Knowledge management orientation: construct development and empirical validation

Abstract

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

Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Impacts on Knowledge Sharing: An Empirical Study

“…Knowledge sharing at work is the dissemination or exchange of explicit or tacit knowledge, ideas, experiences, skills, or technology among individual employees or groups of employees (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002;Wang & et al, 2008). Knowledge may be transferred through top-down, bottom-up, or horizontal interchanges (Mom & et al, 2007).…”

Human capital, social capital and innovation outcome: A systematic review and research agenda

“…Firstly, knowledge management orientation is the organizational knowledge as the essential information in creating value [31]. Wang believes the knowledge creation will produce new knowledge and enable strategic resource and capability.…”

The measurement of perceived ontological deficiencies of conceptual modeling grammars

“…For instance, the Spearman-Brown Prophecy formula [47] estimates the number of items needed to achieve reliability levels of at least 0.80 based on the number of items and reliability of comparable existing scales. We used literature on technology acceptance [41] and innovation adoption [10] as reference studies, and extrapolated a target number of ten candidate items, similar to other cases of measurement instrument development reported [10,41,42,48]. With the creation of at least ten candidate items per construct, we felt convinced that we could adequately cover all potential dimensions or interpretations of the theoretical constructs.…”