Electron Markets (2009) 19:211–219 DOI 10.1007/s12525-009-0020-4

FOCUS THEME

The impact of organizational culture on the use of ICT for knowledge

Carolina Lopez-Nicolas & Ángel L. Meroño-Cerdán

Received: 3 March 2009 /Accepted: 15 September 2009 /Published online: 6 October 2009 # Institute of Management, University of St. Gallen 2009

Abstract The paper aims at analyzing the influence of must explicitly manage their intellectual resources and diverse organizational cultures on the use of ICT for strategic capabilities (Zack 1999). (KM) is KM. By combining literature from different areas, namely defined as the explicit and systematic management of vital strategic KM, ICT for KM, organizational culture and knowledge—and its associated processes of creation, effectiveness, a theoretical model is proposed and tested in organization, diffusion, use and exploitation (Skyrme a sample of more than 300 firms in Spain. Results show that 2001). Businesses are increasingly finding themselves in a diverse organizational cultures (, clan, world characterized by globalization, turbulence and com- and market) are found to impact on the use of ICT for plexity, paralleled with an exponential advancement in strategic KM (personalization and codification) differently. information and (ICT), making Specifically, corporate cultures based on and knowledge a key strategic resource. ICTs enable companies markets do not impact on the use of ICT for KM, while clan to obtain, process, stock and share information and culture favours the use of ICT for personalization knowledge. such as Intranets, allow people to and adhocracy positively influences for per- collaborate and share their complementary knowledge sonalization and codification as well. These findings may (Bhatt et al. 2005). Collaborative technologies or eCollabo- have significant implications for researchers and managers. ration technologies bring geographically dispersed teams together for virtual meetings across great distances. This Keywords Organizational culture . ICT. Knowledge results in tremendous time and cost saving, greatly management decreased travel requirements, faster and better decision- making and improved communication flows throughout the JEL M15 . M14 organization, thus improving productivity, , and efficiency of group work (Cooper 2003). Both academics and practitioners highlight the role of eCollaboration ICTs Introduction in KM, although there is a need for a better understanding of the prerequisites of successful technological KM In the last decade, the importance of knowledge has been programs (Khalifa and Liu 2003). highlighted by both academics and practitioners and Literature defends that although technology is not the organizations are realizing that to remain competitive they main component of KM, it would be a naive attitude to implement KM without considering any technological Responsible editor: Kai Riemer support, because ICTs are critical in KM programs (Sher C. Lopez-Nicolas (*) : Á. L. Meroño-Cerdán and Lee 2004). On the one hand, few studies show Facultad de Economia Y Empresa, empirical evidence of the ICT support for KM, and a Departamento de Organizacion de Empresas Y Finanzas, research gap in this area exists (Moffett et al. 2002). On the Universidad de Murcia, other hand, most of these studies examined the role of ICT Campus de Espinardo, Espinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain in isolation, overlooking its relationships with other KM e-mail: [email protected] success factors (Khalifa and Liu 2003). An appropriate 212 C. Lopez-Nicolas, Á.L. Meroño-Cerdán balance of diverse factors, like technology, process, human, creates intellectual capital, by converting individual knowl- organization, or culture, is argued to be instrumental to the edge into structural capital. continued success of any KM deployment (Tsui 2005). On the other hand, the personalization strategy focuses Moreover, understanding the relationship between ICT and on dialogue between individuals, not knowledge objects in organizational culture (OC) has challenged scholars from a a database, being based on dyadic knowledge sourcing. It is range of disciplines for nearly three decades (Gallivan and a person-to-person approach where knowledge is shared not Srite 2005) and there is a need for a cultural understanding only face-to-face, but also over the telephone, by e-mail and of ICT in the organization (Dewett and Jones 2001). via videoconferences, thus building networks of people. The paper aims at analyzing the influence of diverse The main assumption in this strategy is that knowledge is OCs, by building on the Competing Values Framework tacit and only contact among workers allows sharing (CVF) by Cameron and Quinn (1999), on the use of ICT for knowledge (Hansen et al. 1999). Companies using this strategic KM. The remaining sections are structured as approach consider trying to isolate knowledge from knowers follows. First, salient literature on the area of KM, OC and to be useless. Contact between knowledge demanders and ICT is reviewed. Second, the theoretical model is presented providers is essential to share tacit knowledge as this type of and hypotheses are posited. Then, the methodology for the knowledge cannot be codified (Polanyi 1966). empirical analysis is detailed. Fourth, main results from regression models are discussed. Finally, concluding remarks, Information technologies for KM limitations and future research lines are summarized. Literature argues that the amount of information and knowledge in a modern organization that needs to be captured, Literature review stored and shared, the geographic distribution of sources and consumers, and the dynamic evolution of information make Knowledge management the use of technology support not an option, but a necessity. Recently, Sambamurthy and Subramani (2005)alsodefend Nowadays, knowledge is the fundamental basis of compe- the critical role of ICTs in shaping organizational efforts for tition (Zack 1999) and, particularly tacit knowledge, can be knowledge creation, acquisition, integration, valuation, and a source of advantage because it is