TAM Repositories

7/31/2019 TAM Repositories

1/19

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Oberta de Catalunya]On: 18 July 2012, At: 02:42Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Behaviour & Informat ion TechnologyPubl icat i on detai l s, i nc luding instr uct ions for authors and subscript ion infor mat i on:h t t p : / / w w w. t a nd f on l in e. c om / l o i/ t b i t 2 0

Knowledge-sharing mot ivations affect ing R&D

employees' acceptance of electronic knowledge

repositoryShin-Yuan Hung

a, Hui- Min Lai

ab

& Wen-Wen Changa

aDepartment of Information Management, National Chung Cheng University, Minhsiung,

Chia-Yi, 62100, Taiwanb

Departm ent of Infor mat ion Management , Chienkuo Technology Universit y, Chang-Hua,Chang-Hua, 50094, Taiwan

Version of recor d f i rst publ ished: 18 Feb 2011

To cite t his art icle: Shin-Yuan Hung, Hui-Min Lai & Wen-Wen Chang (2011): Knowledge-sharing mot ivat ions affect ing R&Demployees' acceptance of electronic knowledge repository, Behaviour & Information Technology, 30:2, 213-230

To link t o thi s arti cle: ht t p : / / dx .doi .org/ 10.1080/ 0144929X.2010.545146

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2010.545146http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbit20


2/19

Knowledge-sharing motivations affecting R&D employees acceptance

of electronic knowledge repository

Shin-Yuan Hunga*, Hui-Min Laia,b and Wen-Wen Changa

aDepartment of Information Management, National Chung Cheng University, Minhsiung, Chia-Yi, 62100, Taiwan;

bDepartment of

Information Management, Chienkuo Technology University, Chang-Hua, Chang-Hua, 50094, Taiwan

(Received 7 December 2009; final version received 30 November 2010 )

Why would R&D employees be willing to use an electronic knowledge repository (EKR) for knowledge-sharing?This study integrates a technology acceptance model (TAM) to investigate the influence of extrinsic and intrinsicmotivations on R&D employees acceptance of an EKR for knowledge-sharing. Empirical data were collectedthrough a survey, which gathered data from 225 employees working in 10 organisations in Taiwan. The resultsindicated that (1) reputation and reciprocity were found to be two important antecedents to perceived usefulnessand perceived ease of use; (2) altruism was also found to be an important antecedent to perceived ease of use;(3) reputation was the most influential factor of perceived usefulness, and another influential factor of perceivedusefulness was reciprocity. Three knowledge-sharing motivations that significantly affect the perceived ease ofuse were listed as reciprocity, altruism, and reputation, according to the relative importance; (4) altruism playsan important role in explaining the EKR usage intentions for knowledge-sharing both directly and indirectly;and (5) the results were consistent with the propositions of TAM. This study contributes theoretically andempirically to the body of EKR usage research and also has practical implications.

Keywords: knowledge sharing; knowledge-sharing motivations; electronic knowledge repositories; knowledgemanagement; information system acceptance

1. Introduction

Issues regarding knowledge management (KM) have

captured the interest and attention of many organi-

sations in general, the R&D departments in parti-

cular (Miller and Morris 1999, Benabou and Tirole2003, Berends et al . 2006, Park and Kim 2006),

because it has recently become dependent upon a

departments demands and can be developed for the

needs of a single, specific department. An organisa-

tions R&D employees always need to develop new

products, re-engineer old products, acquire new

technology and share know-how knowledge. The

KM system (KMS) can contribute to those tasks

(Lee et al. 2009). Thus, their need for a KMS is

much stronger than that of other employees in the

organisation. KMS categories can be divided into

electronic knowledge repositories (EKRs) and com-

munities of practice. The EKR corresponds to the

codification approach and communities of practice

correspond with the personalisation approach

(Hansen et al. 1999). The EKR is one of the most

common forms of KMS in organisations (He and

Wei 2009). However, what are the major motiva-

tional factors that influence R&D employees to

accept the EKR in their organisations? Davis

et al.s. (1989) technology acceptance model (TAM)

emphasises perceived ease of use and perceived

usefulness as the major factors in the acceptance of

an information technology (IT). The influence factors

affecting the acceptance of a new IT are likely tovary with the technology, target users and context

(Moon and Kim 2001). A large number of external

variables influencing the core elements of TAM were

explored and hypothesised: for example, individual

characteristics (Igbaria et al. 1996, Hong et al. 2001,

Pijpers et al . 2001, Ong et al . 2004, Saade and

Bahli 2005, Lu et al. 2008), organisational character-

istics (Igbaria et al. 1996, Pijpers et al. 2001), task-

related characteristics (Pijpers et al. 2001, Kamis et al.

2008), IT characteristics (Hong et al. 2001, Pijpers

et al. 2001, Fu et al. 2006, Kamis et al. 2008, Lu et al.

2008) and so on.

Why would R&D employees be willing to use an

EKR for knowledge-sharing? Recent EKR studies

have shown that the use of the EKR for knowledge-

sharing is determined by knowledge-sharing motiva-

tions, such as reputation (Kankanhalli et al. 2005a,

He and Wei 2009), reciprocity (Kankanhalli et al.

2005a, He and Wei 2009), enjoyment in helping others

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Behaviour & Information Technology

Vol. 30, No. 2, MarchApril 2011, 213230

ISSN 0144-929X print/ISSN 1362-3001 online

2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2010.545146http://www.informaworld.com


3/19

(Kankanhalli et al. 2005a, Lin 2008, He and Wei 2009),

knowledge self-efficacy (Kankanhalli et al. 2005a),

organisational rewards (Kankanhalli et al. 2005a, He

and Wei 2009) and so on. This motivation can be

extrinsic or intrinsic in nature (Ryan and Deci 2000,

Benabou and Tirole 2003). However, an effective EKR

typically requires an appropriate combination oftechnological and human elements (Davenport et al.

1998, Wu and Wang 2006). Thus, if the user has

knowledge-sharing motivations, will he or she then

accept the use of the EKR, either directly or indirectly

through perceived usefulness and perceived ease of

use? In addition, how are they related?

In the past, many organisations encountered a

tremendous bottleneck when they implemented an

EKR, because they believed that, as long as the

knowledge platform was well built, employees would

share it voluntarily. However, EKR benefit comes

from effective knowledge-sharing (Wu and Wang

2006). Sharing knowledge may cause a diffusion ofknowledge and may eliminate the uniqueness of the

knowledge workers (Davenport and Prusak 1998,

Kankanhalli et al. 2005a). No matter how well the

system is designed, if it could not tally with users

motivations, users might refuse to accept it and further

affect organisational performance (Malhotra and

Galletta 2004). Thus, what individual sharing motiva-

tions can explain how a user comes to believe that a

system is useful? In addition, what individual sharing

motivations could be a probable antecedent to the

belief that a system is simple or difficult to use?

Therefore, studying individual sharing motivation is

especially important in understanding the usersacceptance of EKR for knowledge-sharing. Although

the individuals primary use of the EKR is for

knowledge-sharing and knowledge-seeking (Bock

et al. 2006, Kulkarni et al. 2006, Bock et al. 2008), in

this study, we only focus on one side knowledge

sharing. Because it is often seen that R&D employees

move from one project to another or experience a fast

turnover, much essential and professional knowledge is

lost, and then knowledge cannot be shared and passed

down. Thus, studying the EKR usage for knowledge-

sharing is of paramount importance.

Prior research has investigated various knowledge-

sharing motivations, and it was believed that they

would facilitate EKR usage for knowledge-sharing

(Kankanhalli et al. 2005a, Bock et al. 2008, He and

Wei 2009). According to Davenport and Prusak (1998,

p.31), within organisations, the medium of exchange is

seldom money, but there are agreed-upon currencies

that drive the knowledge market. Knowledge sharers

like to share their knowledge because they can obtain

the benefits of reputation, reciprocity and altruism.

Based on their perspectives, this study emphasises the

knowledge-sharing motivations, including reputation,

reciprocity and altruism, which are derived from the

social exchange theory (SET). Reputation and reci-

procity are examples of extrinsic motivation, whereas

altruism is an example of intrinsic motivation.

Reputation is recognised as an example of extrinsic

motivation, because it is defined as ReputationDesign, which is one kind of system characteristic.

This research aims to understand (1) the relative

importance of these motivational factors for sharing

(reputation, reciprocity and altruism) and (2) the

causal relationships among variables on the acceptance

of the EKR.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. R&D employees and electronic

knowledge repository

Today, the fourth generation of R&D is coming and

KM becomes an indispensable requisite for R&D(Miller and Morris 1999, Park and Kim 2006). R&D

work is usually perceived as a group of activities

involving interaction and knowledge exchange between

people. R&D work produces a number of documents

and requires mutual sharing among team members

(Barthes and Tacla 2002). EKRs constitute the most

common form of IT supporting KM (Bock et al. 2006).

