739.

Zack, M.H. (1999), “Managing codified knowledge”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 45-58.

Zhang, D., Hu, D., Xu, Y. and Zhang, H. (2012), “A framework for design knowledge management and
reuse for Product-Service systems in construction machinery industry”, Computers in industry, Vol. 63
No. 4, pp. 328-337.

Zheng, W., Yang, B. and McLean, G. (2010), “Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and
organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 63 No. 7, pp. 763-771.

PAGE 760 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

Further reading
Babcock, P. (2004), “Shedding light on knowledge management”, HR Magazine, Vol. 49 No. 5,
pp. 46-50.

Bellantuono, N., Pontrandolfo, P. and Scozzi, B. (2013), “Different practices for open innovation: a
context-based approach”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 558-568.

Casselman, R. and Samson, D. (2007), “Aligning knowledge strategy and knowledge capabilities”,
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 69-81.

Huber, G. (1991), “Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures”,
Oganizational Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 88-115.

Huysman, M. and Wulf, V. (2006), “IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, towards a social
capital analysis”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 40-51.

Jamrog, J. (2004), “The perfect store: the future of retention and engagment”, Human Resource
Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 26-33.

McCann, J. and Buckner, M. (2004), “Strategically integrating knowledge management initiatives”,

Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 47-63.

Taylor, C. (2004), “Retention leadership”, T and D, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 41-45.

Young, R. and Jordan, E. (2008), “Top management support: mantra or necessity?”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 713-725.

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 761

 Appendix

Table AI Operationalization of constructs

Construct Item Measurement Source

Worker interaction and To help answer the following questions, consider how Authors
collaboration (WIC) the items below apply to your day to day activities at
work
WIC1 I often work with others Adapted from Walker and Fraser
WIC2 I often relate my work to other’s work (2005)
WIC3 I discuss my ideas with others within the
company
WIC4 Group work is a part of my job
responsibilities
WIC5 There is a willingness to collaborate across Adapted from Lee and Choi
organizational units (2003)
Knowledge management strategy To help answer the following seven questions, IC reference from Stewart and
(KMST) Intellectual Capital (IC) is defined as the combination Ruckdeschel (1998)
of your company’s human capital (its people and their
skills), organizational capital (patents, systems,
policies, procedures) and customer capital (brand,
reputation, relationships with customers and suppliers)
KMST1 We have incorporated strategies regarding Adapted from Nelson and
IC into strategic thinking and planning McCann (2010)
KMST2 Our top leadership supports and engages
in an active dialogue about knowledge
management
KMST3 We have adopted explicit measures for
assessing and reporting on various forms of
IC
KMST4 We have clearly defined strategies for
building IC that have adequate resources
and budgets
KMST5 Our organization design is specifically
evaluated in terms of how well it supports
IC application
KMST6 IC is a competitive asset that the
organization actively manages
KMST7 We’ve developed special roles for helping
direct and apply IC (“e.g. knowledge
managers”)
Information technology support of Our company’s IT provides support . . . Authors
knowledge repository (ITS) ITS1 Regardless of time and place Adapted from Choi et al. (2010)
ITS2 For searching and accessing necessary
information
ITS3 For systemic storing and distributing
knowledge
Learning culture (LC) To help answer the following questions, consider your Authors
day to day activities at work and how they apply to the
statements below
LC1 We are good at learning from both our Adapted from Nelson and
successes and failures McCann (2010)
LC2 Our culture supports sharing and learning
from each other
LC3 We support open, ready access by
employees to the knowledge created in the
organization
LC4 Our leadership empowers employees to
apply their knowledge to innovative ends
LC5 Managers view themselves as active
learners and teachers
(continued)

PAGE 762 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017

Table AI
Construct Item Measurement Source

Knowledge validation process To help answer the following questions, consider the Authors
(KVP) contribution process for your company’s electronic
knowledge repository
KVP1 The review process for contributions to the Adapted from Durcikova and
EKR occur in a timely manner Gray (2009)
KVP2 It is easy for me to see the status of my
contributions to the EKR
KVP3 My contributions to the EKR often end up
being rejected
KVP4 Overall, the contribution review process is
clear
Knowledge reuse (KRU) To help answer the following questions, consider the Authors
usefulness of the knowledge items obtained from your
company’s electronic knowledge repository (EKR). As
a reminder, a knowledge item is defined as “actionable
information”
KRU1 I am often able to apply the knowledge Adapted from Lansdale (1998)
from the EKR to my work
KRU2 I reuse knowledge from the EKR to help me
reduce the time I spend on addressing
issues
KRU3 I reuse knowledge from the EKR to help me Adapted from Liao and Chuang
prevent issues (2004)
KRU4 I reuse knowledge from the EKR to help me
reduce training time for new staff
KRU5 I often reuse knowledge from the EKR Authors
Knowledge sharing (KS) Employees at our company . . . Authors
KS1 Share their work reports and official Adapted from Choi et al. (2010)
documents with other team members
KS2 Provide material and methodologies to
other team members
KS3 Share their experience or know-how with
other team members
KS4 I often share information with other Adapted from Walker and Fraser
employees within the company (2005)
Continuance of use (CON) CON1 What is the likelihood that you would Adapted from Nicolaou and
continue using the electronic knowledge McKnight (2006)
repository?
CON2 If faced with a similar issue or situation in
the future, I would use the electronic
knowledge repository again
CON3 I would recommend the use of the
electronic knowledge repository to my
colleagues at work
CON4 I intend to continue using the electronic Adapted from He and Wei (2009)
knowledge repository as a part of my daily
activities
Performance (PER) Using the electronic knowledge repository . . . Authors
PER1 helps me to improve products and/or Authors
processes
PER2 helps me to provide more relevant Adapted from Kankanhalli et al.
knowledge to my customers and/or my (2011)
managers
PER3 allows me to reduce the time I spend on
addressing issues
PER4 helps me to prevent issues
PER5 helped prevent me from making the same Adapted from Boh (2008)
mistakes others made
(continued)

VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 763

Table AI
Construct Item Measurement Source

User satisfaction (US) I feel the electronic knowledge repository. . . Adapted from Davis (1989)
US1 provides the precise information I need
US2 has content that meets my needs
US3 provides sufficient information
US4 is accurate
US5 presents information in a useful format
US6 is user friendly
US7 is easy to use
US8 provides information in a timely manner
US9 provides clear information
US10 provides up to date information

Corresponding author
Toni M. Somers 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]

PAGE 764 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 21 NO. 4 2017