unique, imperfectly use. The influence of ICT on KM differs from one KM mobile, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable. How- strategy to another, from codification to personalization ever, the mere act of processing knowledge itself does not (Hansen et al. 1999). guarantee strategic advantage; instead, knowledge has to be Organizations are looking to ICTs for solutions to their managed. In the current environment, firms that create new KM. Indeed, first approaches to manage knowledge were knowledge and apply it effectively and efficiently will be primarily focused on developing new applications of ICTs successful at creating competitive advantages. The set of to leverage codified knowledge (Zack 1999). Most KM strategic choices addressing knowledge creation and ex- , though, failed due to, among other , an ploitation in an organization comprise the firm’sKM over-focus on technologies (Moffett et al. 2002). The ability strategy, which provides the firm with guidelines for of new technologies to support KM in a meaningful manner creating (Bierly and Daly 2002). depends on the types of knowledge (Flanagin 2002) and on Hansen et al. (1999) typology of KM the KM strategy chosen. Besides, ICTs used to support KM distinguishes between personalization and codification of present some limitations, since they reduce the very knowledge. This classification is based on the distinction richness of knowledge when it is codified and the between tacit and explicit knowledge and the distinct use of management and sharing of tacit knowledge through ICT. The codification strategy focuses on codifying technologies is problematic (Flanagin 2002). knowledge using a ‘people-to-document’ approach: knowl- KM tools are technologies, broadly defined, which edge is extracted from the person who developed it, made enhance and enable knowledge generation, codification independent of that person and reused for various purposes. and transfer. Main technological tools are decision support Codification firms invest heavily in ICT. This strategy, technologies and eCollaboration systems. Decision support being based on published knowledge sourcing, allows technologies support a codification orientation because they many people to search for and retrieve codified knowledge are not intended to connect people, but to solve problems without having to contact the person who originally by making explicit information and knowledge available to developed it, since knowledge is stored in documents, decision makers. Codification strategy is also featured by manuals, databases, electronic repositories, and so on. That the use of some eCollaboration systems such as document opens up the possibility of achieving scale in knowledge repositories (manuals, documents, lessons learned, best reuse and thus of growing the business. Hence, codification practices, …), knowledge maps, workflow tools, and shared The impact of organizational culture on the use of ICT 213 databases. Other eCollaboration systems, such as video and . The second dimension differentiates effective- conferencing, yellow pages, and discussion forums, make ness criteria that emphasize an internal orientation, integra- interactions possible, thus being personalization-oriented tion, and unity from criteria that emphasize an external practices. Besides, other non-technology based instruments, orientation, differentiation and rivalry” (Cameron and such as investments in spontaneous knowledge transfer Quinn 1999, p. 30). initiatives, mentoring programs and teams, aim to build The resulting four culture types—clan, hierarchy, mar- people networks and to enhance knowledge sharing in a ket, and adhocracy—represent aspects of firms’ underlying person-to-person approach, thus managing organizational assumptions about orientation, , value drivers and knowledge through personalization strategy. effectiveness (Fig. 1). Although a firm’s culture will be composed of values found in each of the four culture types, Organizational culture a dominant culture type will typically emerge to form an identifiable corporate culture. A brief description of each Different cultures will deal differently with information vis- culture type follows. à-vis the problems they face and will also perceive problems differently (de Man and van den Toorn 2002). & Clan culture type: The clan culture type is internally There is no clear consensus of an OC definition. However, oriented, emphasizes informal governance, and is in many researchers in the area have adopted Schein’s(1985) general a friendly place to work. The organization is three dimensional view of OC—consisting of assumptions, held together through employee loyalty, morale, and values, and artefacts. Given that values are considered to be commitment. The development of human resources and so central to understanding an organization’s culture and employee participation in decision-making are highly they are also seen as a reliable representation of OC, the valued. Emphasis is placed on teamwork and cohesive- measurement of OC has typically focused on values. ness. of Japanese companies exem- Indeed, Quinn and his colleagues (cited in Cameron and plifies clan orientation. Quinn 1999) used the notion of values to develop the & Adhocracy culture type: The adhocracy culture type Competing Values Framework (CVF) of OC. Cameron and combines informal governance with an external orien- Quinn (1999) subsequently used the CVF to design a tation. It is a dynamic and creative place to work where validated instrument for diagnosing OC and management firm members take risks. Individual initiative and competency as well as a theoretical framework for spontaneity are valued. Individuals are motivated by understanding OC. The cultures are mapped on two the ideological appeal of growth, flexibility, and variety. dimensions on the CVF. “One dimension differentiates Effectiveness criteria revolve around new market effectiveness criteria that emphasize flexibility, discretion development and resource acquisition. In consulting and dynamism from criteria that emphasize stability, order firms each client demand is treated as an independent

