Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Bukh Isma

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Table 2. A construct of |5 factors and their origin factors examined. Despite being non-empirical, Lee and Al-Hawamdeh’s (2002) model can be categorized as holistic because it takes into account the social and economic issues that may affect knowledge sharing within an organization and attributes the impact to five factors: the actors participating in the knowledge shar- d, the channel used, the organization concerned and the broader envi- ronmental factors. Syed Omar and Rowland (2004), on ing activity, the knowledge being share the other hand, examine critical factors suc h as organi- zational structure, organizational culture, human resources, technology and politics, without taking into account the individual. Lee and Al-Hawamdeh’s (2002) model and Syed Omar and Rowla formed the basis of this study, that enquires into three critical factors. Both models, however, did apply any particular theory to analyze the fac that enabled knowledge sharing nor nd (2004) t he impac nus all not ors of knowledge sharing on the organization. Such non- integration in Lee and Al-Hawamdeh ( gap in Syed Omar and Rowland (2004) 2002) and the have there created a gap in knowledge that needs to be addressed. Both models have also been selected as they are geo- graphically and culturally Asian-cen to others that are western-centric. ric compared Racad nn tha ey ere ie AE: fe eGR Ce PpAGAATAh Qn fPHnnH. The first part of this framework comprises antecedents or enablers that impact on the quality of knowledge sharing; they are exogenous variables consisting of Structurational Model of Technology -based factors, namely, the individual, the organi- zation and technology. Meanwhile, process or the endogenous variable, refers to the quality of knowledge sharing (Chiu, Hsu and Wang 2006; McKinney, Yoon and Zahedi 2002; DeLone and McLean 2003). Service delivery and workers’ per- formance are the results of knowledge sharing and are known variables.

Table 2 A construct of |5 factors and their origin factors examined. Despite being non-empirical, Lee and Al-Hawamdeh’s (2002) model can be categorized as holistic because it takes into account the social and economic issues that may affect knowledge sharing within an organization and attributes the impact to five factors: the actors participating in the knowledge shar- d, the channel used, the organization concerned and the broader envi- ronmental factors. Syed Omar and Rowland (2004), on ing activity, the knowledge being share the other hand, examine critical factors suc h as organi- zational structure, organizational culture, human resources, technology and politics, without taking into account the individual. Lee and Al-Hawamdeh’s (2002) model and Syed Omar and Rowla formed the basis of this study, that enquires into three critical factors. Both models, however, did apply any particular theory to analyze the fac that enabled knowledge sharing nor nd (2004) t he impac nus all not ors of knowledge sharing on the organization. Such non- integration in Lee and Al-Hawamdeh ( gap in Syed Omar and Rowland (2004) 2002) and the have there created a gap in knowledge that needs to be addressed. Both models have also been selected as they are geo- graphically and culturally Asian-cen to others that are western-centric. ric compared Racad nn tha ey ere ie AE: fe eGR Ce PpAGAATAh Qn fPHnnH. The first part of this framework comprises antecedents or enablers that impact on the quality of knowledge sharing; they are exogenous variables consisting of Structurational Model of Technology -based factors, namely, the individual, the organi- zation and technology. Meanwhile, process or the endogenous variable, refers to the quality of knowledge sharing (Chiu, Hsu and Wang 2006; McKinney, Yoon and Zahedi 2002; DeLone and McLean 2003). Service delivery and workers’ per- formance are the results of knowledge sharing and are known variables.

Related Figures (7)

Figure |. Theoretical framework
Figure |. Theoretical framework
Figure 2. Enablers/input, process and output Source: Rajagopalan et al. (1993); Lee and Choi (2003); Lin (2007
Figure 2. Enablers/input, process and output Source: Rajagopalan et al. (1993); Lee and Choi (2003); Lin (2007
Figure 3. SMT Theoretical framework (Part One)
Figure 3. SMT Theoretical framework (Part One)
Figure 4. KBT Theoretical framework (Part Two) Figure 5. New theoretical framework knowledge sharing and service delivery; (b) the rela- tionship between the quality of knowledge sharing and worker’s performance; and (c) the relationship between workers’ performance and service delivery. examines the effect of the individual, the organization and technology on the quality of knowledge sharing. The latter focuses on investigating three relationships namely: (a) the relationship between the quality of
Figure 4. KBT Theoretical framework (Part Two) Figure 5. New theoretical framework knowledge sharing and service delivery; (b) the rela- tionship between the quality of knowledge sharing and worker’s performance; and (c) the relationship between workers’ performance and service delivery. examines the effect of the individual, the organization and technology on the quality of knowledge sharing. The latter focuses on investigating three relationships namely: (a) the relationship between the quality of
Table 3. A comparison of factors selected for this research and previous works
Table 3. A comparison of factors selected for this research and previous works
Table 4. Factors that impact knowledge sharing and the researchers (studies from 2000 onwards only)
Table 4. Factors that impact knowledge sharing and the researchers (studies from 2000 onwards only)
Related topics:
Knowledge management in public sector
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved