1. Organizational Characteristics, Knowledge Management Strategy, Enablers, and Process Capability: Knowledge Management Performance in U.S. Software Companies Dissertation Defense Hsin-Jung Hsieh Knowledge is power. (Francis Bacon, British philosopher)

2. 2 BACKGROUND TO THE PROBELM Most empirical research only examined the relationships separately. A majority of studies were based on only a few cases or used small sample sizes. No studies were found that investigated the relationship among organizational characteristics, KM strategy, enablers, process capability, and performance.

3. 3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Describe U.S. software company in terms of knowledge management critical factors. Explore the relationships among knowledge management critical factors. Investigate the effects of the degree of balance between human and system orientation strategies on knowledge management performance. Examine the mediating impact of knowledge management process capability

4. 4 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS I Knowledge Management Strategy System orientationhuman orientation System orientation and human orientation Knowledge Management Enablers Technology, structure, and organizational culture Knowledge Management Process Capability Knowledge acquisition, protection, conversion, and application

5. 5 DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS II Knowledge Management Performance Financial and non-financial indicators Organizational Characteristics Type of firm, annual sales in dollars, number of employees, and product life cycle Software Company Software publishers, computer system designers, and internet service providers

6. 6 JUSTIFICATION Significance KM has strategic significance for the sustainable competitive position of a firm. The study will contribute to organizational practice through its findings.Feasibility The participant are available and the survey can be conducted online.Researchablility The study investigates important scientific questions and all variables can be measured.

7. 7 DELIMITATIONS AND SCOPE The geographic area is limited to the continental United States. The participants are executives in U.S software companies. The participants are able to read, write, and speak English, and are at least 18 years of age. The participants are employed at their companies for the past six months.

8. LITERATURE GAPS, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, AND HYPOTHESES

9. 9 RESEARCH DESIGN & POUPLATION Research Design Non-experimental, quantitative, correlational, causal-comparative, and online research design Target Population 39,769 executives in U.S software companies. Accessible Population Lead411 lists approximately 17,811 software company executives.

10. 10 SAMPLING PLAN Sample Size The minimum sample size > 186 Simple Random Sampling A sample of 6,000 executives was randomly created from the list of 17,811 executives. The researcher sent out 6,000 invitation e-mails. Response Rate 258 responses were received (4.3 % response rate). 212 valid responses.

11. INSTRUMENTATION InstrumentsNo. of ItemsType of ScaleSource Filter Questions3Yes / No Organizational Characteristics 4 Checklist Fill-in-the blank Park (2006) KM Strategy8 5-point semantic differential scale Choi (2002) KM Enablers27Lee (2003) KM Process Capability 26Park (2006) KM Performance5 Choi (2002) Al-Hawari (2004)

12. 12 Procedures Obtained permission to use scales. Created an online survey. Received approval from the IRB. Selected a sample of 6,000 participants who received e-mail (Bcc feature and plain text format) invitations created by the researcher. Collected data for one month. Analyzed data which was stored on a password protected computer.

13. 13 METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS I Validity and Reliability Internal Consistency Reliability - Coefficient Alpha Internal Consistency Reliability - Coefficient Alpha Construct Validity – Exploratory Factor Analysis Construct Validity – Exploratory Factor Analysis Convergent Validity – Pearson r correlation coefficient Convergent Validity – Pearson r correlation coefficient Concurrent Validity – ANOVA and Post Hoc comparisons Concurrent Validity – ANOVA and Post Hoc comparisons

14. 14 METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS II Research Question 1-2 Descriptive Statistics Descriptive Statistics Research Hypotheses H1-H10 Multiple Regression Multiple Regression Research Hypotheses H11 Moderated Multiple Regression Moderated Multiple Regression Research Hypothesis H12 Two-Way ANOVA Two-Way ANOVA

15. 15 Evaluation of Methodology Internal Validity A quantitative and correlational research design strengthens internal validity. The instruments selected have evidence of good estimates of reliability and validity. Sample size is sufficient. A non-experimental research design weakens drawing causal inferences.

