The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

A Contingency Model of Knowledge Creation

Shih-Wei Chou Yu-Chieh Chang
Department of Information Management,
National Kaohsiung First University of Management School, National
Science and Technology, Kaohsiung First University of Science
Taiwan, R.O.C. and Technology,
swchou@ccms.nkfust.edu.tw Taiwan, R.O.C.
u9328905@ccms.nkfust.edu.tw

Abstract

Knowledge management (KM) has been recognized as one of the most important issues
for sustaining competitive advantage. In order to achieve KM effectively, past research
argued that it is important to facilitate and leverage knowledge assets. However, few
studies examine knowledge processes and enablers that may influence the accumulation
of knowledge assets. To fill this gap, drawing on dynamic capabilities perspective and
absorptive capacity theory (ACAP), this paper develops a contingency model that
interconnects the aforementioned KM factors. In order to test the feasibility of the
research model, we conducted an empirical study. This study employed a survey
instrument, which collected data from 1000 respondents from organizations in computer
industry, finance, transportation and service, manufacturing, construction, electronics,
trade, and academic institution. A total of 303 usable responses were analyzed. The
major contributions of this research are: (1) develop a KM framework that identifies the
impact of knowledge-creating processes on knowledge assets; (2) specify the moderating
effect of task characteristics on the relationship mentioned in item (1). The implications
of the study are provided, and further research directions are proposed.

Keywords: knowledge management, knowledge assets, knowledge-creating processes,

task characteristics, absorptive capacity theory (ACAP)

1. Introduction
The primary motivation for knowledge creation is to share, create, accumulate, and
leverage knowledge assets, which in turn improve business performance. Managing
knowledge creation is required for sustaining the advantage of KM. However, managing
knowledge creation processes effectively is not a trivial task. Few companies are capable
of managing the KM process and maintaining and consuming the service/product
produced by knowledge creation. Management focus is required for attaining the
advantage of knowledge creation. Knowledge creation can be categorized according to
two dimensions of management focus. The first one focuses on explicit knowledge that
emphasizes the dynamic capability to facilitate the creation, store, share, and use of
explicitly documented knowledge. The second one is tacit knowledge, which proposes
that knowledge is created and shared by interpersonal interaction (Nonaka and Takeuchi
1995, Choi an Lee 2003).

417
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

Although the explicit and tacit perspectives of knowledge epistemology have been widely
known by KM researchers, this lens of analysis fails to address the dynamic capabilities
of knowledge creation that enable the firm to reconfigure its resource base— for
example, knowledge assets-- and adapt to changing market conditions, from which
another spiral of knowledge creation emerges (Chou and He 2004, Nonaka et al. 2000).
More specifically, most of previous studies underline the KM enablers: social capital,
culture, structure, people, and information technology (IT) (Wasko and Faraj 2005, Lee
and Choi 2003, Sawhney and Prandelli 2000), whereas the outcomes of knowledge
creation processes are usually overlooked. In order to fill this gap, this study employs the
theory of absorptive capacity (Zahra and George 2002) besides the explicit-oriented and
tacit-oriented perspectives as the theoretical lens to analyzing the role of knowledge
creation processes that produces the dynamic capabilities of the firm—knowledge assets.
These assets may initiate another cycle of knowledge creation.

Given that the relation between knowledge process and its product—knowledge assets—
is not specified by previous study, the paper aims to explore the research question: “what
role the knowledge creation processes play in facilitating the accumulating of knowledge
assets which in turn may increase the absorptive capacity of the firm?” Our research
objectives are: (1) identifying the links between knowledge creation processes—
socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization (SECI)—and knowledge
assets, which are the products/outcomes of SECI; (2) examining the above link under
different circumstances—this study takes a contingency theoretic view, suggesting that
the impact of SECI is moderated by the context in which the knowledge is being used.
The focus is on one specific aspect of the context, namely the nature of the tasks
performed by the individuals and groups using the outcomes resulting from SECI
processes.

The layout of this paper is organized as follows. We first present a literature review on
knowledge creation, knowledge assets, and task characteristics. Then we explain our
conceptual framework and justify its hypotheses. Next, we describe the research
methodology followed by a discussion of the empirical findings. Finally, we summarize
our results and propose implications to research and practice.

2. Past studies and theoretical background

2.1 The hierarchy view of data, information, and knowledge, and alternative
perspectives of knowledge
Prior research addresses the question of defining knowledge by distinguishing among
knowledge, information, and data. There are two major types of views regarding this
definition: hierarchy view of data-information-knowledge vs. inverse hierarchy view of
data-information-knowledge. The former one suggests that data is raw numbers and facts,
information is processed data, and knowledge is authenticated information (Alavi and
Leidner 2001, Vance 1997). They also propose that the major aspect that may effectively
distinguish between information and knowledge is not found in the content, structure,
accuracy, or utility of the supposed information or knowledge. Rather, knowledge is
information processed in the mind of individuals: it is personalized information (which

418
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

may or may not be new, unique, useful, or accurate) related to facts, procedures,
concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations, and judgments.

The second view--inverse hierarchy view of data-information-knowledge--suggests that

the often-assumed hierarchy form of data to knowledge is actually the inverse:
knowledge must exist before information can be formulated and before data can be
measured to form information (Tuomi 1999). Tuomi (1999) argues that knowledge exists
which, when articulated, verbalized, and structured, becomes information which, when
assigned a fixed representation, and standard interpretation, becomes data. The key
concept of this argument is that knowledge is the result of cognitive processing triggered
by the inflow of new stimuli—for individuals to arrive at the same understanding of data
or information, they must share a certain understanding.

Previous studies examine the KM from other perspectives, besides the aforementioned
views. The first view defines knowledge as an object, which can be stored and
manipulated (McQueen 1998, Zack 1998). The second perspective confirms that
knowledge can be viewed as a process of simultaneously knowing and acting (McQueen
1998, Zack 1998). This view focuses on the applying of expertise. Finally, knowledge
can be viewed as a capability with the potential for influencing future actions (Alavi and
Leidner 2001, Carlsson et al. 1996). This view suggests that knowledge is not so much a
capability for specific action, but the ability to use information and existing knowledge
resources; learning and experience result in an ability to interpret information and to
ascertain what information is necessary in decision making. The major implication of the
various conceptions of knowledge is that each perspective suggests a different strategy
for managing knowledge.

2.2 Theoretical background

In the KM field, many researchers have identified the critical role that knowledge
creation and knowledge assets may play (Lee and Choi 2003, Nonaka and Takeuchi
1995, Purvis et al. 2001, Smits and Moor 2004). Knowledge creation processes can be
thought of as a structured coordination for effectively managing the activities such as
creating, sharing, storage, and usage of knowledge. Whereas knowledge creating
processes represent the basic operations of knowledge, knowledge assets are the possible
outcomes of these operations (Nonaka et al. 2000). In addition, task characteristics
represent the moderating effect between knowledge creation and knowledge assets,
because the effectiveness of KM process depends on the circumstances under which it is
used (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal 2001).

Our primary research focus is on the relationships between knowledge creation processes
and knowledge assets by elaborating on the contingent effect of task characteristics. The
relationships among these components can be derived from the input-process-output
model by Hackerman and Morris (1978). We modified this model by proposing that the
input processes-- i.e. knowledge creation processes-- affect output—the accumulation of
knowledge resource and assets through certain kinds of interaction variables—task
characteristics.

419
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

We further explore the implications of the above relationships by referring to the

definitions of knowledge from previous section. First, although most of the previous
studies (Chou and He 2004, Lee and Choi 2003) identify that the importance of the
enabling conditions for knowledge creation processes, we suggest that the output of such
processes is also critical. In Nonaka et al’s research (2000), they confirm that the output
of knowledge creation may facilitate another sequence of knowledge creation, yet
effective strategy and tool for evaluating and managing knowledge assets are absent.
According to the inverse hierarchy view of data-information-knowledge (Tuomi 1999),
existing knowledge has significant influence on the creating of new knowledge. Alavi
and Leidner (2001) argues that in order to facilitate KM, individuals must share a certain
understanding as well as triggered by the inflow of new stimuli—for example,
information, knowledge resource and assets. In sum, measuring the output of SECI—
knowledge assets--is also deserved recognition.

