Exploring leadership role in GSD: potential contribution to an overall knowledge management strategy

7/30/2019 Exploring leadership role in GSD: potential contribution to an overall knowledge management strategy

1/7

Exploring leadership role in GSD: potentialcontribution to an overall knowledge

management strategyMamoona Humayun, Cui Gang, Isma Masood

AbstractIn todays world, software organizations are rapidly shifting from collocated development towards GSD in the desire to seeklower cost and access to skilled resources. Though GSD had become an indispensable technique, but still it suffers from lot of challenges like

inadequate communication, knowledge management, cultural & temporal difference and missing trust. These challenges pose serious risks in the

success of GSD projects. More recently, attention has turned towards identifying the factors that enable GSD organizations to operate success-

fully across geographical, cultural and temporal boundaries. Software development processes have always been knowledge based therefore af-

fective KM is considered as a crucial enabling factor in the success of GSD projects and KMS an IT-based tools are emerging as a powerful so-

lution of KM these days. Keeping in view the importance of KM, many GSD organizations have deployed various KMS in their organizations in

order to achieve desired benefits from it but tempting GSD employees to use this KMS still remain an important concern for researchers and

practitioners. Deploying KMS is just a part of KM initiatives which must be complemented with some organizational mechanism in order to get

maximum benefits from it. Leadership support has been widely recognized as an important enabling factor of KM and knowledge sharing. Thispaper examines the role of organizational leadership in the success of KMS-based knowledge sharing behavior in GSD settings. There exists li-

mited empirical evidence about the role of organizational leadership in the success of KMS. How affective KM can be achieved in GSD? What

is the role of leadership in promoting knowledge sharing through KMS? These are interesting questions that need to be answered empirically. In

this paper, we present the results of a web-based survey of a leading GSD company of china. Results show that role of leaders is crucial in mak-

ing KMS affective and tempting employees to use it for knowledge sharing and getting maximum benefits through it.

Index Terms Global software development, knowledge management, knowledge management repository, knowledge

management system, leadership

1 INTRODUCTION

GSD is becoming a dominant operational phenomenonin todays software development environment. Softwaredevelopment organizations are rapidly shifting from in-house development towards GSD in search of global re-source pool, lower cost, time to market, quick formationof global teams, delivering high quality products andhigh talent necessary to develop complex and large scalesoftware [1, 2, 3, 4, 6]. However, there are some chal-lenges associated with these benefits which include cul-tural and temporal difference, inadequate communica-tion, knowledge management and missing trust. Over thepast decade, researchers have well documented the nega-tive impact of these challenges on the success of GSDprojects (e.g., [3, 4, 5, 7, 8]. More recently, researchers hasturned their attention towards identifying the factors thatenable GSD projects to successfully execute across cultur-al and geographical boundaries. KM has been consideredas a critical success factor that enables GSD organizationto overcome the challenges of GSD to some extent (e.g.,[1, 9, 10, 11]).

Recognizing the importance of KM, an increasing

number of GSD organizations have deployed various KMinitiatives, of which KMS an IT-based system for know-ledge sharing is a common solution [12].However, it hasbeen noted that some organizations were disappointedwith their investment on KMS owing to the observationthat employees do not use KMS actively for continuousknowledge sharing [13, 14]. KM systems are not affectiveif they are not used. As pointed by the CIO of an organi-zation that the existing competitive culture among man-agement staff acted as a great obstacle in knowledge shar-ing and KMS use. Although IT artifact is a central elementof KM but it should be complemented with some organi-zational mechanism in order to get benefits from KMS[15]. Hence, it is necessary to understand that how know-ledge sharing using KMS can be promoted within GSDsettings.

Leadership support has been widely recognized as anorganizational mechanism which enables knowledgesharing through KMS and abundant studies consider it asa critical success factor of KMS success [15, 16, 17, 18, 19].Leaders are the one who set the examples for others in theorganization; they have a direct impact on KM. The sup-port from organizational leaders is the primary guarantee

of KMS success. Leaders should actively promote andfollow KM practices. Without active support of leaders,employees will consider knowledge sharing throughKMS as an additional task and they will not take it se-

amoona humayun. First Author is with the Harbin Institute of Technology,Harbin China.Cui Gang.Second Author is also with the Harbin Institute of Technology,Harbin China.Isma Masood Thord. Author is with the Virtual University, Islamabad, pakis-tan

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 5, ISSUE 3, MARCH 2013, ISSN (Online) 2151-9617

https://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing

WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 15


2/7

riously [15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22]. Leadership is considered asan ability to influence the behaviors of others by promot-ing innovation ad creating a strategic direction so that theothers may align their goals with that of the leaders [23].Two distinct knowledge processes are used for promotingknowledge sharing through KMS: contributing know-ledge to KMS and using knowledge from KMS. In thisstudy we use the term knowledge sharing for both ofthese processes.