The R&D employees who use the EKR will improve

their R&D effectiveness (Lee et al. 2009).

Some problems that may exist during the process of

R&D can be resolved efficiently and effectively by the

EKR. For example:

. knowledge should be transferred and shared

rapidly among R&D employees (Cummings

and Teng 2003), and the EKR can make this

happen more easily and faster;

. lack of knowledge and an overly long time to

acquire it because of the fact that some R&D

employees may need a longer time to learn (Rus

and Lindvall 2002). In the EKR, documented

knowledge can provide the basis for self-training

material. The EKR can help employees learn

from others (Gray and Durcikova 2005) and

through self-study any time;

. R&D employees constantly repeat mistakes

because they forget what they learnt from the

previous projects (Rus and Lindvall 2002). The

EKR avoids the same mistakes and enables the

project to succeed more easily (Davenport et al.

1998);

. R&D employees change their tasks from one

project to another and, therefore, much experi-

ence is usually lost (Barthes and Tacla 2002).

EKR can effectively store valuable experiences

214 S.Y. Hung et al.


4/19

and successful solutions from the past (Gray and

Durcikova 2005); and

. most lessons relating to projects are memorised

by project team members. The EKR clearly

classifies which member possesses what kind of

knowledge (Davenport and Prusak 1998).

Park and Kim (2006) suggest that KMS comprises

six functions, namely knowledge portal, information

retrieval, document management, workflow manage-

ment, collaboration and analysis. Table 1 shows the list

of KMS functions and related sub-functions. As

mentioned above, all of the KMS functions are defined

to support the R&D process.

2.2. Technology acceptance model

Studies of IT usage often use TAM to predict and

explain behavioural intention and system usage. TAM

was proposed by Davis et al. (1989) and assumes thatbeliefs in the information system will influence

attitudes, which will in turn lead to the intentions,

which will then influence usage behaviour. The beliefs

include two variables, namely perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use. Perceived usefulness is defined

as the degree to which a person believes that using

a particular system would enhance his or her job

performance (Davis 1989, p.320). Perceived ease of

use is defined as the degree to which a person believes

that using a particular system would be free of effort

(Davis 1989, p.320).

TAM is believed to be a useful, parsimonious,

predicative and robust model compared with othermodels (Venkatesh 2000), although it lacks variables

related to both human and social factors (Legris et al.

2003). Prior studies (Chau 1996, Hong et al. 2001, Ong

et al. 2004, Saade and Bahli 2005, Wu and Wang 2005)

on TAM adopted a simple model by removing the

attitude construct, because this was believed to act as

a weak mediator. Ignoring the attitude construct can

help people to understand the influence of perceived

ease of use and perceived usefulness constructs on

dependent variables (Davis 1989, Davis et al. 1992,

Venkatesh 2000). In this study, the attitude construct

is dropped in order to simplify the TAM model.

2.3. Social exchange theory (SET) and

knowledge-sharing motivations

SET posits benefit maximisation and cost minimisa-

tion, and this common aphorism sums up much of the

wisdom embedded in the social exchange process, in

which the individual motivations can be classified into

intrinsic and extrinsic benefits (Deci and Ryan 1980,

Benabou and Tirole 2003), crucial for knowledge

transfer (Osterloh and Frey 2000). Extrinsic motiva-

tion refers to the fact that, when a person is

extrinsically motivated, he or she is acting to gain

some tangible reward or valuable outcome (Deci andRyan 1980), such as (1) organisational rewards, like a

bonus or money for contributing knowledge (Hall

2001a, Hall 2001b, Kankanhalli et al. 2005a, He and

Wei 2009), (2) reputation benefits to enhance his or her

image and social status in the organisation (Ba et al.

2001, Kankanhalli et al. 2005a, He and Wei 2009), (3)

knowledge which is shared due to the reciprocity

people obtain from each other (Wasko and Faraj 2000,

Wasko and Faraj 2005, Kankanhalli et al. 2005a, Lin

2007, He and Wei 2009). Intrinsic motivation refers to

the fact that, when a person is intrinsically motivated,

he or she will engage in an action primarily for the

pleasure or satisfaction gained from performing theactivity (Deci and Ryan 1980). Examples of intrinsic

motivation are (1) people enjoy and derive pleasure

from knowledge-sharing because they enjoy helping

others (Kollock 1999, Fehr and Gachter 2000, Lin

2007), (2) the belief that people with knowledge self-

efficacy have that they are capable of providing

valuable knowledge and are willing to share it with

others (Kankanhalli et al. 2005a, Lin 2007), and (3) the

self-worth that is obtained through knowledge-sharing

(Bock et al. 2005). The three motivational factors

underlying this study are reputation, reciprocity and

altruism.

There is a growing body of academic research that

examines the influencing factors of EKR usage, as

summarised in Table 2. Their research contexts are

categorised in terms of sharing only, seeking only or

the combination of both. In summary, there is a

relative lack of attention to (1) the relative importance

of these sharing motivational factors and (2) the

causal relationships among variables on the accep-

tance of the EKR. This study contributes to filling in

this gap.

Table 1. KMS functions.

KMS functions Sub-functions

Knowledge

portal

Integrated interface, link management,

annotationsInformation

retrievalSearch agents, user profiling,

visualisation, finding expertsDocument

managementFinding documents, version control,

metadata management, permissionsmanagement

Workflowmanagement

Process definition, task assignment,authority, management

Collaboration Community of practice, chatting,conferencing, mailing

Analysis User analysis, market analysis,knowledge analysis

Behaviour & Information Technology 215


5/19

Table 2. Summary of influencing factors of EKR usage.

Study

Use category

Influencing factors SampleSharing

onlySeeking

only Both

He et al.(2009)

. Perceived trust, perceivedseeking effort, perceivedusefulness, seekingcontinuance intention

186 usable responsesfrom a leading ITcorporation in China

Bock et al.(2008)

. KRSsuccess

Extrinsic rewards, intrinsicrewards, organisationaltrust, KRS output quality,KRS searchability, perceivedusefulness, user satisfaction

141 usable responses (39responses fromSingapore 102responses from China)

He and Wei(2009)

. Users contribution intention,users seeking intention,facilitating conditions, userhabit, contribution belief,seeking belief, contributionattitude, seeking attitude,user satisfaction, usersextent of confirmation

161 usable responsesregarding knowledgecontribution behaviorand 201 usableresponses regardingknowledge seekingbehavior

King andMarks(2008)

. Supervisory control,organisational support, easeof use, usefulness, sharingfrequency, sharing effort

169 usable responses in alarge US federalagency

Lin andHuang(2008)

. Task interdependence, tasktacitness, KMScharacteristics, perceivedtask technology fit, KMSself-efficacy, personaloutcome expectations,performance-relatedoutcome expectations

192 usable responses inTaiwanese companies

Bock et al.(2006)

. Perceived usefulness, perceivedease of use, future obligation,seeker knowledge growth,collaborative norms, self-efficacy, resource facilitating

conditions

134 workingprofessionals inknowledge-intensiveorganisations

Watson andHewett(2006)

. Ease of knowledge access,training in knowledge reuse,computer self-efficacy, trustin knowledge source, valueof knowledge, frequency ofknowledge reuse, projectperformance, organisationaltenure, advancement withinthe organisation, frequencyof knowledge contribution.

430 usable responses inorganisations

Gray andDurcikova(2005)

. Learning orientation,intellectual demands, timepressure, risk aversion,sourcing from colleagues,sourcing from documents,

sourcing from repository

110 usable responsesfrom 7 organisations

Money andTurner(2005)

. Usage ingeneral

Perceived usefulness, perceivedease of use, behavioralintention to use

35 usable responses in2 major NortheasternU.S. metropolitanareas with systemaccess

Kankanhalliet al.(2005a)

. Loss of knowledge power,codification effort,organisational reward,image, reciprocity,

150 usable responsesfrom 10 organisations

(continued)



6/19

3. Research model and hypotheses

Figure 1 presents the model of our hypotheses.

3.1. Hypotheses regarding TAM

R&D work focuses mainly on innovation and speed,

and thus R&D employees must bear severe pressures in

terms of product development time and market

response when trying to chase business opportunities.

Thus, it is increasingly necessary to study EKR in

complex R&D settings. Previous studies on informa-

tion system usage point out that individual behaviour

is to minimise the effort and support the relation-

ship between ease of use and behavioural intention

(Venkatesh 2000). If a new system is time-consuming

or difficult to learn, then there is a natural tendency for

people to avoid using it (Venkatesh 1999, Malhotra

and Galletta 2004). Thus, accessible EKR will promote

EKR usage intentions for knowledge-sharing. Hence,

we hypothesise:

H1. Perceived ease of use will have a positive effect

on behavioural intention to use EKR for knowl-

edge-sharing.

Since R&D work requires more expertise, EKR

can provide R&D employees with complete knowl-

edge storage, to maintain precise experience from

prior employees and hence provide R&D employees

with a smoother operation. Therefore, when the

EKR can facilitate R&D tasks, the behavioural

intention of using EKR for knowledge-sharing is

also enhanced. Thus, the greater the usefulness of the

Table 2. (Continued).

Study

Use category

Influencing factors SampleSharing

onlySeeking

only Both

knowledge self-efficacy,enjoyment in helping others,pro-sharing norms,identification, generalisedtrust

Kankanhalliet al.(2005b)

. Perceived output quality,perceived ease of use,knowledge sharing norms,resource availability,incentive availability, tasktacitness, taskinterdependence

160 respondents from 8public-sectororganisations inSingapore

Note: KRS, knowledge repository systems; EKR, electronic knowledge repository.

Figure 1. Research model.



7/19

EKR in enabling R&D employees to accomplish

their tasks, the more frequently it will be used,

further influencing usage intention. Therefore, we

hypothesise:

H2. Perceived usefulness will have a positive effect

on behavioural intention to use EKR for knowl-edge-sharing.

TAM suggests that perceived ease of use has an

indirect effect on behavioural intention through

perceived usefulness. Here, perceived ease of use

represents the belief that an EKR can be applied

without effort. Previous studies (Davis et al. 1989, Lee

et al. 2005) have also shown that perceived ease of use

determines perceived usefulness. System ease of use

decreases the cost of system usage, facilitating the

reallocation of the user to other activities. The user

thus can accomplish more tasks with the same effort.

Easier systems also enhance employee work perfor-mance. Additionally, EKR was designed to support

R&D work such as content management tools, knowl-

edge-sharing tools, knowledge search and retrieval

systems. For example, a more user-friendly interface

makes it easier for R&D employees to use the EKR to

propose and retrieve knowledge and, thus, be per-

ceived as more useful in their tasks. We thus

hypothesise:

H3. Perceived ease of use will have a positive effect

on perceived usefulness of the EKR.

3.2. Hypotheses regarding extrinsic and intrinsic

motivations for knowledge sharing

3.2.1. Reputation

Individuals can be motivated by either extrinsic or

intrinsic factors, and reputation is an example of

extrinsic motivation for sharing, and is defined as

system characteristic. Through the reputation design

of the EKR, the system records the number of usages

and the number of contributions. The credits then go

to knowledge contributors. Therefore, individuals

who share more knowledge receive a higher reputa-

tion (Davenport and Prusak 1998). Previous studies

suggest that individuals participate in KM practices to

improve or establish a reputation (Constant et al.

1996, Donath 1999, Wasko and Faraj 2005) or to

earn peer recognition (Carrillo et al. 2004). Previous

studies have shown that building a reputation is a

strong motivator for knowledge-sharing (Davenport

and Prusak 1998, Kankanhalli et al. 2005a). There-

fore, when R&D employees see that EKR for

knowledge-sharing can enhance their reputation, their

inclination to use this EKR will increase. Thus, we

hypothesise:

H4. Reputation will have a positive effect on

behavioural intention to use EKR for knowledge-

sharing.

System characteristics are recognised as one cate-

gory of external variable that affect both perceived ease

of use and perceived usefulness (Davis et al. 1989, Hong

et al. 2001). System features can also be considered an

external variable of TAM, and significant relationships

have been found between the system variables and

TAM constructs (Venkatesh and Davis 2000). Addi-

tionally, Venkatesh and Davis (2000) propose that

perceived usefulness is affected by image, which means

social status, upgraded by the use of innovative

technologies. Venkatesh and Davis (2000, p.189) argue

that the increased power and influence resulting from

elevated status provides a general basis for greaterproductivity. Therefore, an individual may perceive

that using the system will improve their job perfor-

mance. An individual may thus believe that the system

is useful because it improves their image and reputation

(Yi et al. 2006).

Individuals could expend effort because of both

extrinsic and intrinsic motivations (Deci and Ryan

1985). Skinner (1953), the representative scholar in

Behaviour Science related to Educational Psychol-

ogy, proposes that, when a teacher utilises a positive

reinforcer to appropriately apply stimulation, specific

behavioural patterns are automatically established;

for example, giving gifts on the completion ofhomework; giving a higher score to students who

are proactive in speaking during class; etc. These

gifts or scores are all classified as extrinsic motiva-

tion but can assist students in enhancing their

confidence and hence overcoming their learning

difficulties. Previous research indicates that reputa-

tion building is a strong motivator for active

participation in electronic networks of practice

(Donath 1999). The reputation mechanism used in

this study is revealed by Knowledge Contribution

Charts, which show reputation-related messages,

such as ranking. Therefore, while motivation for

sharing relies on the acquisition of extrinsic reputa-

tion, individuals will be willing to contribute efforts

and load their burden on psychology. They thus

perceive the system as becoming easier to use. We

therefore hypothesise:


perceived usefulness of the EKR.


perceived ease of use of the EKR.



8/19

3.2.2. Reciprocity

Why would R&D employees expend any effort in the

absence of extrinsic incentives, such as monetary

reward and enhanced reputation? One answer may be

that they are motivated to establish reciprocal relation-

ships with others. According to Davenport and Prusak(1998), people suffer from limited time, energy and

knowledge, and thus are usually unwilling to share

scarce resources unless it is profitable for them.

Reciprocity is a form of conditional gain, meaning

that people expect future benefits from their present

actions. People reciprocate previous friendly actions

(Fehr and Gachter 2000), which they believe are likely

to lead to mutual benefits (Lin 2007, Hsu and Lin

2008) or knowledge feedback in the future (Kankan-

halli et al . 2005a) and thus they have stronger

knowledge-sharing intentions (Lin 2007). When R&D

employees feel that EKR for knowledge-sharing can

lead to future requests for knowledge being met, theywill be more inclined to use EKR for knowledge-

sharing. Thus, we hypothesise:

H7. Reciprocity will have a positive effect on

behavioural intention to use EKR for knowledge-

sharing.

If individual sharing motivation is based on

extrinsic reciprocity, namely the expectation of a

future relationship based on cooperation and a belief

that necessary knowledge will be provided (Davenport

and Prusak 1998), leading to confidence that job

performance will improve, then users with reciprocalmotivation will believe that the system can improve

knowledge-sharing speed and efficiency, fostering the

perception that the system is useful. Consequently, an

individuals higher norm of reciprocity would lead to

greater perceived usefulness due to greater confidence

in the belief that the necessary knowledge will be

favourably returned.

When expectations of reciprocal benefits are

strong, individuals are willing to expend time and

effort on studying, and thus see the system as more

accessible. Malhotra and Galletta (2004) proposed that

user motivations can positively affect perceived useful-

ness, perceived ease of use, intention on initial use and

sustained use. Therefore, these suggest that the benefits

associated with expected reciprocity significantly and

positively affect perceived ease of use and usefulness of

the EKR. Therefore, we hypothesise:





3.2.3. Altruism

Altruism is an example of intrinsic motivation for

sharing, which contrasts with reciprocity, and can be

considered a form of unconditional kindness without

expecting anything being provided in return (Krebs

1975, Smith 1981, Fehr and Gachter 2000). Altruisticpeople simply provide help and enjoy doing it

(Kollock 1999, Lin 2007). People having a desire to

help others stems from relative altruism (Constant

et al. 1996, Davenport and Prusak 1998, Lin 2007).

Hoffman (1975) also proposed a concept of empathy,

a kind of emotional response that closely resembles

the feelings of others. Therefore, the more empathic a

knowledge sharer acts the more altruistic he will

behave (Krebs 1975), for instance, recognition of

doing the same justice and rationality to everyone; it

will enhance the usage intention of the EKR for

knowledge-sharing. Hence, the following hypothesis is

proposed:

H10. Altruism will have a positive effect on

behavioural intention to use EKR for knowl-

edge-sharing.