Second, our model can be explained from the object, process, and capability perspectives.
According to McQueen (1998) and Zack (1998), knowledge can be viewed as both an
object and a process. In terms the latter, the knowledge creation processes contains four
intertwined modes—Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization
(SECI) (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995), in which the KM activities focus on knowledge
flows and the process of creation, sharing, and distributing knowledge. The outcomes of
SECI—knowledge assets—can be treated as knowledge stocks that can be stored, used,
built and managed by organizations. In addition, based on the capability view of
knowledge (Alavi and Leidner 2001, Carlsson et al. 1996), the ability of creating
knowledge and knowledge assets enhances the intellectual capital, which in turn builds
core competence of a firm.

In order to further analyze the accumulated knowledge assets from the capability view,
we borrow the theory of absorptive capacity (ACAP). Zahra and George (2002)
conceptualize absorptive capacity as a dynamic capability pertaining to knowledge
creation and utilization that enhances a firm’s ability to gain and sustain competitive
advantage. ACAP exists as two subsets of potential and realized absorptive capacity.
While the potential ACAP makes the firm receptive to acquiring and assimilating
external knowledge, realized ACAP denotes a firm’s capability to leverage the
knowledge that has been absorbed. In other words, from the capability view, ACAP
refers to the set of organizational routines and processes, by which organizations acquire,
assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge to produce dynamic organizational
capability. We use the absorptive capacity lens to build a conceptual framework that links
the knowledge creation, knowledge assets, and task characteristics.

3. Hypothesis development

3.1 Effects of knowledge creation process on the accumulation of knowledge assets

Based on the analysis in previous sections, we derived our hypotheses which contain the
following variables.

Knowledge creation processes

420
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

As discussed in above section, there is relatively little research pertaining knowledge

creation, compared with other types of knowledge process such as knowledge transfer.
On the other hand, previous studies also indicate that knowledge creation has impact on
the accumulation of knowledge source—a dynamic capability that leads to a firm’s
competitive edge. Thus, the emphasis of this study is on knowledge creation.

In order to explore knowledge creation, this study employs Nanaka and Takeuchi’s
(1995) SECI model for the following two reasons. First, SECI model has become widely
accepted (Scharmer 2000), and it has been used in a number of studies and research areas
such as organizational learning (Scott 2000), IS (information systems) development and
IT (information technology) assimilation (Purvis et al. 2001), user IT innovation
(Nambisan et al. 1999), and organizational knowledge management (Becerra-Fernandez
and Sabherwal 2001, Gold et al. 2001, Lee and Choi 2003). Second, SECI is a
comprehensive knowledge management model; it contains diversified characteristics of
knowledge management such as knowledge creation, knowledge transfer, and knowledge
integration.

Socialization (S) is the process of converting existing tacit knowledge into new tacit
knowledge. It is usually through shared experience and interacting with other people
within or beyond organizational boundaries (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal 2001).
Externalization (E) is the process of articulating tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge.
When tacit knowledge is made explicit, knowledge is crystallized, thus allowing it to be
shared by others, and it becomes the basis of new knowledge (Nonaka and Konno 1998,
Nonaka et al. 2000). Combination (C) is the process of converting explicit into more
complex and systemic sets of explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is collected from
inside or outside of the organization and then combined, edited or processed to form new
knowledge (Alavi and Leidner 2001, Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995, Lee and Choi 2003).
Internalization (I) is the process of embodying explicit knowledge into tacit knowledge.
Through internalization, explicit knowledge is shared throughout an organization and
converted into tacit knowledge by individuals (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal 2001,
Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995).

Science knowledge creation processes do not necessary produce the dynamic capability
that influences a firm’s competitive advantage, this study turns to the capability view and
absorptive capacity theory to specify the relations between processes—SECI-- and
products—knowledge assets, rather than only using the tacit and explicit perspectives to
explain these relations.

