Investigating Individuals ’ Intention to be Involved in Knowledge Management Process

Problem statement: Implementation of Knowledge Management (KM) proces s in organizations is considered as essential to be comp etitive in the present competitive world. Though th e modern KM practices highly depend on technology, in dividuals (‘organizational members’) intention to be involved in KM process plays a major role in the success. Hence, the evaluation of individuals’ intention is deemed as significant before the actua l implementation of KM process in organizations. Nevertheless, inadequate information is presented i n this regard; as a result, a wide research gap prevails in the literature. In this context, the pr esent study focuses on developing a research frame work that can be used to measure the individual int ention to be involved in KM process. Approach: Subsequent to a critical analysis of the research g aps, a basic research model has been developed base d on knowledge creation theory, KM enablers, and indi vidual acceptance model. Measurers and questionnaire items were identified for each variab le from relevant literature. Consequently, the reliability of the instrument was tested among acad emic staff of a Malaysian university. Results: The Cronbach’s alpha for each variable is more than 0.8 00 that exhibits the reliability of the instruments . Conclusion: The presented research framework might be a doorst ep for future study in this area of KM. Moreover, practitioners may use the proposed fr amework to measure the intention of individuals to be involved in KM process before actually embark ing to it. However, the framework and the model should be tested in different socio cultural and or ganizational climate to make it robust.


INTRODUCTION
The business environment has changed over the past decades and the foundation of industrialized economics has shifted from natural resources to intellectual assets. Thus, Knowledge is increasingly becoming the main asset (Kumar and Chhokar, 2011) that contributes to the competitive advantage of many organizations (Christine, 2011). As a consequence, Knowledge Management (KM) processes implementation is wide spread across different sectors in the contemporary knowledge era, starting from IT sector (Nabiollahi et al., 2011) to agricultural sector (Malekmohammadi, 2009). The KM also has been discussed from religious perspective (Yaakub, 2011) and at primary school level (Chongdarakul et al., 2010).
Among the proposed approaches to implement KM process in organizations, a combined approach of personalization and codification is considered appropriate for the success of any organization (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) as KM is considered as a sociotechnical issue (Fatt and Khin, 2010).
Meanwhile, an evaluation of organizational readiness for KM process implementation is suggested before embarking to actual implementation (Holt et al., 2007;Siemieniuch and Sinclair, 2004) as KM process implementation demands some changes in the conduct of organizational activities (Mamaghani et al., 2011) and attitudinal changes of organizational members (Siemieniuch and Sinclair, 2004). The availability of KM enablers such as KM oriented culture, structure and IT infrastructure is considered as an indication to some extent that the organization is ready to implement KM process (Holt et al., 2004). Similarly, receptive attitudes of organizational members towards KM process are also considered as the readiness for KM process (Holt et al., 2007). The present authors believe that the receptive attitudes of individuals in the organization play a major role in the success of KM process as they are the people who initiate and implement it. However, in the light of literature of KM and individual acceptance models, there are many factors that's might influence the intention of individuals.
In this context, the receptive attitudes of organizational members to be involved in KM process through the availability of resources (KM enablers) can be considered as organizational readiness for KM process implementation. In other words, the readiness for KM process implementation can be defined as 'the intention to be involved in the KM process by the organizational individuals within the prevailing organizational context'. KM enablers, (such as KM supportive organizational culture, structure and IT infrastructure) and the factors of individual acceptance, (denoted by performance expectancy of KM and effort expectancy of KM), are expected to be the influencing factors of individuals' intention to be involved in KM process.
An Intensive review of KM literature shows some research gaps in this area of KM. Firstly, limited number of empirical works is available in the literatures which exhibit the limitedness of the literature in this area of KM. Holt et al. (2007) have done a survey study highly depending on change management literature rather than KM literature. Meanwhile, Wei et al. (2009) aimed to assess the organizational readiness for KM through the level of Perceived Importance (PI) and Actual Implementation (AI) of some KM success factors, KM strategies and KM process, but the study actually evaluates the influence of those factors on organizational performance. In addition to these empirical works, there are few conceptual write-ups such as, Siemieniuch and Sinclair (2004). Therefore, a necessity arises for further studies on this area of KM.
Secondly, KM literature reveals some organizational factors which are considered as preconditions for a successful KM process implementation. Different kinds of terms have been used to symbolize these factors. For example; KM infrastructure (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004), organizational knowledge capabilities (Yang and Chen, 2007) and KM capabilities (Lee and Lee, 2007). In general, all these studies exhibit the socio-technical nature of KM and mainly focused on KM supportive organizational culture, organizational structure and IT infrastructure for KM process implementation. However, these factors have not been considered comprehensively in the previous studies, thus a need comes up to formulate a research framework involving these KM enablers as well.
Thirdly, there are many theories in the Information Systems (IS) literature which stress the importance of individual acceptance for any organizational change. For example, Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), Diffusion Of Innovation (DOI), Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) and so on. Therefore, an allinclusive research framework to measure individuals' intention for KM should be proposed considering the factors of individual acceptance too.
Finally, knowledge creation theory introduced by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), which consists of the processes of socialization, externalization, combination and internalization, is sighted as the basic process for knowledge creation and sharing in the KM literature (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004;Stevens et al., 2010). In addition, the importance of this basic process is acknowledged in the literature (Nonaka et al., 1994;Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). There are number of empirical studies on KM process (such as, Nonaka et al., 1994;Choi and Lee, 2002) based on this process in the past. However, the previous researchers on organizational readiness for KM have not considered this process in their studies. Hence, a need arises to accommodate this process in the research framework. Considering the above mentioned gaps in the KM literature a comprehensive research model to evaluate individuals' intention to be involved in KM process implementation is proposed as follow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The initiation for KM process implementation should come from the organizational members (Siemieniuch and Sinclair, 2004;Choi et al., 2008), thus their willingness (intention) to be involved in KM process should be investigated. The intention to be involved in KM process can be assessed based on KM sub process (socialization, externalization, combination and internalization) as those are the route process of knowledge creation and sharing (Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004). The KM sub process is considered as the way to implement KM process in organizations.
Meantime, the availability of KM enablers shows that the organization is ready for KM process implementation to some extent (Holt et al., 2004). Literature on KM enablers (Lee and Lee, 2007;Becerra-Fernandez et al., 2004;Yang and Chen, 2007) demonstrate that KM enablers provide a conducive environment for organizational members to implement KM process. Therefore, it can be expected that those KM enablers may influence the intention of organizational members to be involved in KM process. Similarly, literature on individual acceptance (TAM, UTAUT) substantiates that performance expectancy and effort expectancy influence the behavioral intention of individuals. In this perspective, it can be assume that the factors of individual acceptance also may influence on the intention of organizational members to be involved in KM process. Based on the above discussion, a basic research model has been proposed in Fig. 1.
The model is developed based on the theories of TRA and TPB which explain that an intention leads to behavior. The model was conceptualized based on the studies of Choi et al. (2008), Lee and Lee (2007), Wei et al. (2009), Lin (2007, Venkatesh and Morris (2003) and Choi and Lee (2002). Most of these frameworks were developed based on the theory of knowledge creation and the KM enablers.
Three factors of KM enablers were found worth exploring namely, organizational culture (Choi et al., 2008;Lee and Lee, 2007;Wei et al., 2009;Lin, 2007), organizational structure (Lee and Lee, 2007;Lin, 2007) and IT infrastructure (Lee and Lee, 2003;Lin, 2007). In addition, based on the theories of TRA, TPB, TAM, and UTAUT the factors of individual acceptance, namely performance expectancy of KM (Venkatesh and Morris, 2003) and effort expectancy of KM (Venkatesh and Morris, 2003) were established. Furthermore, the factors of intention to be involved (Choi and Lee, 2002) were recognized based on knowledge creation theory (Nonaka et al., 1994). Table 1 shows the operational definition, the source of measurement and questionnaire items for each variable in the model.    (2007) My organization provides higher salary in return for my rewarding system and the involvement contribution to knowledge creation and sharing. in KM process.
My organization provides higher bonus in return for my contribution to knowledge creation and sharing. My organization provides promotions in return for my contribution to knowledge creation and sharing. My organization provides increased job security in return for my contribution to knowledge creation and sharing.