This study defines altruism as perceived pleasure

obtained from helping others by sharing knowledge

through EKR (Wasko and Faraj 2000). Altruistic

people would like to share their knowledge with others

via EKR (Kankanhalli et al. 2005a). They also perceive

higher satisfaction, and such satisfaction is stemming

from their intrinsic enjoyment in helping others (Krebs

1975, Smith 1981, Constant et al. 1996, Ba et al. 2001).According to Bock et al. (2008, p.542), intrinsically

motivated people may be able to locate better knowl-

edge than others, and thus may perceive output quality

as higher. In contrast, an individual who is not

intrinsically motivated to help others will only use

EKR for their own purposes, and hence, the overall

system will be perceived less useful by such person

(Bock et al. 2008).

A higher intrinsic motivation will lead to an

increased willingness to spend much more time and

energy (Deci 1975, Deci and Ryan 1985), facilitating

the perception about the perceived ease of use.

According to Hsu and Lin (2008, p. 66), people with

higher altruism are willing to enhance the welfare of

others. Most of the time, R&D is a collective action,

requiring the collaboration of many individuals. If an

individual has higher altruism due to his or her passion

and enjoying in helping others by sharing knowledge

via EKR, he or she will be able to expend the effort

needed to overcome any difficulty while using the

EKR. Thus, the EKR will become much easier to use.

Thus, we hypothesise:



9/19





In order to test the proposed hypotheses, our data

analysis was conducted using SPSS 12.0 and AMOS5.0. The data analysis consisted of two parts, the first

of which tested internal consistency reliability, con-

vergent validity and discriminant validity of the

measurement model. The second used a structural

model to investigate the path coefficients (the strengths

of the relationship between independent and depen-

dent variables) and the R2 value (the amount of

variance explained by independent variables).

4. Research method

4.1. Measures

There were six constructs in the research model, andthe items which were used to measure each construct

were developed based on previous studies wherever

possible. All items were measured by a five-point

Likert scale (ranging from 1 strongly disagree to

5 strongly agree). There are six items for perceived

usefulness according to TAM, developed by Davis

et al. (1989), and it is defined as the degree to which a

person believes that an EKR can enhance his or her

work performance. Six items for ease of use are also

adopted from Davis et al. (1989), and it is defined as

the degree to which a person believes that using an

EKR will be free of effort. Three items which measure

reputation are modified from Wasko and Faraj (2005),and it is defined as the belief that sharing knowledge

through the EKR will appear in the reputation

mechanism and enhance the sharers reputation and

status. Four items that measure reciprocity are derived

from Kankanhalli et al. (2005a) and focus on the

belief that current sharing through the EKR will lead

to future requests for knowledge being met. Four

items that measure altruism are taken from Kankan-

halli et al. (2005a) and focus on the perception of

pleasure obtained by helping others by sharing

knowledge through the EKR. Two items that measure

behavioural intention are adapted from Venkatesh

and Davis (2000), and this is defined as the strength of

intention to use an EKR for knowledge-sharing. A

complete list of questionnaire items can be found in

Appendix 1.

To ensure the content validity, a pretest of the

questionnaire was performed and four professors and

practitioners reviewed it. Several minor modifications

were made to the questionnaire in the wording and

item sequence. Furthermore, we conducted a pilot

study from 16 users. Some minor errors were corrected

and small changes were made in the questionnaire as a

result of the pilot test.

4.2. Data collection

Empirical data were collected by conducting a survey

of R&D employees in Taiwan. In order to control thedifference of research results resulting from various

systems, this study referred to the results of the voting

obtained by the 10th MIS Best Choice held by the

Institute for Information Industry, Taiwan in 2005.1

This study focuses on R&D employees in companies

that have used an EKR for a period of more than 3

months. Nominated employees of 20 organisations

operating in Taiwan were contacted by phone, the

purpose of the study was explained and they were

invited to participate in the study and the administra-

tion of the survey. The nominated person was

responsible for distributing and collecting the ques-

tionnaires within his or her organisation. Out of the 20organisations contacted, 10 organisations (covering 9

industries) agreed to participate in the survey, and

among the 650 questionnaires distributed to these

organisations, 231 responses were recycled, with a

response rate of 36% (Table 3). Out of those 231

responses, 6 were eliminated from the study, due to

missing data. The 225 usable responses resulted in an

overall usable response rate of 39%. Demographics of

the sample are shown in Table 4.

5. Results

5.1. Reliability and validityInternal consistency reliability (shown in Table 5)

reflects the extent to which items of a construct

measure various aspects of the same characteristic. It

Table 3. Profile of industries and organisations.

Industry(No. of company)

No. ofrelease

No. ofresponse

Percent ofresponse

Bio-tech pharmaceuticaland chemical industry (1)

100 40 17.8

Electro-optical industry (1) 50 25 11.1General commodity,

manufacturing anddistribution industry (1)

50 20 8.9

Machinery and automobileindustry (2)

150 47 20.9

Telecommunicationindustry (1)

50 27 12

Electronic and electricalindustry (1)

50 18 8

Steel-related industry (1) 50 16 7.1Petrol chemical industry (1) 50 14 6.2Semi-conductor industry (1) 100 18 8Total 650 225 100



10/19

was assessed by computing Cronbachs alpha, in which

the coefficients for six constructs are obtained, ranging

from 0.817 to 0.957, revealing an adequate level of

reliability (40.7) for each construct, as suggested by

Nunnally (1978).

A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with

related data in order to acquire evidence of convergent

and discriminant validity. Convergent validity is

demonstrated when item loading exceeded the accep-

table value of 0.5 recommended by Hair et al. (2006)on their corresponding constructs, and average var-

iance extracted (AVE) of the construct is larger than

0.5, exceeding the threshold value suggested by Fornell

and Larcker (1981). A principal components analysis

with a varimax rotation was conducted and Table 5

illustrates that all of the factors exceeded the threshold

value of 0.5, and the AVE for all constructs exceeded

the threshold value of 0.5. Discriminant validity is

demonstrated when the square root of the AVE from

the construct is greater than the inter-construct

correlations, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker

(1981). Table 6 shows the square root of AVE values

and inter-correlations among the variables.

5.2. Model fitness

To assess structural model fit, the results show that

normed x2 (the ratio between x2 and the degree of

freedom) was 1.56 (x2 396.6, df 255), which is

smaller than the recommended value of 3 suggested by

Hair et al. (2006). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) is

0.88, which exceeds the recommended cutoff value of 0.8

Table 4. Demographic information.

Measure Items Frequency Percent

Gender Male 153 68Female 72 32

Age 2130 70 313140 101 454150 40 185160 12 560 2 1

Workexperience(in years)

01 10 423 35 1645 32 1467 31 148 117 52

Education High school 12 6

College (2 years) 28 12University(4 years)

88 39

Graduate degree 97 43Position Researcher 13 6

Engineer 178 79Chief of section/

team9 4

Chief of division 19 8Department

manager/vicemanager

6 3

Table 5. Factor loadings and internal consistency reliability.

Construct Item Factor loading Cronbachs alpha AVE

Reputation REPU1 0.780 0.890 0.736REPU2 0.765REPU3 0.800

Reciprocity RECP1 0.705 0.817 0.530RECP2 0.794RECP3 0.723RECP4 0.621

Altruism ALTR1 0.853 0.949 0.823ALTR2 0.858ALTR3 0.848ALTR4 0.842

Perceived usefulness PU1 0.753 0.932 0.701PU2 0.772PU3 0.824

PU4 0.830PU5 0.780PU6 0.761

Perceived ease of use PEOU1 0.781 0.915 0.647PEOU2 0.696PEOU3 0.776PEOU4 0.660PEOU5 0.809PEOU6 0.841

EKR usage intention forknowledge-sharing

BI1 0.840 0.957 0.917BI2 0.857

Note: See Appendix 1 for abbreviations used in Tables 5, 8 and 9.



11/19

Table 6. Descriptive statistics and discriminant validity.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reputation 3.54 0.76 0.86Reciprocity 3.66 0.66 0.50a 0.73Altruism 4.00 0.78 0.49a 0.52a 0.91Perceived usefulness 3.42 0.65 0.61a 0.50a 0.45a 0.84

Perceived ease of use 3.55 0.65 0.48

a

0.54

a

0.50

a

0.54

a

0.80Usage intention 3.96 0.75 0.46a 0.44a 0.49a 0.50a 0.49a 0.96

aCorrelation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Note: The diagonals represent the square roots of the AVE, these values should exceed the inter-construct correlations.

Table 7. Goodness of fit of the structural model.

Fit indicators Results Recommended value Suggested by authors

Chi-square/d.f. 1.56 53 Hair et al. 2006GFI 0.88 40.8 Browne and Cudeck 1993AGFI 0.85 40.8 Browne and Cudeck 1993RMSEA 0.05 50.08 Hair et al. 2006RMSR 0.03 50.08 Hair et al. 2006

NFI 0.924

0.9 Hair et al. 2006CFI 0.97 40.9 Hair et al. 2006

Figure 2. Result of the proposed research model.

suggested by Browne and Cudeck (1993). The adjusted

GFI (AGFI) is 0.85, which exceeds the recommended

cutoff value of 0.8 suggested by Browne and Cudeck

(1993). The root-mean-square error of approximation

(RMSEA) is 0.05, which is below the cutoff value of

0.08 suggested by Hair et al. (2006). The root-mean-

square residual (RMSR) is 0.03, which is below the

cutoff value of 0.08 suggested by Hair et al. (2006). The

normed fit index (NFI) is 0.92, which is greater than the

recommended value of 0.9 suggested by Hair et al.

(2006). The comparative fit index (CFI) is 0.97, which is

greater than the recommended value of 0.9 suggested by

Hair et al. (2006). All of the model-fit indices of the

structural model exceeded their respective common

acceptance levels (see Table 7).

5.3. Hypothesis testing

The data support the proposed model and 9 of the 12

hypotheses. Figure 2 illustrates the path coefficients

and their significance in the structural model. Support-

ing H1, ease of use has a positive effect on the EKR

usage intention for knowledge-sharing (b 0.19,

p 5 0.05). Supporting H2, usefulness has a significant

effect on the EKR usage intention for knowledge-

sharing (b 0.17, p 5 0.05). Supporting H3, ease of

use has a significant effect on usefulness (b 0.23,

p 5 0.05). Inconsistent with H4, extrinsic reputation

has no significant effect on the EKR usage intention

for knowledge-sharing (b 0.11, p 0.20). Support-

ing H5, extrinsic reputation has a significant effect

on usefulness of the EKR (b 0.45, p 0.00).



12/19

Supporting H6, extrinsic reputation has a significant

effect on ease of use (b 0.19, p 5 0.05). Inconsistent

with H7, extrinsic reciprocity has no significant effect

on the EKR usage intention for knowledge-sharing

(b 0.11, p 0.24). Supporting H8, extrinsic recipro-

city has a significant effect on usefulness (b 0.16,

p5

0.1). Supporting H9, extrinsic reciprocity has asignificant effect on ease of use (b 0.36, p 0.00).

Supporting H10, intrinsic altruism has a significant

effect on the EKR usage intention for knowledge-

sharing (b 0.20, p 5 0.05). Inconsistent with H11,

intrinsic altruism has no significant effect on usefulness

(b 0.02, p 0.78). Supporting H12, intrinsic altru-

ism has a significant effect on ease of use (b 0.24,

p 5 0.05). Table 8 provides the results of these

hypotheses tests.

The structural model explains 53% of the variance

in usefulness, 44% of the variance in ease of use, and

40% of the variance in behavioural intention. Accord-

ing to the path coefficients, ease of use, except forshowing a slightly stronger direct effect than usefulness

on intentions, exhibited a stronger total effect on

intentions. The total effect of perceived ease of use on

intentions was 0.23. Intrinsic altruism emerged as the

central aspect of the EKR for knowledge-sharing,

since it has both direct effects on intended use, and

indirect effects through perceived ease of use. The total

effect of intrinsic altruism on intentions was 0.26.

Table 9 summarises the significant direct/indirect

effects between variables in the proposed research

model.

6. Discussion

The goal of this study was to attempt to understand

how knowledge-sharing motivations affect the accep-tance of EKR. Specifically, we argued that knowledge-

sharing motivations can indirectly affect EKR usage

intentions for knowledge-sharing by developing per-

ceived usefulness and ease of use.

The results of the empirical analysis provide a

number of interesting insights. Reputation and reci-

procity were found to be two important antecedents to

perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use; altru-

ism was also found to be an important antecedent to

perceived ease of use. Reputation was the most

influential factor to perceived usefulness and another

influential factor to perceived usefulness was recipro-

city. In addition, three knowledge-sharing motivationsthat can significantly affect perceived ease of use were

listed as reciprocity, altruism and reputation, accord-

ing to their relative importance. Altruism played an

important role in explaining EKR usage intentions for

knowledge-sharing both directly and indirectly. The

results were consistent with the propositions of TAM.

This study contributes theoretically and empirically to

the body of EKR usage research and has practical

implications for R&D employees.

Table 9. The direct, indirect, and total effect on behavioural intention.

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

PU PEOU BI PU PEOU BI PU PEOU BI

REPU 0.45 0.19 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.49 0.19 0.23RECP 0.16 0.36 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.24 0.36 0.22ALTR 0.02 0.24 0.20 0.06 0.06 0.08 0.24 0.26PU 0.17 0.17PEOU 0.23 0.19 0.04 0.23 0.23

Table 8. Results of hypotheses tests.

Hypothesis Effects Standardised coefficient t-value p-value Supported

H1 PEOU!BI 0.187 2.265 0.024 YesH2 PU!BI 0.172 1.967 0.049 YesH3 PEOU!PU 0.226 2.969 0.003 YesH4 REPU!BI 0.113 1.279 0.201 NoH5 REPU!PU 0.452 5.659 0.000 YesH6 REPU!PEOU 0.186 2.393 0.017 YesH7 RECP!BI 0.112 1.171 0.242 NoH8 RECP!PU 0.159 1.774 0.076 MarginalH9 RECP!PEOU 0.361 3.783 0.000 YesH10 ALTR!BI 0.204 2.738 0.006 YesH11 ALTR!PU 0.020 0.281 0.779 NoH12 ALTR!PEOU 0.237 3.080 0.002 Yes



13/19

6.1. Influence of extrinsic reputation

Extrinsic reputation was shown to be an important

influential factor to perceived usefulness and perceived

ease of use. However, contrary to expectations, the

results indicate that extrinsic reputation does not

directly affect behavioural intention to use EKR forknowledge-sharing, but it directly affects both per-

ceived usefulness and ease of use. Reputation as used

in this study means reputation mechanism in an

EKR, which represents knowledge-sharing perfor-

mance, such as ranking. The results of this study

indicate that there is no intention to use the EKR for

knowledge-sharing, even if an extrinsic reputation

exists, unless such a system can facilitate R&D

employees work and is easy to use. We infer that,

due to the reputation of expertise, it can be established

through various methods (e.g. speech in a routine

meeting) and does not need to be established via EKR.

However, if an EKR with a well-designed reputationmechanism can convince employees to perceive it as

being more useful and easier to use, this will contribute

to higher usage intention.

6.2. Influence of extrinsic reciprocity

Extrinsic reciprocity was shown to be an important

influential factor to perceived usefulness and perceived

ease of use. However, contrary to expectations, the

results indicate that extrinsic reciprocity does not

directly affect behavioural intention to use EKR for

knowledge-sharing, but it directly affects both per-

ceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. In terms ofreciprocity and knowledge-sharing, the result was

equivocal, and some prior research (Wasko and Faraj

2000, Kankanhalli et al. 2005a) suggest a positive

relationship, but different results were found by others

(Wasko and Faraj 2005, Hsu and Lin 2008). We infer

that a probable explanation of this may lie in the

perceived uncertainty of knowledge quality, since

knowledge quality is one of the critical factors for

the success of the KMS (Kulkarni et al. 2006). R&D

employees are asked to focus on completing their

current project on time. However, under rapidly

changing technical circumstances, while they are trying

to get help for the next project, the knowledge

provided may be irrelevant or irrelative. Further

research can extend this study to include more under-

standing of the relationship between knowledge quality

and employees behavioural intentions. Another pos-

sible explanation is that the EKR is a network-based

interaction, which contrasts with a face-to-face setting.

Face-to-face communication is helpful to achieve the

goal of dyadic reciprocity (Wasko and Faraj 2005).

For instance, A first helps B and B assists A the next

time. The reciprocity of EKR is generalised reciprocity,

which involves an exchange between closely related

individuals, with the contributors giving needing no

immediate return or conscious thought of return

(Polanyi 1968). Thus, this could also be a reason for

the equivocation of reciprocity on the EKR usage

intentions for sharing their knowledge. However, ourfindings also indicate that reciprocity can directly affect

the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness.

Therefore, an organisation should continue to build up

a strong norm of reciprocity, so that employees will

trust that their knowledge-sharing efforts will be

reciprocated. This will lead to employees expending

their efforts voluntarily, facilitating easier usage and

perceiving more usefulness in their R&D tasks.