Keeping in view the importance of leadership in thesuccess KM, in this paper, we will study the role of lea-dership in promoting knowledge sharing through KMS.The model is formulated on the results obtained fromhypothesis testing; data was collected through a surveyquestionnaire. The population consists of the employeesfrom a large GSD organization in china who have beeninvolved in software development activities and are usingKMS for knowledge sharing since last few years.

The remaining part of the paper is structured as fol-

lows: section II provides the definition of some constructsthat are necessary to understand. Section III describessome of the related work in this area. The research hypo-thesis and Methodology is described in section IV. SectionV presents the results, which are further discussed in sec-tion VI. Section VII discusses the limitations followed byconclusion and future work in section VIII

2 BACKGROUND

The aim of this section is to provide the definition ofsome constructs that will serve as grounds for under-

standing the proposed research model.2.1 Knowledge and knowledge types

Knowledge can be defined as awareness and under-standing acquired over time through study, observation,investigation or experience [24]. It has also been consi-dered as personal belief that improves ones ability totake affective action according to the situation [25, 26].Knowledge is a broad and multidimensional notionwhich is composed of at least two distinct types, tacit andexplicit. Explicit knowledge can be stored in books, soft-ware products and documents and can be reused easilywhen required. On the other hand, tacit knowledge is

stored in peoples mind in the form of memory, educa-tion, skills, experience and imagination [27]. In this study,we will only target explicit form of knowledge and issuesrelated to its management. The reasons for targeting onlythe explicit knowledge are many: firstly, explicit know-ledge is itself a rich and varied form of knowledge. Se-condly, management of explicit knowledge is qualitative-ly different from those of explicit one. Thirdly, knowledgeworkers viewpoint, inducement and motivation in shar-ing tacit knowledge are quite different from those relatedwith explicit knowledge [28].

2.2 Knowledge management vs Affectiveknowledge managemnet

Knowledge management is the process of creating,sharing, distributing, organizing, and understanding ofknowledge about organizational policies, processes and

products [29]. The objective of KM is to actually transfertacit knowledge into explicit one, and to transfer this ex-plicit knowledge from individuals to groups in the organ-ization as and when per needed. On the other hand, effec-tive KM is not merely a system that stores information,rather it is a flexible and context oriented system that in-tegrates organizational people, process and technology.Effective KM requires that KM should be incorporatedinto the overall strategy of an organization. This affectiveKM will not only help organization in managing andsharing explicit knowledge but it will also accelerategrowth, provide competitive advantages and will createbenefit for stakeholders. For the purpose of this research,we will focus on effective KM.

2.3 Percieved usefulness vs perceived seekingefforts

Before proceeding further, these two terms must be de-

fined as they are considered very important in the context of

KM. KMS is considered as a solution of KM in todayssoftware organizations and KM is by nature an IT-based

system. Deploying KMS is a part of KM initiative but

tempting employees to use this KM for knowledge sharing

requires two main features: perceived usefulness of KMS

and less perceived seeking efforts. Perceived usefulness re-

fers to the evaluation of a KMS user that contributing and

using available knowledge through KMS will improve his or

her performance, productivity, job security and will make

his work easy and so on. On the other hand, perceived seek-

ing efforts refer to the knowledge workers belief that using

KMS will make his work easy and he doesnt need to spend

much time and efforts in getting information through KMS.It has been reported that effort required to share knowledge

through KMS is a barrier to knowledge sharing behavior.

2.4 Role of leadership in achieving affective KMS

Now the question is that, how effective KM can beachieved? We discuss this question in the light of litera-ture survey.

Effective KM can not be achieved by merely using atechnology-based KM system. However, when technolo-gy is combined with organizational culture along withmanagement and leadership support than the desired

benefits can be achieved through KMS [30]. Leadershipintervention is crucial for making effective use of know-ledge, because leaders are the one who change the visionand directions of individuals [31]. A good and supportiveleader always focus on doing the right things, and he useshis abilities and skills to influence the behavior of othersin order to align others goals with him. He creates thevision of destinations among his fellows, a compellingreason to work together and thus get the things donethrough others [23].

A research study was conducted to investigate the KMprocess for software engineering and it was identified

that leadership is the most important one among the fourkey enablers of KM namely leadership, technology, cul-ture and measurement [32]. Similarly in another study amodel of KM was presented and leadership was identi-fied as one among the four important pillars of KM model





3/7

[33].Abundant studies have highlighted the importance of

leadership in the context of KM and consider it as a keyenabler and facilitating factor of KM. Leaders encouragepeople to participate in knowledge creation, sharing anddecision making and this collective and collaborative de-cision making leads towards innovation which is veryimportant factor of making effective use of KMS [15, 16,17, 18,19, 34, 35].

3 RELATED WORK

Leadership plays an important role in the success ofKM in GSD. Below we discuss some of the studies whichhighlights the role and importance of leadership in thesuccess of KM.

Vittals in his study [31] states that the first step in es-tablishing an effective KM is the selection of competentleader. He further argues that leadership plays an impor-

tant role in making effective use of KM because effectiveKM requires vision and change in direction which canonly be developed through leadership. Based on litera-ture review and two separate research studies, he hascreated a model of KM enablers among which leadershipis a key enabler and driving factor of successful KM.

Kulkarni et al. [15] has identified the organizationalfactors and measures that enable knowledge sharing anduse. The organizational factor he has identified includes:leadership, supervisor & coworkers support and incen-tives. He has also integrated social, organizational andeconomic approaches and built a KM success model. In

order to test the model he has collected data from 150knowledge workers. The results obtained from hypothe-sis testing claims that leadership has a direct influence onknowledge use.

Based on previous research and existing literature onknowledge management, Kristen et al. [17] has examinedthree of the critical human factors that leads towards thesuccess of KM: organizational culture, organizational lea-dership and CKOs. It has been examined in this studythat how each of these factor contributes to effectiveknowledge management. The prevailing ideas amongresearchers and professionals involved in KM are alsopresented in this study.

In is research, Takeuchi [36] describes three ways inwhich CEOs and other management can support KMwithin the organization. Firstly, the management shouldset the goals that company as a whole ought to be. Se-condly, management should incorporate the vision forKM in organizational policy. Thirdly, managementshould strategically plan and decide that which KM ef-forts to support and develop? And then must follow thestrategy. He further argues that, by performing these ac-tions, leadership can not only link together many dispa-rate activities of the organization, but can also establish astandards and objectives for the rest of the organization to

follow.A study was performed by aurum et al.[22] in which

the current practices of KM were investigated in softwareengineering processes using both qualitative and quantit-

ative methods. The data was collected from two Australi-an companies who were using KM practices in their soft-ware development work. Four key enablers of KM wereidentified in this study and among these four key enab-lers of KM leadership was considered to be the most sig-nificant for KM success. The results obtained from thisstudy shows that, leadership practices influence organiza-tional strategies of defining and managing knowledgeassets.

Gap

Studies discuses above show us the importance of lea-dership in the context of KM. It is obvious that role ofleadership is crucial in the success of KMS. However,there is a lack of empirical studies that specifically ana-lyze the impact of leadership on the success of KMS espe-cially in GSD context. To fill this gap, in this study we willtry to investigate the role of leadership in the success fKMS in Global software development organizations.

4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Research hypothesis

KMS can be seen as effective only when the employeesof the GSD organizations believe that using KMS forknowledge sharing will improve their job performance,productivity, effectiveness and will make their work easy.Employees of GSD organizations will use KMS conti-nuously for knowledge sharing only if they perceive thatit is useful for them. Hence, we propose that continuoususage of KMS is associated with the highest level of per-

ceived usefulness of KMS.H 1: Perceived usefulness of KMS is positively related to

the continuous intention of using KMS.If the employees of the organization believe that KMS

is not user friendly and they need to spend a lot of timeand efforts in getting knowledge through KMS, they willconsider it as an additional task and will loose their inter-est in using KMS. This behavior will damage the per-ceived usefulness of KMS usage.

H 2: Perceived seeking efforts of KMS are negativelyrelated to perceived usefulness of KMS.

Leadership intervention is important in making KMS

effective, as leaders are the one who change the visionand direction of others. Leaders should act as a role mod-el and they should promote KMS usage. Leaders can in-fluence the behaviors of others by providing motivation,support and vision to cope with changes. Therefore, wepropose that employees continuous intention of usingKMS is associated with highest support of leadership.