IT Support
Degree of availability of IT support Lee and Lee My organization provides IT support for collaborative works for KM process initiatives within the (2007) regardless of time and place. organization.
My organization provides IT support for communication among colleagues in my organization.
My organization provides IT support for simulation and prediction.
My organization provides IT support for systematic storing of\ valuable records. My organization provides IT support for searching necessary information and sharing it with others ICT use Degree of extensive use of information Lin (2007) I use electronic storage (such as online data base and data and communication technology by the warehousing) extensively to access knowledge. individuals in the organization for I use knowledge networks (such as groupware, intranet, virtual KM initiatives. communities, etc.) to communicate with colleagues. I use the technology to share knowledge with colleagues in my organization. I use the technology to share knowledge with other persons out side the organization. Performance Degree to which an individual believes Al-Gahtani I would find creation and sharing of knowledge useful in my job. expectancy of km that involving in KM processes will help et al. (2007) Creation and sharing of knowledge would enable me to him/her to attain gains in job performance.
accomplish task more quickly. If I involve with knowledge creation and sharing initiatives, it will increase my chances of getting a better pay. Creation and sharing of knowledge would enhance my productivity.

Effort
Degree of ease associated with the Al-Gahtani My role in knowledge creation and sharing process would be expectancy of KM involvement in KM process. et al. (2007) clear and understandable. It would be easy for me to become skillful in knowledge creation

RESULTS
A questionnaire was prepared using seven levels of Likert scale ranking from strongly disagree to strongly agree to measure the reliability of the instruments. 120 questionnaires were distributed among academic staff of a Malaysian university, out of which 46 were returned in a useable condition, making the response rate 38%. Cronbach's alpha was calculated using SPSS. The results are shown in Table  2. The Cronbach's alpha value is more than 0.800 for each variable which demonstrate the high reliability of the instruments.

DISCUSSION
The framework can be a starting point for future works in this area of KM. In addition, the proposed research instrument can be used by practitioners who plan to implement KM process, to measure the organizational members' intentions to be involved in KM process. Based on the findings, they can formulate implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION
The research framework presented might be one of the prime attempts in this area of research. As limited writings are available on KM readiness any effort with empirical component that would enrich the literature might be considered as a valuable contribution. However, the research framework should be applied in different socio cultural environment and at different organizational context to make it robust model.