Reconstrucción documentada

Outcome variables and factors introduced in sections 3.3 and 3.4, respectively, were operationalized by using items reflecting their content.

When existing measures were available, they were reused. For each measure, items were examined and, when needed, reworded to make them fit the context of the study. When more than one measure was available for a given construct, a measure with the best content fit was adopted as a base. The remaining measures were also reviewed, and items corresponding to relevant content that was not accounted for in the adopted base measure were added. The resulting adjusted measure was reviewed for items with nearly identical meaning, and, following the recommendation by Clark and Watson (1995), redundant items were eliminated to ensure that each item in a meaningful way contributed to the content of the measure.

The items for all of the measures, with references to the literature sources from which they were derived (when applicable), are listed in Appendix F. In the rest of this section, I discuss in detail the operationalizations of the KMS use for retrieval, KMS use for sharing, and culture of sharing constructs for which no suitable existing measures were available in the literature, and therefore, measures were constructed in this study.

4.4.1.1 Operationalization of KMS Use

This section discusses the operationalization of the KMS use for sharing and KMS use for retrieval constructs. The constructs were introduced in section 3.3.

Previous studies used a generic KMS use construct with items making no clear distinction between knowledge sharing and knowledge retrieval activities. The present study used separate constructs for KMS use for sharing and KMS use for retrieval. Because the existing instruments were not specific to either sharing or retrieval, the items specific for knowledge sharing and knowledge retrieval were generated based on the descriptions of the concepts of knowledge sharing and knowledge retrieval in the literature.

The activities involved in knowledge sharing and knowledge seeking were identified from the literature (as listed in Table 4-1), and used the list of activities as the basis for formulating the items. The wording of the items followed the pattern used by Doll and

Torkzadeh (1998) in developing a measure of system use and started all items with the expression “I use KMS to”. The resulting items are listed in Table 4-2.

Section 2.2.1.3 distinguished between repository and network models of KMS, which focus, respectively, on sharing explicit and tacit knowledge. (One can contribute knowledge to a repository, or communicate with experts available in a directory of experts, or one can retrieve knowledge from a repository, or access knowledge from the experts available in an expert directory). The measures of KMS use for sharing and KMS use for retrieval constructs presented in Table 4-2 account for both of the models.

Table 4-1Sharing and Retrieval Activities

Activity Sources

Sharing

Communicate knowledge Wu & Wang (2006)

Discuss/exchange ideas, experiences and expertise Nielsen & Ciabuschi (2003), Kwan & Balasubramanian (2003)

Contribute ideas/feedback Nielsen & Ciabuschi (2003)

Participate in discussion groups Nielsen and Ciabuschi (2003), Pan & Leidner (2003)

Collaborate with colleagues Alavi & Leidner (2001), Alavi & Tiwana (2002), Nielson & Ciabuschi (2003)

Retrieval

Access knowledge for decision making Kwan & Balasubramanian (2003) Retrieve knowledge for problem solving Davenport & Prusak (1998), Earl (2001), Kwan & Balasubramanian (2003)

Retrieve knowledge to improve the quality of work Pan & Leidner (2003) Connect to the experts (identify and locate the experts) Earl (2001), Hansen (1999) Retrieve knowledge to help employees be more

innovative

Table 4-2Operationalization of KMS Use for Sharing and KMS Use for Retrieval

Item code Item wording

KMS Use for Sharing

KMS_Sh1 I use KMS to communicate knowledge with colleagues KMS_Sh2 I use KMS to contribute ideas and/or feedback

KMS_Sh3 I use KMS to participate in discussion groups

KMS_Sh4 I use KMS to discuss and/or exchange ideas/views/experiences with colleagues

KMS_Sh5 I use KMS to collaborate with colleagues (e.g. to be part of workflow process)

KMS_Sh6 I use KMS to distribute knowledge (e.g. news, memos, reports, presentation, or organisation policies)

KMS Use for Retrieval

KMS_R1 I use KMS to retrieve knowledge for decision making

KMS_R2 I use KMS to retrieve knowledge to solve my job-related problems KMS_R3 I use KMS to retrieve knowledge that can help me improve the

quality of my work

KMS_R4 I use KMS to identify and locate people for knowledge and expertise

KMS_R5 I use KMS to retrieve knowledge that can help me to be innovative

4.4.1.2 Operationalization of Culture of Sharing

This section discusses the operationalization of the culture of sharing construct. The construct was introduced in section 3.4.2.2.

The measure for culture of sharing (see Table 4-4) was based on the study of attributes of organisational culture by Park et al. (2004). Park et al. conducted a survey to rank organisational culture attributes derived from the organisational culture profile framework (introduced in section 2.3.2) according to their relevance to promoting knowledge sharing and KMS success. Highly ranked attributes were consistent with the discussion of aspects of organisational culture relevant to KMS success by Alavi et al. (2006).

Table 4-3Attributes Contributing to Culture of Sharing

Code Attribute

C1 Team-oriented work

C2 Working closely with others C3 Sharing information freely

C4 Trust

C5 Supportive of employees

The items for culture of sharing were formulated based on the five attributes of organisational culture ranked the highest in the study by Park et al. (2004) (listed in Table 4-3). The resulting measure is presented in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4Operationalization of Culture of Sharing

Item code Item wording

CS1 Our organisation supports a culture where team-oriented work is valued.

CS2 Our organisation supports a culture where sharing information freely is valued.

CS3 Our organisation supports a culture where being supportive of employees is valued.

CS4 Our organisation supports a culture where working closely with others is valued.

CS5 Our organisation supports a culture where trust is valued.