The integrative framework identifies three groups of influencing factors being individual, technological, and social; while following the theory of planned behaviour
regarding an individual moving from attitude, to intention resulting in behavioural usage. The framework has been provided below to assist in the reporting of the findings and emergent themes (Figure 2) (Maylor and Blackmon 2005).
Figure 2. Integrative Framework.
It is important to first note that none of the three factor groups or specific determinants analyzed are attitudes or intentions in and of themselves; rather, they only influence one’s attitudes and intentions in degree and direction, resulting in changes in behavioural usage. The three influencing factor groups are represented by the boxes in the centre and on the left side of the framework, with the characteristics of the desired knowledge sharing outcomes represented by the box on the right. Within the three groups are influential factor categories with specific determinants mentioned in the interviews and categorized loosely based on adapted literature from: individual attitudes to knowledge sharing, organizational knowledge sharing theories (Wang and Noe 2010), social capital theory (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998), and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh et al. 2003). The arrows indicate the relationship interconnectedness of the factor groups. As depicted, a user’s attitude towards knowledge sharing is uniquely shaped by individual factors which influences the factors related to intention towards the behaviour using an ESSP’s tools.
Their intention is then strongly influenced by their perceptions of the technological factors related to the specific tools which are moderated by the user’s perceptions of the social factors; resulting in either behavioural usage of the tool or not.
Only an individual holding a positively motivated attitudinal disposition towards the behaviour of knowledge sharing shaped by their role and AMO factors will look to the tools available to aid in this activity. Next, the user must perceive a valued outcome associated with the purpose of the tool which will result in their initial intention to use the specific tool. Once the value is perceived, the user will attempt to use the tool at which point they begin to perceive the level of effort required to utilize the tool for their desired purpose. If they encounter difficulties with the tool or find that alternative tools offer the same valued outcome but with reduced effort, then they will not adopt the tool.
If the tool is perceived to be valuable and low effort, then they will contribute to either seeking or sharing explicit or tacit knowledge within the tool provided.
This process is moderated by the two social factors of: perceived social influence and perceived support. Regarding perceived social influence, a user’s intention (re: both value outcome and effort) is effected by the perceived use of the tool by ‘important others’. Given the social nature of the tools which require interactions between users to provide value, a significant part of the value associated with the tool derives from it being actively used by other employees; this component of interactivity is reflected by reaching critical mass. Additionally, the influence of social capital is at work within these tools in terms of the reinforcing impact of trust, shared cognitive ground, and the structural know-who associated with informal weak ties.
In regards to perceived support, the organization needs to be identified as being at least partially knowledge-intensive in the department in which the employee works.
Furthermore, an employee’s intention to utilize the tools for knowledge sharing is moderated by their perception that the organizational culture is supportive of knowledge sharing both with the tools and in general. Understanding the valued outcome associated with each tool is moderated by management support in terms of demonstrating the purpose of the tools and promoting their proper usage. While the perceived effort in
using the tools is moderated by a user believing there to be a technical support infrastructure which reduces the effort required to achieve the valued outcome.
In the event that the influencing factors assist an employee successfully moving from a positive attitude, to intention, to behavioural usage; the organizations desired outcome will be achieved in that the knowledge worker will actively exploit the tools to improve work performance while making contributions within them which reinforce their value for all employees. As each of the three tools offer’s unique knowledge sharing benefits, their valued outcomes will result in different forms of knowledge sharing. In most cases, the knowledge sharing contributions within the tools was limited to explicit codification of experiences in the form of short text, as complex tacit knowledge sharing was found to require ‘going offline’ via a higher bandwidth channel.
As the framework has now been outlined at a theoretical-level, the findings section will proceed with explaining each of the above factors and relationships in more depth supported by verbatim contextual quotes selected from the nine interviews. It should be emphasized that while existing theory and frameworks combined with the data provided the overall structure of the findings, the categories within the structure and their determinants emerged directly from the analysis of the data. The findings are presented as they relate to the integrative framework starting with attitude, followed by a detailed analysis of the four categories of factors which influence behavioural intention;
concluding with a summary and the behavioural usage knowledge sharing outcomes.