Based on Nonaka et al’s (2000) definition and Smits and Moor’s (2004) empirical
investigation, knowledge assets are the firm-specific resources that are indispensable to
create values for the firm. They identify four different knowledge assets (KA). First,
experiential knowledge assets contain the skills and know-how that are acquired and
retained by individuals from their working experiences. There are four other types of
experiential knowledge assets. The first one is emotional knowledge such as care, love,
and trust. The second one is physical knowledge such as facial expressions and gestures.
Energetic knowledge is the third type of experiential knowledge assets such as senses of

421
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

existence, enthusiasm, and tension. The last type is rhythmic knowledge such as
improvisation and entrainment. The second type of knowledge assets is conceptual
knowledge assets, which are the assets based on the perceptions held by customers and
employees of the organization. These assets are easily articulated through images,
symbols, and language such as what products need to be developed and the specific
design features that need to be designed in the products. For example, brand equity
represents the perceptions of customers. Another example includes concepts or designs,
which are perceived by the members of the organization. Third, systemic knowledge
assets consist of the systematic and organized knowledge, such as clearly stated
technologies, product specifications, manuals, and documented and packaged information
about customers and suppliers. Legally protected intellectual properties such as patents
and licenses also fall into this category. Finally, routine knowledge assets consist of the
activities that are embedded and regulated in the actions and practices of a firm. Know-
how, working practices, organizational culture, and organizational routines for carrying
out day-to-day business are examples of routine knowledge assets.

In order to analyze the relationship between SECI and knowledge assets, we use ACAP.
ACAP allows one to estimate a firm’s dynamic capability through four dimensions:
acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation (Malhotra et al. 2005, Zahra
and George 2002). First, the accumulated knowledge assets such as documents, manuals,
and database may in turn facilitate the individuals to identify and acquire the internally
and externally generated knowledge that is critical to its operation-- acquisition. Second,
the accumulated routine and systemic knowledge assets allow individuals to analyze,
process, interpret, and understand the information that is obtained from external
resources—assimilation. Third, in terms of transformation, from the inverse hierarchy
view of data-information-knowledge, the accumulated knowledge assets play an
important role in facilitating the acquiring of new knowledge, the combining of existing
and the newly acquired and assimilated knowledge, because existing knowledge help
individuals and organizations formulate and measure new knowledge that is useful
(Tuomi 1999). Finally, with the help of skills, know-how, and others type of experiential
and routine knowledge assets, organizations create the capability that allow them to
refine, extend, and leverage existing competence or to create new ones by incorporating
acquired and transformed knowledge into a firm’s operations—exploitation.

H1: Socialization process is positively associated with the creating of knowledge assets.
H2: Externalization process is positively associated with the creating of knowledge
assets.
H3: Combination process is positively associated with the creating of knowledge assets.
H4: Internalization process is positively associated with the creating of knowledge
assets.

3.2 The moderating effects of task characteristics

This study departs from prior research on KM by arguing that the creating of knowledge
assets depends on the conditions under which the knowledge-creating processes are used
(Gelderman 2002). As shown in Figure 1, the basic argument of our model is that the
SECI process that individuals and groups should use depends on the nature of tasks they

422
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

achieve (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal 2001). This argument has been supported by
previous research. For example, Van de Ven and Delbecq’s (1974) study proposed a
contingency relationship between subunit tasks and organization structure. Two task
characteristics—task orientation and task domain-- that may affect the suitability of
knowledge-creating processes are examined in this study. In order to achieve knowledge
management in an effective way—to facilitate the creating of knowledge assets
effectively, task dimensions require different types of organizational knowledge, which in
turn suggests that individuals may adopt the most appropriate knowledge-creating
process to creating knowledge assets based on the task characteristics.

Task orientation
Recent studies regarding strategic management and organization theory emphasize the
importance of task orientation that may differentiate firms (Pisano 1994). Based on task
orientation, organization subunits have been classified into two basic categories: process-
oriented and content-oriented. Content-oriented tasks focus on the specific goals to be
fulfilled. For example, the specific features or functions of products that an organization
may produce. Thus, the main concern of content-oriented tasks is the know-what or
declarative knowledge (Kusonaki et al. 1998).

In contrast, process-oriented tasks focus on the processes or methods that are adopted by
individuals or groups to develop the products. They concern issues such as how to
perform the processes that are necessary in achieving the specific product design.
According to Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) definition, “know-what” and “know-how”
have been associated with explicit and tacit types of knowledge respectively. Thus, based
on the definitions of SECI, it seems that externalization and combination will benefit
content-oriented tasks. In contrast, process-oriented tasks are more likely to benefit by
socialization and internalization.

