Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge management orientation: construct development and empirical validation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

We introduce the concept of knowledge management orientation (KMO) – the degree to which a firm demonstrates behaviors of organized and systematic knowledge management (KM) implementation. Based on an extensive review of the KM literature, the KMO concept is operationalized as a second-order latent construct consisting of four main component factors: organizational memory, knowledge sharing, knowledge absorption, and knowledge receptivity. We then validate the KMO construct using data from 213 United Kingdom firms. The findings provide strong support for the unidimensionality, reliability, discriminant validity, and convergent validity of the KMO construct. We also test the impact of KMO on firm performance and find a significant, positive relationship, providing support for the predictive validity of the KMO construct. Our findings suggest that KMO is an effective measure of the firm-level KM-oriented behaviors. The theoretical, methodological, and practical implications of the KMO construct are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi M and Leidner D (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1982) Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research 19 (4), 453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson JC and Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (3), 411–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C and Schön DA (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS and Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 14 (1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP and Yi Y (1990) Assessing method variance in multitrait-multimethod matrices: the case of self-reported affect and perceptions at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 75, 547–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi RP, Yi Y and Phillips LW (1991) Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (3), 421–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB and Mackey TB (2005) Testing resource-based theory. In Research Methodology in Strategy and Management (KETCHEN DJ and BERGH DD, Eds), Vol. 2 pp 1–13, Elsevier, New York.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Becker M (2001) Managing dispersed knowledge: organizational problems, managerial strategies, and their effectiveness. Journal of Management Studies 38 (7), 1037–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler PM (1992) EQS Structural Equations Program Manual. BMDP Statistical Software, Los Angles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierly P and Chakrabarti A (1996) Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG and Lee JN (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly 29 (1), 87–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JS and Duguid P (1998) Organizing knowledge. California Management Review 40 (3), 90–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown MW and Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models (BOLLENKA and LONGJS, Eds), pp 136–162, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne BM (2001) Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera A and Cabrera EF (2002) Knowledge-sharing dilemmas. Organization Studies 23/5, 687–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW (1998) Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22 (1), 7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi T (1994) Trading in strategic resources: necessary conditions, transaction cost problems, and choice of exchange structure. Strategic Management Journal 15, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (1), 63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MD and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crampton SM and Wagner JA (1994) Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: an investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology 79, 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW (2003) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross R and Baird L (2000) Technology is not enough: improving performance by building organizational memory. Sloan Management Review 41 (3), 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darroch J and Mcnaughton R (2003) Beyond market orientation: knowledge management and the innovativeness of New Zealand firms. European Journal of Marketing 37, 572–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH, Delong DW and Beers MC (1998) Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review 39 (2), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH and Prusak L (2000) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day GS (1991) Learning about markets. Marketing Science Institute Report, No. 91-117, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earl M (2001) Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), 215–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell C and Larcker DW (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18, 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing DW and Anderson JC (1988) An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research 25, 186–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey PC and Hill CW (1995) The problem of unobservables in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal 16, 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996) Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray PH (2001) The impact of knowledge repositories on power and control in the workplace. Information Technology & People 14 (4), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK and Govindarajan V (2000) Knowledge management's social dimension: lessons from Nucor Steel. Sloan Management Review 42, 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick DC, Geletkanycz MA and Frederickson JW (1993) Top management commitment to the status quo: some tests of its determinants. Strategic Management Journal 14, 401–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel G and Prahalad CK (1994) Competing for the Future. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT, Nohria N and Tierney T (1999) What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review 77 (2), 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedberg B (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn. In Handbook of Organizational Design (NYSTROM C and STARBUCK W, Eds), pp 8–27, Oxford University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtshouse D (1998) Knowledge research issues. California Management Review 40 (3), 277–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang JC, Newell S and Pan SL (2001) The process of global knowledge integration: a case study of a multinational investment bank's. European Journal of Information Systems 10 (3), 161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science 2, 88–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber GP and Power D (1985) Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal 6 (2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu LT and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult GTM (2003) An integration of thoughts on knowledge management. Decision Sciences 34 (2), 189–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult GTM, Ketchen DJ and Slater SF (2004) Information processing, knowledge development, and strategic supply chain performance. Academy of Management Journal 47, 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski BJ and Kohli AK (1993) Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing 57 (3), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D, Du Toit S and Du Toit M (1999) LISREL 8: New Statistical Features. Scientific Software International, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B and Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3 (3), 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli AK, Jaworski BJ and Kumar A (1993) MARKOR: a measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research 30, 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee KC, Lee S and Kang IW (2005) KMPI: measuring knowledge management performance. Information & Management 42, 469–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton D (1992) Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13 (Summer Special Issue), 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis BR, Templeton GF and Byrd TA (2005) A methodology for construct development in MIS research. European Journal of Information Systems 14 (4), 388–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum RC (1986) Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin 100 (1), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhavan R and Grover R (1998) From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product development as knowledge management. Journal of Marketing 62 (4), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG and Olsen JP (1976) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Universitets-forlaget, Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh HW and Hocevar D (1985) Application of the confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: first and second order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin 97 (3), 562–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcdermott R (1999) Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California Management Review 41 (4), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcgill ME, Slocum JW and Lei D (1993) Management practices in learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics 22, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer JT, Flint DJ and Kent JL (1999) Developing a logistics service quality scale. Journal of Business Logistics 20 (1), 9–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mom TJM, Van Den Bosch FAJ and Volberda HW (2007) Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge flows. Journal of Management Studies 44, 910–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth CJ (1997) Managing innovation: when less is more. California Management Review 40 (1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO and Sharma S (2003) Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Sage Publications, London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Newell S and Galliers RD (2006) Facilitating – or inhibiting – knowing in practice. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 441–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell S, Scarbrough H and Swan J (2001) From global knowledge management to internal electronic fences: contradictory outcomes of intranet development. British Journal of Management 12 (12), 97–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Dell C, Wiig K and Odem P (1999) Benchmarking unveils emerging knowledge management strategies. Benchmarking: An International Journal 6 (3), 202–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe B and Paul RJ (2000) Editorial. European Journal of Information Systems 9, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM and Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12, 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Lee J and Podsakoff N (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper M and Lipshitz R (1998) Organizational learning mechanisms: a structural and cultural approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 34 (2), 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouder R and St. John CH (1996) Hot spots and blind spots: geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review 21 (4), 1192–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Premkumar G and King WR (1994) Organizational characteristics and information systems planning: an empirical study. Information Systems Research 5 (2), 75–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto IM and Easterby-Smith M (2006) Dynamic capabilities and the role of organizational knowledge: an exploration. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (5), 500–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall D, Hughes J, O’Brien J, Rouncefield M and Tolmie P (2001) ‘Memories are made of this’: explicating organizational knowledge and memory. European Journal of Information Systems 10, 113–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raykov T and Widaman KF (1995) Issues in structural equation modeling research. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 2, 289–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson M, Swan J and Newell S (1996) The role of networks in the diffusion of technological innovation. Journal of Management Studies 33, 335–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal R and Becerra-Fernandez I (2003) An empirical study of the effect of knowledge management processes at individual, group, and organizational levels. Decision Sciences 34 (2), 225–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge PM (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinkula J.M., Baker W.E. and Noordewier T. (1997) A framework for market-based organizational learning: linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25 (4), 305–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector PE (1987) Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect and perceptions at work: myth or significant problem? Journal of Applied Psychology 72, 438–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan J and Scarbrough H (2001) Editorial: knowledge management: concepts and controversies. Journal of Management Studies 38, 913–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski G (1996) Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter Special Issue), 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper BJ and Tepper K (1993) The effects of method variance within measures. The Journal of Psychology 127 (3), 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai W (2002) Social structure of ‘coopetition’ within a multiunit organization: coordination, competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science 13 (2), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Bosch F, Volberda H and De Boer M (1999) Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science 10 (5), 551–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies DW and Morgan NA (2005) Benchmarking marketing capabilities for sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing 69 (1), 80–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh JP and Ungson GR (1991) Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review 16 (1), 57–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward TB (2004) Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 19, 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5, 795–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West SG, Finch JF and Curran PJ (1995) Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: problems and remedies. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications (HOYLE RH, Ed), pp 56–75, Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijnhoven F (1999) Development scenarios for organizational memory information systems. Journal of Management Information Systems 16 (1), 121–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund J and Shepherd D (2003) Knowledge-based resources, entrepreneurial orientation, and the performance of small and medium-sized businesses. Strategic Management Journal 24, 1307–1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams LJ, Cote JA and Buckley MR (1989) Lack of method variance in self-report affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology 74, 462–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Ray J. Paul, Professor Richard Baskerville, and an associate editor for their helpful editorial guidance, and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on our paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, U.K.

    Catherine L Wang

  2. Monash University Malaysia, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

    Pervaiz K Ahmed

  3. The Business School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, U.K.

    Mohammed Rafiq

Authors
  1. Catherine L Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pervaiz K Ahmed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammed Rafiq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine L Wang.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table A1.

Table a1 The knowledge management orientation (KMO) scale
Full size table

Appendix B

See Table B1.

Table a2 The firm performance measures
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wang, C., Ahmed, P. & Rafiq, M. Knowledge management orientation: construct development and empirical validation. Eur J Inf Syst 17, 219–235 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.12

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.12

Keywords

Search

Navigation