The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination
Abstract
Knowledge is recognized as an important weapon for sustaining competitive advantage and many companies are beginning to manage organizational knowledge. Researchers have investigated knowledge management factors such as enablers, processes, and performance. However, most current empirical research has explored the relationships between these factors in isolation. To fill this gap, this paper develops a research model that interconnects knowledge management factors. The model includes seven enablers: collaboration, trust, learning, centralization, formalization, T-shaped skills, and information technology support. The emphasis is on knowledge creation processes such as socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization. To establish credibility between knowledge creation and performance, organizational creativity is incorporated into the model. Surveys collected from 58 firms were analyzed to test the model. The results confirmed the impact of trust on knowledge creation. The information technology support had a positive impact on knowledge combination only. Organizational creativity was found to be critical for improving performance; neglecting ideas can undermine a business. The results may be used as a stepping stone for further empirical research and can help formulate robust strategies that involve trade-offs between knowledge management enablers.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256995 · Cited by 6,029
The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits
Hansen, M. T. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2667032 · Cited by 5,809 · cited 5×
“Other studies recognized knowledge enablers as preconditions of knowledge processes [6, 43, 114, 124].”
BackgroundInfluentialHurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224299806200303 · Cited by 3,971
Product development: Past research, present findings and future directions
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258850 · Cited by 3,777
rwg: an assessment of within-group interrater agreement
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306 · Cited by 2,221 · cited 2×
“[58] developed indices appropriate for within-group agreement for a set of raters rating a single target with a single item (rwg(1)) or multiple-item scale (rwg(J)).”
BackgroundActualizing organizational memory with information systems
Stein, E. W., & Zwass, V. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.85 · Cited by 843
A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus
Kozlowski, S. W., & Hattrup, K. (1992) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.77.2.161 · Cited by 514
Cited by
Mikalef, P., & Gupta, M. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103434 · Cited by 1,700
Toward the development of a big data analytics capability
Gupta, M., & George, J. F. (2016) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004 · Cited by 1,445
Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance
Wang, Z., & Wang, N. (2012) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.017 · Cited by 1,123
The role of organizational culture in the knowledge management process
Chang, C. L.-H., & Lin, T.-C. (2015) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-08-2014-0353 · Cited by 332
Birasnav, M. (2014) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.006 · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Venue
- Journal of Management Information Systems
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-07
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 179-228
- ISSN
- 0742-1222 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-928X
- OpenAlex
- W1512488243
- Cited by
- 2,246
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 93.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045756
- The paper
- Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes, and Organizational Performance: An Integrative View and Empirical Examination. (2003). Journal of Management Information Systems. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045756
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.