6.3. Influence of intrinsic altruism

Intrinsic altruism was shown to be an important

influential factor to perceived ease of use. Also, therelationship between intrinsic altruism and intention to

use the EKR for knowledge-sharing is significant.

Perhaps intrinsic altruism motivation could be the

explanation of why people share their time and

knowledge with others freely. This seems to support

and explain the success ofAmazon.com book commen-

taries, the content contribution in Wikipedia and

opinions expressed in weblogs, forums, etc. Altruism

is one of the primary dimensions of organisational

citizenship behaviour (OCB), and the organisational

culture of OCB can encourage employees to enhance

the well-being of their co-workers and also to be more

willing to share their knowledge (Lin 2008). When anemployee exhibits intrinsic altruism, he or she will

share knowledge voluntarily, be willing to create a

positive mood and want to spend more time and

energy, thus facilitating the perceptions of ease of use.

6.4. Influence of TAM constructs

The results were consistent with the propositions of

TAM. As expected, both the perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use would significantly affect the

intention to use the EKR to share knowledge. Again,

perceived ease of use could significantly impact the

perceived usefulness of the EKR. As hypothesised,

when an easier system is being used, it becomes more

useful. All of these three findings are consistent with

previous TAM-related studies, highlighting the ease of

use and usefulness as the two main determinants of

user acceptance of a new technology. Thus, it is

essential to design a smooth system interface where

R&D employees may choose the EKR in knowledge-

sharing. On the other hand, the EKR must provide

rich knowledge and combine knowledge retrieval tools,



14/19

thereby leading to perceived usefulness in facilitating

tasks.

7. Implications

7.1. Implications for theory

Prior research (Kankanhalli et al. 2005a) has wellshown the direct effects of knowledge-sharing motiva-

tions on EKR usage for knowledge-sharing. In this

study, by adding perceived usefulness and perceived

ease of use as the mediators, we have demonstrated a

clear understanding of how knowledge-sharing moti-

vations may affect their acceptance of the EKR.

This study makes several important contributions

to the research literature. First, based on the evidence

from the literature, the effect of knowledge-sharing

motivations on knowledge-sharing is still controver-

sial. We compared our findings with the four recently

published studies on knowledge-sharing (see Table 10).

By incorporating TAM with knowledge-sharing moti-vations, this study finds that perceived usefulness is a

key intervening variable linking the antecedent vari-

ables, namely reputation and reciprocity, with usage

intentions for knowledge-sharing. The results also

indicate that perceived ease of use is a key intervening

variable linking the antecedent variables, namely

reputation, reciprocity and altruism, with usage inten-

tions for knowledge-sharing. Karahanna and Straub

(1999) investigate how and why perceived ease of use

and perceived usefulness develop. In their study,

integrated social presence theory, social influence

theory, and Triandis modifications to the theory of

reasoned actions, the causal relationships between theproposed antecedents and perceived usefulness and

perceived ease of use are examined. Our study offers a

motivational perspective by proposing knowledge-

sharing motivations as original antecedents for the

constructs of usefulness and ease of use on the EKR.

Second, we contribute to EKR research by reveal-

ing the influences of knowledge-sharing motivations on

the acceptance of the EKR. In particular, based on

SET, we propose the existence of three motivations,

namely reputation, reciprocity and altruism. These are

also theorised by Davenport and Prusak (1998), as

existing in the knowledge market. We believe that the

links between TAM and users sharing motivations

need to be further elaborated. In particular, investiga-

tion of other sharing motivations has been omitted.

Further studies are also required to examine whether

or not other knowledge-sharing motivators (e.g.

knowledge growth, knowledge self-efficacy, and re-

wards) would influence TAM. Prior research adopts a

division of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations for use

which correspond to psychology and economics

(Osterloh and Frey 2000). Monetary reward has been

omitted because most of the R&D departments in this

study did not use money to encourage knowledge-

sharing, since employees of an R&D department are

required to share knowledge to create a common

understanding of the problems at hand (Hong et al.

2001, Berends et al. 2006). However, the result shows

that reputation is not a significant extrinsic motivationfor the intention to use the EKR to share knowledge,

thus we suggest that future research should explore

tangible economic incentives (e.g., salary, bonus,

promotion), and should also examine whether or not

the usage behaviour relates to direct economic

incentives and if so, how.

Third, in previous studies of TAM, perceived

usefulness was a comparatively strong determinant of

usage intentions, such as mobile commerce acceptance

(Wu and Wang 2005), on-line learning acceptance

(Saade and Bahli 2005) and electronic tax filing

acceptance (Fu et al. 2006). However, the results in

this study indicate that R&D employees use the EKRmainly because they perceive that it is easy to use and

secondarily, because it is more useful for their R&D

tasks. This result is consistent with prior research (Lai

et al. 2008), where ease of use has stronger significant

effects than that of perceived usefulness with KMS.

This study suggests that all researchers, practitioners,

and policy makers should emphasise a user-friendly

EKR interface in order to facilitate the usage of the

EKR in knowledge-sharing, so that people will share

their knowledge easily. In addition, according to Wu

and Wang (2005), mature innovation technology has

decreased user interface problems because users now

have the necessary skill and confidence. Thus, as usersgain familiarity over time, the effect of ease of use will

reduce (Chau 1996). Further research is also needed to

examine the implementation time of the EKR.

Fourth, knowledge-sharing and knowledge-seeking

are two distinct types of behaviours (He and Wei

2009). We argue that, in order to further understand

the behavioural intention to use the EKR, future

research could investigate employees knowledge-seek-

ing motivations on their acceptance of the EKR for

knowledge-seeking.

7.2. Implications for practice

This study also makes several important contributions

to practice. First, the findings demonstrate that

extrinsic reputation, extrinsic reciprocity and intrinsic

altruism are three antecedents to the perceived ease of

use. Therefore, before the implementation of the EKR,

organisations should establish the culture of knowl-

edge-sharing in advance, in order to arouse altruism

and reciprocity. Those who believe in reciprocity

expect that they will receive other peoples favour in



15/19

Table10.Acomparisonwith

fourpriorstudies.

KMS

Sample

Dependent

variable

Reputation

Reciprocity

Altruism/enjoyment

inhelpingothers

HeandWei

(2009)

Electronick

nowledge

repository

161responsesanswered

the

questionnaireregarding

knowledge-contribution

behaviourand201an

swered

regardingknowledge-seeking

behaviour.Thesampleis

fromaninternationalIT

companyinChina

Contributionbeliefs

I

nsignificant

Insignificant

Sig

nificant

Kankanhalli

etal.(2005a)

Electronick

nowledge

repository

150respondentsfrom1

0

organisationsinSingapore

EKRusageby

knowledge

contributors

N

/A

N/A

Sig

nificant

Waskoand

Faraj(2005)

Electronicn

etworkof

practice

173responsesfromanational

legalprofessionalassociation

inUS

Helpfulnessof

contribution

S

ignificant

Insignificant

Sig

nificant(p50.1)

Volumeof

contribution

S

ignificant

Significant

Ins

ignificant

Bocketal.

(2005)

NospecificKMS.

(Executivesenrolledin

theCKO

program

offerbya

university)

154responsesfrom27

organisationsacross16

industriesinKorea

Attitudetoward

knowledgesharing

N

/A

Significant

N/A

Thisstudy

Electronick

nowledge

repository

231responsesfrom10

organisationsacrossnine

industriesinTaiwan

Perceivedeaseofuse

S

ignificant

Significant

Sig

nificant

Perceivedusefulness

S

ignificant

Significant

(p50.1)

Ins

ignificant

Usageintentionfor

knowledgesharing

I

nsignificant

Insignificant

Sig

nificant



16/19

the future, so they share knowledge for each others

benefits. We believe that the reciprocity motivation is

important for continued knowledge-sharing. Knowl-

edge altruism can be inspired, and a climate of altruism

could be encouraged, if organisations hire good

employees and treat them well, whereas employees

will be discouraged if the organisation imposes moreand more pressures on their energy and time (Daven-

port and Prusak 1998). Additionally, designing an

appropriate reputation mechanism for the EKR will

help employees to form their expert identity. Under

such circumstances, they can enhance their effort and

self-confidence.