16. 16 Evaluation of Methodology External Validity The survey was completed within their respective firm settings Using a simple random sampling technique in this study is appropriate. The final data producing sample of the target population is self-selected which has potential bias. A single executive might not be representative of his/her entire firm.

17. RESULT-VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY ANALYSES VariablesOriginal DimensionsNew Dimensions Convergent / Concurrent Validity KM Strategy Human orientation System orientation 8 items --- Convergent KM Enablers Technology Structure Organizational culture 27 items TechnologyDecentralizationFormalization Organizational culture 25 items KM Process Capability Knowledge acquisition, Knowledge protection, Knowledge conversion, Knowledge application 26 items Internal knowledge acquisition External knowledge acquisition Knowledge upgrade Knowledge protection Knowledge conversion Knowledge application 26 items KM Performance (Unidimensional) 5 items --- Organizational Characteristics Annual sales in dollars Number of employees --- Type of company Product life cycle ---Concurrent

18. RESULT- RESEARCH QUESTION 1 Organizational Characteristics Type of software company Product life cycle Annual sales in dollars: 97,579,502 Number of employees: 358

19. RESULT- RESEARCH QUESTION 2 KM Measurement VariablesDimensionsMean KM StrategySystem orientation3.04 Human orientation3.79 KM EnablersTechnology3.76 Decentralization3.67 Formalization2.63 Organizational Culture3.98 KM Process CapabilityInternal knowledge acquisition3.20 External knowledge acquisition3.38 Knowledge upgrade2.96 Knowledge protection3.59 Knowledge conversion3.00 Knowledge application3.40 KM Performance (Unidimensional) 3.48

20. 20 RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 1 & 2 Hypothesis 1 Supported KM Strategy System orientation + Human orientation + KM Performance Hypothesis 2 Supported KM Enablers Technology + Decentralization - Formalization Organizational culture + KM Performance

21. 21 RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 3 & 4 Hypothesis 3 Supported KM Process Capability Internal knowledge acquisition External knowledge acquisition + Knowledge upgrade Knowledge protection Knowledge application + KM Performance Hypothesis 4 Supported KM Enablers Technology + Decentralization - Formalization Organizational culture + KM Process Capability

22. 22 RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 5 & 6 Hypothesis 5 Supported KM Strategy System orientation + Human orientation + KM Enablers Hypothesis 6 Supported KM Process Capability KM Strategy System orientation + Human orientation +

23. 23 RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 7 & 8 Hypothesis 7 Supported Organizational Characteristics Type of software company Number of employee Annual sales in dollars + Product life cycle KM Strategy Hypothesis 8 Not Supported KM Enablers Organizational Characteristics Type of software company Number of employee Annual sales in dollars Product life cycle

24. 24 RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 9 & 10 Hypothesis 9 Supported Organizational Characteristics Type of software company Number of employee Annual sales in dollars + Product life cycle KM process capability Hypothesis 10 Supported KM Performance Organizational Characteristics Type of software company Number of employee Annual sales in dollars Product life cycle

25. 25 RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 11 Partially Supported KM Process Capability KM Strategy System orientation Human orientation KM Enablers Technology Decentralization Formalization Organizational culture KM Performance x

26. 26 RESULT- RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 12 Partially Supported System orientation KM Performance Human orientation Balance Interaction x

27. 27 INTERPRETATIONS I This StudyLiteratureConsistent Human orientation > System orientation Keskin (2005) ; Choi, (2002)Yes Organizational culture > Technology > Decentralization > Formalization Park (2006)Yes Lee (2003): Technology > Organizational culture > Structure Partially Knowledge protection > Knowledge application > External knowledge acquisition > Internal knowledge acquisition > Knowledge conversion > Knowledge upgrade Park (2006): Knowledge protection > Knowledge application > Knowledge acquisition > Knowledge conversion Partially KM performance = 3.48Al-hawari (2004); Choi (2002) KM performance > 4 No Descriptive Characteristics: Mean