Task domain
According to Kusonaki et al’s (1998) definition, task domains can be divided into two
categories: focused and broad tasks. Subunits performing focused tasks have low task
variability but greater specialization, while subunits performing broad tasks have greater
task variability and greater need for collaborating and exchanging knowledge with other
subunits within the organization (Ven de Ven and Delbecq 1974). In order to perform
tasks that are focused in domain, individuals need distinctive units of knowledge such as
“functional knowledge embodied in a specific group of engineers, elemental
technologies, information processing devices, databases and patents (Kusonaki et al
1998).” They often require deep knowledge or knowledge that is highly specific in a
particular area.

According to the definitions of internalization and externalization (Nonaka and Takeuchi

1995), the former process emphasizes the acquisition of knowledge by observing or
doing (i.e. learning by doing). Regarding externalization, individuals use metaphors,
analogies, or narratives to model their knowledge. The purpose of externalization is to
make individual’s knowledge more agreeable and understandable to others in the group,
while through internalization individual absorbs knowledge held by others in the group.

423
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

Both of internalization and externalization contain the knowledge-creating processes,

which are personal and individualized (Magalhães 1998). Therefore, internalization and
externalization belong to the focused task domain category (Becerra-Fernandez and
Sabherwal 2001).

Performing tasks that are broad in domain relies primarily on dynamic interactions
among people from different functional groups. In order to achieve the tasks with a broad
domain, individuals combine and transform their knowledge through communicating and
exchanging across different expertise. As Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggest,
“significant progress in the creation of intellectual capital often occurs by bringing
together knowledge from disparate sources and disciplines.” Both of socialization and
combination processes help integrate and synthesize existing knowledge to create new
knowledge. When the types of knowledge being integrated are explicit, combination can
help to generate new explicit knowledge. On the other hand, socialization is more
appropriate to produce the types of knowledge that being synthesized are tacit.

In summary, it seems appropriate to adopt combination and socialization processes to

handle task with broad domain, whereas externalization and internalization processes
seem more suitable for focused task domain. In addition, externalization and combination
processes are likely a relevant choice for content-oriented tasks, while internalization and
socialization processes seem correct for process-oriented tasks. As shown in Figure 1,
this paper proposes a contingent model that delineates the relationship among knowledge
creation, knowledge assets, and task characteristics.
--Insert Figure 1 about here--

H5: Compared to other organizational subunits, socialization process has a greater

impact on the creation of knowledge assets in organizational subunits that fulfill broad
and process-oriented tasks.
H6: Compared to other organizational subunits, externalization process has a greater
impact on the creation of knowledge assets in organizational subunits that fulfill
focused and content-oriented tasks.
H7: Compared to other organizational subunits, combination process has a greater
impact on the creation of knowledge assets in organizational subunits that fulfill broad
and content-oriented tasks.
H8: Compared to other organizational subunits, internalization process has a greater
impact on the creation of knowledge assets in organizational subunits that fulfill
focused and process-oriented tasks.

4. Research methodology, data analysis, and results

Data
Data were collected from firms of Taiwan through a survey instrument. An initial version
of the survey instrument was developed based on the theory-grounded operationalization
of the various constructs. The instrument used to measure the knowledge assets has been
adapted from previous research concerning knowledge management and knowledge

424
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

assets (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal 2001, Chou and He 2004, Lee and Choi 2003,
Nonaka et al. 2000).

Validity and reliability

The results of factor analysis relating to unidimensionality/convergent validity are shown
in Table 1. A joint domain factor analysis was performed, including all of the items used
to develop the research constructs (Hair et al. 1998). Reliability was evaluated by
assessing the internal consistency of the indicator items of each construct by using
Cronbach’s α(0.7364~0.9292). All alphas are greater than the recommended 0.70 level,
therefore suggesting an adequate level of internal consistency and reliability.