Second, the findings indicated extrinsic reputation

as an antecedent to perceived usefulness. When

acquiring extrinsic reputation, people are willing to

believe that the EKR can enhance their task perfor-

mance. Therefore, this will create an image of a Person

of Wisdom while a reputation mechanism is incorpo-

rated into the system. For instance, Xerox companyhas designed a system of KMS-Eureka, when employ-

ees logging onto the KMS, employees are able to easily

input new solutions, or new problems, into Eureka by

registering their name on the system. Therefore, it is

able to promote zealous behaviour for employees to

provide their knowledge. With implications for soft-

ware vendors and system developers, users contribu-

tion outcomes could be created in the development of

an EKR product. Reputation design incorporated into

EKR can lead employees who want to overcome the

difficulties of sharing knowledge and thus make them

more aware of the usefulness of the EKR. Our findings

suggest that it is essential to design a reputationmechanism into an EKR.

Third, the findings indicate that extrinsic recipro-

city is another antecedent to perceived usefulness.

When people anticipate a reciprocal relationship in

future cooperation, they tend to believe that the EKR

can enhance their task performance, because they will

obtain a return after using the EKR. Reciprocity has

been highlighted as the most important benefit for

individuals in the knowledge exchange environment

(Davenport and Prusak 1998). Our findings suggest

that organisations should establish the norm of

reciprocity, which is a common and powerful social

norm, which dictates that we need to return favours to

those who have done something nice for us (Ellis and

Fisher 1994). Under this condition, the perceived

usefulness of the system can be enhanced, which is

also believed to improve task performance.

Fourth, our results show that perceived ease of use,

perceived usefulness and intrinsic altruism are signifi-

cant factors on the EKR usage intention for knowl-

edge-sharing. Our results find that intrinsic altruism is

the most important factor in determining users

intention to use the EKR for knowledge-sharing.

Although altruism is innate, organisational culture

and friendly relationships among employees may also

shape peoples willingness to contribute their knowl-

edge. De Long and Fahey (2000) argue that culture

includes three elements, values, norms and practices,

and where values are manifested in norms, theyinfluence a specific practice. Therefore, it is important

that the organisational culture enhances altruism and

drives people to willingly contribute their knowledge

through the EKR. Perceived ease of use is another

important factor in the EKR usage intention for

knowledge-sharing. Thus, a successful EKR relies

upon the determination of how easy it is to use and

how accessible the knowledge is for people. Hence,

while designing the EKR, it is essential to reduce the

complexity of the interface in order to enable users to

find what they want conveniently and fast. For example,

a knowledge map is a method that uses a simple, clear

visual presentation, which can help employees findquickly the knowledge they seek (Wexler 2001, Lai et al.

2008). In addition, the implementation of the EKR

must be able to be easily combined with existing

technology, and training must also be provided for

employees to facilitate the EKR usage.

8. Conclusion

This study incorporates a motivational perspective into

the acceptance of the EKR and examines extrinsic

(reputation and reciprocity) and intrinsic (altruism)

motivations as being key influences on perceived

usefulness, ease of use and EKR usage intention forknowledge-sharing. The purpose of this study is to

understand how users intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-

tions affect R&D employees acceptance of the EKR

for knowledge-sharing. A correct understanding of

intrinsic motivation is necessary to ensure appropriate

managerial interventions and the formation of organi-

sational culture. Another correct understanding of

extrinsic motivation is to ensure the balance between

the interface design and users needs.

There are three limitations to this study. First, the

subjects in this study are limited to R&D departments

from 10 specific organisations in Taiwan. The cultural

differences among organisations influence employees

perceptions regarding knowledge-sharing (Lin 2007).

Therefore, we suggest that future research could be

conducted in other organisations or other countries in

order to enhance the representativeness. Or perhaps,

the research could only focus on the R&D departments

of some specific industries, in order to gain a deeper

understanding of that particular industry. Second,

this study investigated behavioural intention only,

and the behavioural intention used was measured by



17/19

self-reporting, which is a type of subjective measure

(Chau 1996). Except for subjective measures, it is

suggested that future research should employ objective

measures (e.g. knowledge-sharing quality and quantity

on the EKR usage). Finally, the R&D departments

investigated in this study have all used EKR for at least

more than 3 months. However, we have not investi-gated the time an individual has been using the EKR.

Thus, there is a possibility that it may contain some

bias, due to the learning-curve effects of novice users.

Note

1. The eLand Technologies was at the top position in thecategory of KM in Taiwan.

References

Ba, S., Stallaert, J., and Whinston, A.B., 2001. Researchcommentary: introducing a third dimension in informa-tion systems design the case for incentive alignment.

Information Systems Research, 12 (3), 225239.Barthes, J. and Tacla, C., 2002. Agent-supported portals and

knowledge management in complex R&D projects.Computers in Industry, 48 (1), 316.

Benabou, R. and Tirole, J., 2003. Intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation. Review of Economic Studies, 70 (3), 489520.

Berends, H., et al., 2006. Knowledge sharing mechanisms inindustrial research. R&D Management, 36 (1), 8595.

Bock, G.W., Kankanhalli, A., and Sharma, S., 2006. Arenorms enough? The role of collaborative norms inpromoting organisational knowledge seeking. EuropeanJournal of Information Systems, 15 (4), 357367.

Bock, G.W., Kim, Y.G., and Lee, J., 2005. Behavioralintention formation in knowledge sharing: examing theroles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces

and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1),87111.Bock, G.W., Sabherwal, R., and Qian, Z., 2008. The effect ofsocial context on the success of knowledge repositorysystems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,55 (4), 536551.

Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R., 1993. Alternative ways ofassessing model fit. In: K. Bollen and J.S. Long, eds.Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, 36162.

Carrillo, P., et al., 2004. Knowledge management in UKconstruction: strategies, resources and barriers. ProjectManagement Journal, 35 (1), 4656.

Chau, P.Y.K., 1996. An empirical assessment of a modifiedtechnology acceptance model. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 13 (2), 185204.

Constant, D., Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S., 1996. The kindnessof strangers: The usefulness of electronic weak ties fortechnical advice. Organization Science, 7 (2), 119135.

Cummings, J.L. and Teng, B.S., 2003. Transferring R&Dknowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfersuccess. Journal of Engineering and Technology Manage-ment, 20 (1,2), 3968.

Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W., and Beers, M.C., 1998.Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Man-agement Review, 39 (2), 4357.

Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L., 1998. Working knowledge:how organizations manage what they know. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease ofuse, and user acceptance of information technology. MISQuarterly, 13 (3), 319340.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R., 1989. Useracceptance of computer technology: a comparison oftwo theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8), 9821003.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R., 1992.

Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers inthe workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 11111132.

De Long, D.W. and Fahey, L., 2000. Diagnosing culturebarriers to knowledge management. Academy of Man-agement Executive, 14 (4), 113127.

Deci, E.L., 1975. Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 1980. The empirical exploration

of intrinsic motivational processes. In: L. Berkowitz, ed.Advances in experimental social psychology. New York:Academic Press, 3980.

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic motivation andself-determination in human behavior. New York: PlenumPress.

Donath, J.S., 1999. Identity and deception in the virtual

community. In: M. Smith and P. Kollock, eds. Commu-nities in cyberspace. New York: Routledge, 2959.

Ellis, D.G. and Fisher, B.A., 1994. Small group decisionmaking communication and the group process. 4th ed. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Fehr, E. and Gachter, S., 2000. Fairness and retaliation: theeconomics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspec-tives, 14 (3), 159181.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structuralequation models with unobservable variables and mea-surement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1),3950.

Fu, J.R., Chao, W.P., and Farn, C.K., 2006. Acceptance ofelectronic tax filing: a study of taxpayer intentions.Information & Management, 43 (1), 109126.

Gray, P.H. and Durcikova, A., 2005. The role of knowledgerepositories in technical support environments speedversus learning in user performance. Journal of Manage-ment Information Systems, 22 (3), 159190.

Hair, J.H., et al., 2006. Multivariate data analysis. 6th ed.New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Hall, H., 2001a. Input-friendliness: motivating knowledgesharing accross intranets. Journal of Information Science,27 (3), 139146.

Hall, H., 2001b. Social exchange for knowledge exchange.In: Managing knowledge: conversations and critiques.England: University of Leicester Management Centre,1011.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., and Tierney, T., 1999. Whatsyour strategy for managing knowledge. Harvard BusinessReview, 77 (2), 106116.

He, W., Fang, Y., and Wei, K.K., 2009. The role of trust inpromoting organizational knowledge seeking usingknowledge management systems: an empirical investiga-tion. Journal of the American Society for InformationScience and Technology, 60 (3), 526537.

He, W. and Wei, K.K., 2009. What drives continuedknowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs. Decision SupportSystems, 46 (4), 826838.

Hoffman, M.L., 1975. Developmental synthesis of affect andcognition and its implications for altruistic motivation.Developmental Psychology, 11 (5), 607622.