28. 28 INTERPRETATIONS II Hypotheses Testing HypothesesResultsHypothesesResults H1SupportedH8Not Supported H2SupportedH9Supported H3SupportedH10Supported H4SupportedH11Partially Supported H5SupportedH12-1Not Supported H6SupportedH12-2Supported H7SupportedH12-3Not Supported

29. 29 INTERPRETATIONS III Hypotheses Testing External knowledge acquisition Internal knowledge acquisition Knowledge upgrade Knowledge protection Knowledge conversion Knowledge application KM performance ---- Literature This study This study & literature + This study & + Park (2006) + This study + Park (2006)

30. 30 INTERPRETATIONS IV Hypotheses Testing ---- Literature This study This study & literature + This study System orientation strategy Human orientation strategy KM Enablers KM Process Capability KM performance + This study + Choi (2002) + Keskin (2005) + This study + Choi (2002) + Keskin (2005)

31. 31 INTERPRETATIONS V Hypotheses Testing System Human KM performance This study & Keskin (2005) Human System KM enablers KM process capability This study

32. 32 INTERPRETATIONS VI Hypotheses Testing ---- Literature This study This study & literature Technology Decentralization Formalization Organizational culture KM Process Capability KM performance - This study + Hurley (2005) + This study + Gold et al (2005) + This study - This study + This study + Gold et al (2005)

33. 33 INTERPRETATIONS VII Hypotheses Testing This study KM Process Capability KM Strategy System orientation Human orientation KM Performance Organizational Characteristics Number of employee Annual sales in dollars + This study (Mediator)

34. 34 INTERPRETATIONS VII Hypotheses Testing This study KM Performance High degree System orientation High degree Human orientation Balance + This study

35. 35 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS To enhance knowledge management performance, managers could place greater emphasis on: Improving human orientation strategy, system orientation strategy, technology, centralization, organizational culture, external knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application. Strengthening and balancing system orientation and human orientation strategies. (continued)

36. 36 Creating company policies to ensure that knowledge application is more important than knowledge acquisition. Helping their company understand that more centralization will be helpful to raise knowledge performance. Avoiding paying too much attention to technology while ignoring organizational culture. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS (Continued)

37. 37 Conclusions System and human orientation strategies are significant positive explanatory variables of knowledge management process capability, enablers, and performance. Technology and organizational culture dimensions are significant positive explanatory variables of knowledge management process capability and knowledge management performance. Decentralization may inversely affect knowledge management performance.

38. 38 Conclusions (Continued) Annual sales in dollars was a significant positive explanatory variable of knowledge management strategy and knowledge management process capability. Knowledge management process capability is a mediator between knowledge management strategy and organizational characteristics, and knowledge management performance.

39. 39 Conclusions (Continued) Companies with a balance in a high degree of human orientation coupled with a high degree of system orientation, had a positive significant relationship with knowledge management performance. The six-dimension and 26-indicator knowledge management process capability scale and the four- dimension and 25-indicator knowledge management enablers scales were more appropriate than the original scales used in past research.

40. 40 Limitations This study has several limitations: This study was limited to measuring attitudes of respondents. This study was a one-time survey. The design of the study was non-experimental which threatens internal validity. The very low response rate and a self-selected final data-producing sample poses threats to external validity. (continued)

41. 41 Limitations (Continued) The study was based on the findings obtained using multiple regression analyses. The questionnaire contained too many items compared to prior studies… and may have affected the accuracy of responses. This study adopted the breakdown of the AEA to classify the software companies. The findings may only be generalized to similar U.S high-tech industries.

42. 42 RECOMMENDATONS FOR FUTURE STUDY Future research should include financial performance data. Future research should try to access a single organization in a longitudinal case study. The study should be replicated in different industries and countries. Future research should select middle managers, knowledge workers, or specific departments as their samples.

43. 43 RECOMMENDATONS FOR FUTURE STUDY (Continued) Future studies should add other variables into the knowledge management model. Future studies should add socio-demographic characteristics of participants. Dissertation