We adopted stepwise regression analyses to investigate the relationship between SECI

and knowledge assets. The regression model is not meaningful if the correlation between
a DM’s biases and system success measure is not significant. We used Pearson
correlation analyses and ANOVA to examine the correlations among the constructs of
SECI and knowledge assets. The results indicate that the aforementioned correlations
among SECI and knowledge assets are in a significant level (i.e. for Pearson p< 0.01; for
ANOVA p< 0.05). We then tested the effect of each knowledge creation process on
knowledge assets measure.
--Insert Table 1 about here—

The results of the stepwise regression analyses show that all of the knowledge creation
processes have significant impact on the accumulating of knowledge assets. As shown in
Table 2, combination (β= 0.358) has the highest effect on knowledge assets whereas
externalization (β= 0.129) exerts the lowest influence. In addition, the impact of
internalization (β= 0.301) on knowledge assets is higher than that of socialization (β=
0.154). The results of the collinearity test (CI = 13.171~24.862) suggest no
multicollinearity problem. Thus, these findings support hypothesis 1 through 4.

In order to test the effect of SECI on knowledge assets for different task characteristics,
we divided respondents into four cells based on the task that they usually perform—cell 1
(process-oriented and broad), cell 2 (process-oriented and focused), cell 3(content-
oriented and focused), and cell 4(content-oriented and broad). We employed multiple
regression analyses to examine the aforementioned relationships. As Table 3 illustrated,
in cell 1, both combination (β= 0.613) and internalization (β= 0.225) have significant
positive effect, whereas externalization and socialization do not have significant impact.
In terms of cell 2, only combination (β= 0.450) and socialization (β= 0.343) have
significant positive influence on knowledge assets, while neither externalization nor
internalization exerts impact on knowledge assets significantly. Regarding cell3, all of
the four aspects of SECI have significant positive effect. Internalization (β= 0.337) has
the highest impact on knowledge assets, yet externalization (β= 0.155) has the lowest
effect on knowledge assets. Finally, in cell 4, only internalization (β= 0.480) and
combination (β= 0.332) have positive effect significantly, whereas socialization and
externalization do not have significant influence. From above analysis, although H5, H6,
H7, and H8 are not supported by our findings, task characteristics do exert interaction
effect on the relationship between SECI and the creating of knowledge assets.

425
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

--Insert Table 2 about here—

--Insert Table 3 about here—

5. Discussions and implications

This study has implications for both research and practice. From the theoretical
perspective, this study provides a contingent model that examines the interrelationship
among knowledge process, knowledge enablers, and performance based on absorptive
capacity lens. Our model differentiates the implications of knowledge assets from
previous research by assessing the KM from a more comprehensive perspective—
dynamic capability by employing ACAP (Zahra and George 2002) as an analysis lens.
This is important, because in order to leverage the knowledge assets it is important to
realize the potential value of knowledge resources and assets itself first. In addition, this
study analyzes the knowledge capability and KM relationships in a more integrate way.
In other words, while task characteristics, SECI, and knowledge resources all play a
critical role for fostering KM individually, they are complementary and unseparated. It is
difficult to achieve KM effectively without having a comprehensive understanding of the
above factors. Combining Chou and He’s (2004) empirical research and our study, the
dual role of knowledge assets— the product of knowledge processes that influence the
“the potential and realized ACAP” of a firm and “the potential to initiate another
knowledge creation processes”--is identified. Future research may examine our model in
a more specific context, for example in a supply chain management environment.

In terms of practical implications, this study provides guidance for accumulating

knowledge resources that are recognized as the ACAP, from which a firm may achieve
competitive advantage. This effect is examined from two perspectives. First, what types
of knowledge processes are critical for creating knowledge resources, and do task
characteristics influence the above relation? Second, the contents of these knowledge
resources and assets are analyzed according to ACAP theory, from which managers gain
important implications. Future research could elaborate on the impact of other knowledge
enablers such as intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

6. Conclusions
This study examines the antecedents of knowledge management—knowledge creation
processes, task characteristics, and knowledge assets—from the perspective of dynamic
capabilities of knowledge management. According to the synthesis of previous studies
and the theory of absorptive capacity, we develop a contingency model and test it
empirically. Our results extend, augment, and apply to the important issues in KM—
SECI and knowledge resource, and the relationship between them. Since these are the
important KM issues with which individuals and organizations deal, there is a real need
for an integrated theory and model for these critical factors. Given that the merit of
knowledge creation and knowledge resources may have in a firm’s competitive
advantage, our model has far-reaching application in KM. In sum, this study contributes
to theory and practice in the KM domain that focus on conceptualizing the relation
between knowledge creation and knowledge resources as the dynamic capabilities.