H 3: Leadership support is positively related to thecontinuous intention of using KMS.

Similarly, leaders can change the direction of peopleand can align the goals of individuals with that of theleaders. Leaders should act as a role model who sets anexample for others and signal that the open sharing ofideas and information is important and valuable for team.This behavior of the leader can change the vision of theemployees and they will consider KMS useful for them.

H 4: Leadership support is positively related to the





4/7

perceived usefulness of KMSThe research hypotheses of this study are summarized

in the research model shown in Figure1.

FIGURE 1:PROPOSED RESEARCH MODEL

4.2 Survey administration

A web-based survey methodology was used to collectthe data for testing hypothesis. A leading IT-organizationin china was used as a research site for administering thesurvey. There were three reason of choosing this organi-zation; firstly, it was a large GSD organization with morethan 15000 employees separated in different counties.Secondly, the organization was using KMR a system ofKM since last seven years and all the employees world-wide could login to this KMR and share their knowledgethrough this KMR. Thirdly, a senior person in this organ-ization allowed us and helped us in identifying the keyKMS users and also helped us in collecting data fromthese KMS users through a survey questionnaire.

The total of 400 employees was identified who wereusing KMR regularly for knowledge sharing. These iden-tified employees were requested to fill the questionnairethat was administered on their companys intranet withintwo weeks. A friendly reminder was also sent to theseidentified workers after a week; finally, we obtained 192results after two weeks, with almost 48% response rate.After analysis 13 responses were rejected as the informa-

tion provided on these questionnaires was incomplete.Hence total 179 responses were used in final analysis.

Table 1: Geographical location of respondents

Respondents location Number of responses

USA 43

UK 36

China 69

Egypt 7

UAE 18

Botswana 19

4.3 Measures

A questionnaire was used as a survey instrument,

tested question from prior research were selected tomeasure constructs with the aim of increasing the validityof the constructs. Where validated items were unavailablenew questions were developed based on existing litera-ture review and experts opinion. The items for measuringcontinuous intention of using KMS were focused on theintention to which KMS user believes that using KMS forknowledge sharing on continuous basis will help him inperforming his official routine tasks timely and easily andwere adapted and built upon the existing studies whichinclude(e.g. [37, 41,42, 43). The items related to the mea-surement of perceived usefulness of KMS were focusedon the extent to which a KMS user believes that KMS isuseful for performing his job and were adapted and builtupon the existing studies which include(e.g. [37, 38, 41,42, 43]). The items used for measuring perceived seekingefforts were focused on the extent to which KMS userbelieve that sharing knowledge through KMS requires lotof time and efforts and were adopted and built upon the

studies which include(e.g. [39, 40, 41, 42, 43]). Similarlythe items related to leadership support were related to theleadership role in enhancing employees belief that KMS isuseful and encouraging and motivating them to use KMSregularly for knowledge sharing by acting as a role modeland were adapted and built upon the existing studieswhich include(e.g.[43, 44, 45, 46]). The response of eachitem in the questionnaire was given as Likert scale of fivelevels ranging from 5= strongly agree to 1= stronglydisagree. PLS technique was used for testing the hypo-thesis, it is considered as an appropriate statistical me-thod for early stage research models. Moreover, it is more

suitable technique as compared to other structural equa-tion modeling techniques when the sample size is not solarge.

5 RESULTS

The results obtained from the survey demonstrate satis-factory items reliability, convergent validity and discri-minant validity which are obvious from Table2. Firstly,all the internal consistency scores exceed 0.7 which indi-cate acceptable item reliability [47, 50]. Secondly, the val-ues of the average variance extracted, were above the 0.5threshold for all constructs which shows the existence ofadequate convergent validity [47, 48]. Thirdly, for theexistence of discriminant validity, the value of the di-agonal elements should be greater than any of the inter-correlation value between the latent variable which isobvious from Table2 [51]. Loading of each individualelement was also examined to confirm the existence ofdiscriminant validity whose cross matrix is available fromthe authors.

As correlation matrix is always symmetric and two tri-angles of the matrix are always mirror images of eachother, therefore Table 2 only shows the values of a single

triangle. Now, we discuss the results of hypothesis.

Table 2: Correlation and intercorrelation for constructs and reliability andvalidity analysis

Leadership support

Perceived seeking

efforts

Continuous intention of

usin KMS

Perceived usefulness

-

+

+

+





5/7


6/7

[3] E. Carmel, Global Software Teams: Collaboration acrossBorders and Time Zones: Prentice-Hall, 1999.

[4] J. A. Espinosa, S. A. Slaughter, R. E. Kraut, and J. D.Herbsleb, "Familiarity, Complexity, and Team Performance

in Geographically Distributed Software Development," Or-

ganization Science, vol. 18, pp. 613-630, 2007.

[5] J. D. Herbsleb and A. Mockus, "An Empirical Study of Speedand Communication in Globally Distributed Software Devel-opment," IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol.

29, pp. 481-494, 2003.

[6] N. Ramasubbu and R. K. Balan, "Globally Distributed Soft-ware Development Project Performance: An Empirical Anal-

ysis,"FSE, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2007.

[7] M. Cataldo, J. D. Herbsleb, and K. M. Carley, "Socio-Technical Congruence,"Empirical Software Engineering and

Measurement symposium, Kaiserslautern, Germany, 2008.

[8] R. Prikladnicki and J. Audy, "Distributed Software Develop-ment: Toward an Understanding of the Relationship between

Project Team, Users and Customers," International Confe-

rence on Enterprise Information Systems, 2003.

[9] Paivi. Parviainen and Maarit. Tihinen, Knowledge-relatedchallenges and solutions in GSD Expert systems, 2011.

[10] Rus, I. and M. Lindwall (2002) Knowledge management insoftware engineering, IEEE Journal of Software, 19, 2638.

[11] Desouza, K.C., Y. Awazu and P. BALOH (2006) Managingknowledge in global software development efforts: issues and

practices, Journal of IEEE Software, 23, 3037.

[12] Alavi, M., & Leidner, D.E. (2001). Knowledge managementand knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations

and research issues [Review]. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107136.

[13] Quigley, N.R., Tesluk, P.E., Locke, E.A., & Bartol, K.M.(2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational me-

chanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance.

Organization Science, 18(1), 7188.

[14] Wasko, M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examin-ing social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic

networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 3557.

[15] Uday R. Kulakarni, Sury Ravindran and Ronald Freeze, AKnowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical Devel-

opment and Empirical Validation Journal of Management

Information Systems / winter 20067, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp.

309347. 2007 M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

[16] Dixon, N.M. Common Knowledge: How Companies Thriveby Sharing What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business

School Press, 2000.

[17] Kristen Bell DeTienne, Gibb Dyer, Charlotte Hoopes andStephen Harris Toward a Model of Effective Knowledge

Management and Directions for Future Research: culture,

leadership and CKOs, journal of leadership and organiza-

tional studies, 2004, vol. 10, No.4.

[18] Valmohammadi, C., 2012b. Identification and prioritizationof critical success factors of knowledge management in Ira-

nian SMEs: an expert view. Afr. J. Bus. Manage., 4:915-924

[19] Hasanali, F., 2002. The critical success factors of knowledgemanagement. http://polaris.umuc.edu/mts/TMAN/TMAN-

636/articles.csfs.pdf

[20] Kathryn M. Bartol and Abhishek Srivastava, EncouragingKnowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Sys-

tems journal of leadership and organizational studies, 2002,vol. 9, No.1.

[21] Jingyuan Zhao, Patricia Ordez de Pablos, Zhongying Qi, Enterprise knowledge management model based on Chinas

practice and case study Computers in Human Behavior 28

(2012) 324330.

[22] Aybuke Aurum , Farhad Daneshgar and James Ward, Inves-tigating Knowledge Management practices in software devel-

opment organisations An Australian experience, Informa-

tion and Software Technology 50 (2008) 511533.

[23] Liu, A. and Fang, Z. (2006), A power-based leadership ap-proach to project management, Construction Managementand Economics, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 497-507.

[24] W.R. Borg, J.P. Gall, M.D. Gall, Applying Educational Re-search: a Practical Guide, Longman Publishing Group, New

York, USA, 1993.

[25] M. Alavi, D.E. Leidner, Knowledge management systems: is-sues, challenges and benefits, Communications of the Associ-

ation for Information Systems (CAIS), vol. 1, Article 7, 1999.

[26] M. Alavi, D.E. Leidner, Knowledge management systems:emerging views and practices from the field, in: Proceedings

of 32nd annual Hawaii international conference on system

sciences, Maui, Hawaii, USA, 1999, 11 p.

[27] I. Nonaka, A dynamic theory of organizational knowledgecreation, Organization Science 5 (1994) 1437.