18/19

Hong, W., et al., 2001. Determinants of user acceptance ofdigital libraries: an empirical examination of individualdifferences and system characteristics. Journal of Man-agement Information Systems, 18 (3), 97124.

Hsu, C.L. and Lin, J.C.C., 2008. Acceptance of blog usage:the roles of technology acceptance, social influence andknowledge sharing motivation. Information & Manage-ment, 45 (1), 6574.

Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., and Baroudi, J.J., 1996. Amotivational model of microcomputer usage. Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 13 (1), 127143.

Kamis, A., Koufaris, M., and Stern, T., 2008. Using anattribute-based decision support system for user-custo-mized products online: an experimental investigation.MIS Quarterly, 32 (1), 159177.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., and Wei, K.K., 2005a.Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge reposi-tories: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1),113143.

Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B.C.Y., and Wei, K.K., 2005b.Understanding seeking from electronic knowledge repo-sitories: an empirical study. Journal of the AmericanSociety for Information Sciece and Technology, 56 (11),

11561166.Karahanna, E. and Straub, D.W., 1999. The psychological

origins of perceived usefulness and ease-of-use. Informa-tion & Management, 35 (4), 237250.

King, W.R. and Marks, P.V., 2008. Motivating knowledgesharing through a knowledge management system.Omega- The International Journal of ManagementScience, 36 (1), 131146.

Kollock, P., 1999. The economies of online cooperation: giftsand public goods in cyberspace. In: P. Kollock and M.Smith, eds. Communities in cyberspace. New York:Routledge, 220239.

Krebs, D.L., 1975. Empathy and altruism. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 32 (6), 11321146.

Kulkarni, U.R., Ravindran, S., and Freeze, R., 2006. A

knowledge management success model: theoretical devel-opment and empirical validation. Journal of ManagementInformation Systems, 23 (3), 309347.

Lai, J.Y., Wang, C.T., and Chou, C.Y., 2008. How knowledgemap and personalization affect effectiveness of KMS inhigh-tech firms. In: 41st Annual Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences. Washington, USA: IEEEComputer Society, 355363.

Lee, H.J., Kim, J.W., and Koh, J., 2009. A contingentapproach on knowledge portal design for R&Dteams: relative importance of knowledge portal func-tionalities. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (2),36623670.

Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K., and Chen, Z., 2005.Acceptance of internet-based learning medium: the roleof extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Information &Management, 42 (8), 10951104.

Legris, P., Ingham, J., and Collerette, P., 2003. Why dopeople use information technology? A critical review ofthe technology acceptance model. Information & Man-agement, 40 (3), 191204.

Lin, C.P., 2008. Clarifying the relationship between organi-zational citizenship behaviors, gender, and knowledgesharing in workplace oraganizations in Taiwan. Journalof Business and Psychology, 22 (3), 241250.

Lin, H.F., 2007. Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivationon employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal ofInformation Science, 33 (2), 135149.

Lin, T.C. and Huang, C.C., 2008. Understanding knowledgemanagement system usage antecedents: an integration ofsocial cognitive theory and task technology fit. Informa-tion & Management, 45 (6), 410417.

Lu, J., et al., 2008. Determinants of accepting wireless mobiledata services in China. Information & Management, 45(1), 5264.

Malhotra, Y. and Galletta, D.F., 2004. Building systems that

users want to use. Communications of the ACM, 47 (12),8994.

Miller, W.L. and Morris, L., 1999. Fourth generation R&D:management knowledge, technology and innovation. NewYork: Wiley.

Money, W. and Turner, A., 2005. Assessing knowledgemanagement system user acceptance with the technologyacceptance model. International Journal of KnowledgeManagement, 1 (1), 826.

Moon, J.W. and Kim, Y.G., 2001. Extending the TAM for aworld-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217230.

Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric theory. New York:McGraw Hill.

Ong, C.S., Lai, J.Y., and Wang, Y.S., 2004. Factors affecting

engineers acceptance of asynchronous e-learning systemsin high-tech companies. Information & Management, 41(6), 795804.

Osterloh, M. and Frey, B.S., 2000. Motivation, knowledgetransfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science,11 (5), 538550.

Park, Y. and Kim, S., 2006. Knowledge management systemfor fourth generation R&D: Knowvation. Technovation,26 (56), 595602.

Pijpers, G.G.M., et al., 2001. Senior executives use ofinformation technology. Information and Software Tech-nology, 43 (1), 959971.

Polanyi, K., 1968. The economy as instituted process. In: E.E.Leclair and H.K. Schneider, eds. Economic anthropology.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 122142.

Rus, I. and Lindvall, M., 2002. Knowledge management insoftware engineering. IEEE Software, 19 (3), 2638.Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L., 2000. Intrinsic and extrinsic

motivations: classic definitions and new directions.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 5467.

Saade, R. and Bahli, B., 2005. The impact of cognitiveabsorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease ofuse in on-line learning: an extension of the technologyacceptance model. Information & Management, 42 (2),317327.

Skinner, B., 1953. Science and human behavior. New York:MacMillan.

Smith, D.H., 1981. Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism.Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 10 (1), 2136.

Venkatesh, V., 1999. Creation of favorable user perception:exploring the role of intrinsic motivation. MIS Quarterly,23 (2), 239260.

Venkatesh, V., 2000. Determinants of perceived ease of use:integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotioninto the technology acceptance model. InformationSystems Research, 11 (4), 342365.

Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extensionof the technology acceptance model: four longitudinalfield studies. Management Science, 46 (2), 186204.

Wasko, M. and Faraj, S., 2000. It is what one does: whypeople participate and help others in electronic commu-nities of practice. Journal of Strategic InformationSystems, 9 (23), 155173.



19/19

Wasko, M. and Faraj, S., 2005. Why should I share?Examining social capital and knowledge contribution inelectronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29 (1),3456.

Watson, S. and Hewett, K., 2006. A multi-theoreticalmodel of knowledge transfer in organizations:determinants of knowledge contribution and knowl-edge reuse. Journal of management studies, 43 (2),

141173.Wexler, M.N., 2001. The who, what and why of knowledge

mapping. Journalof Knowledge Management, 5 (3), 249263.

Wu, J.H. and Wang, S.C., 2005. What drives mobilecommerce? An empirical evaluation of the revisedtechnology acceptance model. Information & Manage-ment, 42 (5), 719729.

Wu, J.H. and Wang, Y.M., 2006. Measuring KMS success: arespecification of the DeLone and McLeans model.Information & Management, 43 (6), 728739.

Yi, M.Y., et al., 2006. Understanding information technol-

ogy acceptance by individual professionals: toward anintegrative view. Information & Management, 43 (3), 350363.

Appendix 1. Survey instrument

Reputation

REPU1 From the reputationmechanism of EKR, Ican earn respect from othersby participating in the EKR.

REPU2 From the reputationmechanism of EKR, I

feel that participationimproves my status inthe profession.

REPU3 From the reputationmechanism of EKR, Iimprove my reputation in theprofession.

Reciprocity

RECP1 When I share myknowledge through EKR, Ibelieve that I will get ananswer for giving an answer.

RECP2 When I share myknowledge through EKR,I expect somebody torespond when Im in need.

RECP3 When I contributeknowledge to EKR, Iexpect to get backknowledge when I need it.

RECP4 When I share myknowledge through EKR, Ibelieve that my queries forknowledge will be answered infuture.

Altruism

ALTR1 I enjoy sharing my

knowledge with othersthrough EKR.

ALTR2 I enjoy helping others bysharing my knowledgethrough EKR.

ALTR3 It feels good to help someoneelse by sharing my knowledgethrough EKR.

ALTR4 Sharing my knowledge withothers through EKR gives mepleasure.

Perceived usefulness

PU1 Using an EKR in my jobwould enable me toaccomplish tasks morequickly.

PU2 Using an EKR wouldimprove my job performance.

PU3 Using an EKR in my jobwould increase myproductivity.

PU4 Using an EKR wouldenhance my effectiveness onthe job.

PU5 Using an EKR would make iteasier for me to do my job.

PU6 I would find an EKR useful inmy job.

Perceived ease of use

PEOU1 Learning to operate an EKRwould be easy for me.

PEOU2 I would find it easy to get anEKR to do what I want it todo.

PEOU3 My interaction with an EKRwould be clear andunderstandable.

PEOU4 I would find an EKR to beflexible to interact with.

PEOU5 It would be easy for me tobecome skillful at using anEKR.

PEOU6 I would find an EKR easy touse.

Behaviour intentionBI1 I intend to use EKR for

knowledge-sharing shortly.

BI2 I predict that I will reuse EKRfor knowledge-sharing in theshort term.


Documents

TAM Repositories