Acknowledgements

426
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

This study was partially supported by National Science Council (NSC) of Taiwan, R.O.C.

References

Alavi, M., and Leinder, D. E. “Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management

Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues,” MIS Quarterly (25:1),
March 2001, pp 107-136.
Becerra-Fernandez, I., and Sabherwal, R. “Organizational Knowledge Management: A
Contingency Perspective,” Journal of Management Information Systems (18:1),
Summer 2001, pp. 23-55.
Carlsson, S. A., EI Sawy, O. A., Eriksson, I., and Raven, A. “Gaining Competitive
Advantage through Shared Knowledge Creation: In Search of a New Design Theory
for Strategic Information Systems,” In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference
on Information Systems, Lisbon, 1996.
Choi, B., and Lee, H. “An Empirical Investigation of KM Styles and Their Effect on
Corporate Performance,” Information and Management (40:5), May 2003, pp. 403-
417.
Chou, S. W., and He, M. Y. “Knowledge Management: The Distinctive Roles of
Knowledge Assets in Facilitating Knowledge Creation,” Journal of Information
Science (30:2), 2004, pp. 161-179.
Gelderman, M. “Task Difficulty, Task Variability, and Satisfaction with Management
Support Systems,” Information and Management, (39:7), July 2002, pp. 593-604.
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., and Segars, A. H. “Knowledge Management: An
Organizational Capabilities Perspective,” Journal of Management Information
Systems (18:1), Summer 2001, pp. 185-214.
Hackerman, J., and Morris, C. Group Tasks, Group Interaction process, and Group
Performance: A Review and Proposed Integration. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Group
Process, New York: Academic Press, 1978,pp. 1-15.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., and Black, W. Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-
Hall International, Inc., 1998.
Kusonaki, K., Nonaka, I., and Nagata, A. “Organizational Capabilities in Product
Development of Japanese Firms: A Conceptual Framework and Empirical
Findings,” Organization Science (9:6), Nov/Dec 1998, pp. 699-718.
Lee, H., and Choi, B. “Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational
Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination,” Journal of
Management Information Systems (20:1), Summer 2003, pp. 179-228.
Magalhães, R. “Organizational Knowledge and Learning,” In G. von Krogh, J. Roos, and
D. Kleine (eds.), Knowing in Firms: Understanding, Managing and Measuring
Knowledge, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1998, pp. 87-122.
Malhotra, A., Gosain, S., and El Sawy, O. A. “Absorptive Capacity Configurations in
Supply Chains: Gearing For Partner-enabled Market Knowledge Creation,” MIS
Quarterly (29:1), March 2005, pp. 145-187.
McQueen, R. “Four Views of Knowledge and Knowledge Management,” In Proceedings
of the 4th Americas Conference on Information Systems, E. Hoadley and I. Benbasat
(eds.), 1998, pp. 609-611.