[28] S.P. Raub, B. Sthapit, Towards a taxonomy of approaches formeasuring organizational knowledge, Research and Practice

in Human Resource Management 9 (1) (2001) 139155.

[29] Dingsoyr, T., & R. Conradi, R. (2002) .A survey of case stu-dies of the use of knowledge management in software engi-

neering. International Journal of Software Engineering and

Knowledge Engineering, 12(4).

[30] Lucier, C.E and Torsilieri,J.D, can knowledge managementdeliver bottom-line results? In I.Nonaka and D.teece (eds),

Managing industrial knowledge, 2001, pp 231-243.London:

SAGE Publications.

[31] Vittal S. Anantatmula, Leadership role in making effectiveuse of KM, 2008, VINE, Vol. 38 Iss: 4 pp.445-460.

[32] Ward, J. and Aurum, A. (2004), Knowledge management insoftware engineering describing the process, ASWEC

2004, IEEE Computer Society, New York, NY.

[33] Baldanza, C. and Stankosky, M. (2000), Knowledge Man-agement: An Evolutionary Architecture toward Enterprise

Engineering, INCOSE, Seattle, WA, pp. 13.2-1-13.2-8.

[34] Okunoye, A. and Karsten, H.I.T.I. (2002), ITI as Enabler ofKnowledge Management: Empirical Perspective from Re-

search Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa, HICSS32, IEEE

Computer Society, New York, NY.

[35] Koh, E.C., Ryan, S. and Prybutok, V.R. (2005), Creatingvalue through managing knowledge in an e-government to

constituency (G2C) environment, The Journal of Computer

Information Systems, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 32-41.

[36] Takeuchi, H. (2001), Toward a universal management con-cept of knowledge In I. Nonaka and D.Teece (eds) Mana g-

ing industrial knowledge, pp. 315-329. London: SAGE Publi-

cations.

[37] Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systemscontinuance: An expectationconfirmation model. MIS Quar-

terly, 5(3), 351370.

[38] Venkatesh,V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., & Davis, F.D.(2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a

unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425478.

[39]

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., &Wei, K.K. (2005b). Under-standing seeking from electronic knowledge repositories: An

empirical study. Journal of the American Society for Informa-

tion Science and Technology, 56(11), 11561166.





7/7

[40] Ong, C.S., & Lai, J.Y. (2004, January). In developing an in-strument for measuring user satisfaction with knowledge

management systems. Paper presented at the the 37th Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences, The Big Island

Hawaii.

[41] Wei He , Kwok-Kee Wei, What drives continued knowledgesharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -

seeking beliefs, Decision Support Systems 46 (2009) 826838.

[42] Wei He, The Role of Trust in Promoting OrganizationalKnowledge Seeking Using Knowledge Management Sys-

tems: An Empirical Investigation, Published online 12 De-

cember 2008 in Wiley Inter Science.

[43] Mamoona humayun, Cui Gang, Impact of Leadership Sup-port on KMS-based Knowledge Seeking Behavior: Lessons

Learned, Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering

and Technology, 5(1), November 2012, in press.

[44] N.V. AbilashPrabhu, R. Latha and K. Sankaran, G. Kannabi-ran. Impact of Knowledge Management on Offshore Software

Development: An Exploratory Study. 2011 IEEE.

[45] Kuan Yew Wong, Elaine Aspinwall, An empirical study ofthe important factors for knowledge-management adoption in

the SME sector, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9

Iss: 3 pp. 6482

[46] ShuibBasri, Rory V. OConnor. A Study of Knowledge Man-agement Process Practices in Very Small Software Compa-

nies. American Journal of Economics and Business Adminis-

tration 3 (4): 636-644, 2011.

Chin, W.W. (1998). The partial least squares approach for

structural equation modelling. In G.A. Marcoulides (Ed.),

Modern methods for business research (pp. 295336). Mah-

wah, NJ: Erlbaum.[47] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equa-

tion models with unobservable variables and measurement er-

ror. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950.

[48] Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

[49] Carmines, E.G., & Zeller, R.A. (Eds.). (1979). Reliability andvalidity assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

[50] Barclay, D., & Higgins, C. (1995). The partial least squares(PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adop-

tion and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285

309.

[51] Keng-Boon Ooi ,Weng-Choong Cheah , Binshan Lin and Pei-Lee The, TQM practices and knowledge sharing: An empiri-cal study of Malaysias manufacturing organizations, Asia

Pac J Manag (2012) 29:5978.




Documents

Exploring leadership role in GSD: potential contribution to an overall knowledge management strategy