427
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

Nahapiet, J., and Ghoshal, S. “Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational
Advantage,” Academic Management Review (23:2), April 1998, pp. 242-266.
Nambisan, S., Agarwal, R., and Tanniru, M. “Organizational Mechanisms for Enhancing
User Innovation in Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly (23:3), September
1999, pp. 365-395.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995.
Nonaka, I., and Konno “The Concept of ‘Ba’: Building Foundation for Knowledge
Creation,” California Management Review (40:3), Spring 1998, pp. 40-54.
Nonaka I., Toyama, R., and Konno, N. “SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of
Dynamic Knowledge Creation,” Long Range Planning (33:1), February 2000, pp. 5-
34.
Pisano, G. P. “Knowledge, Integration, and the Locus of Learning: An Empirical
Analysis of Process Development,” Strategic Management Journal (15), Winter
1994, pp. 85-100.
Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V., and Zmud, R. W. “The Assimilation of Knowledge
Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation,” Organization Science
(12:2), Mar/Apr 2001, pp. 117-135.
Sawhney, M., and Prandelli, E. “Communities of Creation: Managing Distributed
Innovation in Turbulent Markets,” California Management Review (42:4), Summer
2000, pp. 24-54.
Scharmer, C. O. “Organization Around Not-yet-embodied Knowledge,” in G. Krogh, I.
Nonaka, and T. Nishiguchi (eds.), Knowledge Creation: A Source of Value, New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000, pp. 36-60.
Scott, J. E. “Facilitating Interorganizational Learning With Information Technology,”
Journal of Management Information Systems (17:2), Fall 2000, pp. 81-113.
Smits, M., and Moor, A. d. “Measuring Knowledge Management Effectiveness in
Communities of Practice,” Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences (HICSS), 2004.
Tuomi, I. “Data is More Than Knowledge: Implications of the Reversed Hierarchy for
Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory,” in Proceedings of the 32th
Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS), 1999.
Vance, D. M. “Information, Knowledge and Wisdom: The Epistemic Hierarchy and
Computer-based Information Systems,” in Proceedings of the Third Americas
Conference on Information Systems, B. Perkins and I. Vessey (eds.), Indianapolis,
IN, 1997.
Van de Ven, A., and Delbecq, A. “The Effectiveness of Nominal, Delphi, and Interacting
Group Decision-making Processes,” Academy of Management Journal (17:4),
December 1974, pp. 605-621.
Wasko, M. M., and Faraj, S. (2005) “Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and
Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice,” MIS Quarterly (29:1),
March 2005, pp. 35-57.
Zack, M. “Managing Codified Knowledge,” Sloan Management Review (40:4), Summer
1999, pp.45-58.
Zahra, S. A., and George, G. “Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and
Extension,” Academy of Management Review (27:2), April 2002, pp. 185-203.

428
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

Knowledge creation Knowledge assets

model

Figure 1. Research model

Table 1. Factor analysis for knowledge creation (KC)

Cum
Eigen Variance Factor
Factor Variance Mean (S.D.)
Value (%) Loading
(%)
KC1:Internalisation 3.158 21.054 21.054 3.760(0.889)
1. Learning by doing 0.854
2. Learning by observation 0.840
3. On-the-job training 0.480
4. Face-to-face meetings to sharing knowledge and experiences 0.568
KC2:Externalisation 2.471 16.474 37.528 3.486(0.968)
1. Capture and transfer of experts’ knowledge 0.489
2. Groupware and other team collaboration tools 0.675
3. Chat groups/Web-based discussion groups 0.747
4. Express and model tacit knowledge by metaphors and analogies 0.616
KC3： Socialisation 2.386 15.909 53.437 3.339(0.987)
1. Collect best practice by joining brainstorming retreats and camps 0.605
2. The use of apprentices and mentors to transfer knowledge 0.541
3. Employees rotation across areas 0.728
4. Cooperative projects across directorates 0.753
KC4： Combination 2.127 14.180 67.617 3.554(0.985)
1. Web pages (Intranet and Internet) 0.859
2. Repositories of information, best practices, and lessons learned 0.802
3. Databases and Knowledge base 0.636

Table 2. Results of stepwise regression analysis (KA and SECI)

Condition Variance
Dependent Variable β t P
index (CI) proportions
Combination 0.358 7.339 0.000** 13.171 0.05
Internalization 0.301 5.602 0.000** 14.671 0.00
Socialization 0.154 3.095 0.002** 19.109 0.28
Externalization 0.129 2.192 0.029** 21.990 0.66
Dependent variable is knowledge assets (KA)
Significance levels are indicated as follows: **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05

429
 The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006)

Table 3. Results of multiple regression (KA and SECI) for different task characteristics
Cell 1 Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4
Independent
β P β P β P β P
Variable
Socialization - 0.158 0.343 0.001** 0.172 0.017** 0.192 0.198
Externalization 0.201 0.196 0.221 0.102 0.155 0.064* - 0.921
Internalization 0.225 0.066* 0.051 0.664 0.337 0.000** 0.480 0.003**
Combination 0.613 0.000** 0.450 0.001** 0.259 0.000** 0.332 0.010**
Note: Dependent variable is knowledge assets (KA)
Cell 1: task domain is broad and task orientation is process-oriented; N=55
Cell 2: task domain is focused and task orientation is process-oriented; N= 44
Cell 3: task domain is focused and task orientation is content-oriented; N= 164
Cell 4: task domain is focused and task orientation is content-oriented; N= 40
Significance levels are indicated as follows: **p< 0.01, *p< 0.05

430