Fig. 1 Types of organizational Flexibility and discretion culture (Cameron and Quinn 1999) Culture: CLAN Culture: ADHOCRACY Orientation: COLLABORATIVE Orientation: CREATIVE Leader Type: FACILITATOR Leader Type: INNOVATOR MENTOR ENTREPRENEUR TEAM BUILDER VISIONARY Value Drivers: COMMITMENT Value Drivers: INNOVATIVE OUTPUTS COMMUNICATION TRANSFORMATION DEVELOPMENT AGILITY of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Theory of INNOVATIVENESS, VISION, Effectiveness: AND PARTICIPATION Effectiveness: AND NEW RESOURCES

Culture: HIERARCHY Culture: MARKET Orientation: CONTROLLING Orientation: COMPETING Leader Type: COORDINATOR Leader Type: HARD DRIVER MONITOR COMPETITOR ORGANISER PRODUCER Internal focus and integraction

Value Drivers: EFFICIENCY Value Drivers: MARKET SHARE External focus and differentiation TIMELINESS GOAL ACHIEVEMENT CONSISTENCY AND PROFITABILITY UNIFORMITY Theory of AGRESSIVELY COMPETING Theory of CONTROL AND EFFICIENCY Effectiveness: AND CUSTOMER FOCUS Effectiveness: WITH CAPABLE PROCESSES

Stability and control 214 C. Lopez-Nicolas, Á.L. Meroño-Cerdán

, and a temporary organizational design is set up department lines (DeTienne et al. 2004), challenge people to accomplish the task. When the project ends, the to share knowledge throughout the organization (Moffett et structure disintegrates. al. 2002), value creativity and continuous improvement, & Hierarchy culture type: The hierarchy culture type and reward knowledge sharing (Hislop 2003). Moreover, a adopts an internal orientation and an emphasis on culture of confidence and trust is required to encourage the mechanistic governance such that formal rules and application and development of knowledge within an are closely followed. It focuses on stability organization (Moffett et al. 2002). Park et al. (2004) and smooth-running operations. Firm members are empirically find high positive correlations between knowl- motivated by security and rewards for accomplishments. edge sharing and cultural attributes, such as team oriented Effectiveness is defined by permanence and achieving work, working closely with others, sharing information clearly defined goals. Organizations ranging from a freely, trust and support of employees. Thus, cultural typical fast-food restaurant to major conglomerates (like differences play a significant role in an approach to KM Ford) and government agencies provide prototypical (Leidner et al. 2006). examples of a hierarchy culture. & Market culture type: The market culture type has a Organizational culture and ICT formal governance structure and an external orientation. Members are goal-oriented and concerned with getting From the point of view of OC, the introduction and the job done. This culture is achievement-focused and implementation of technologies is a critical social process emphasizes planning, performance, and efficiency. of change (de Man and van den Toorn 2002). Salient Individuals are motivated by and in researchers have studied the influence of culture at the achieving market success. General Electric’s former national, organizational or subunit levels on ICT (Gallivan CEO, Jack Welch, said in the late 1980s that if GE and Srite 2005). In their exhaustive review, Leidner and businesses were not number one or number two in their Kayworth (2006) conclude that most contributions relate to markets, they would be sold (Cameron and Quinn four main streams of research: culture and information 1999). This example reflects the market culture type. systems development; culture and ICT adoption and diffusion; culture and ICT use and outcomes; and culture, ICT management and strategy. Organizational culture and KM Some studies separately focus on the impact of OC on 1) ICT use (Tarafdar and Vaidya 2006; Zhang and Tansuhaj OC is believed to be the most significant input to effective KM 2007) and 2) ICT implementation success or failure (Harper and organizational in that corporate culture deter- and Utley 2001; Caccia-Bava et al. 2006). We argue that mines values, beliefs, and work systems that could encourage OC should be studied regarding its impact on both ICT use or impede learning (knowledge creation) as well as knowl- and ICT implementation effectiveness, simultaneously. edge sharing (e.g., Caccia-Bava et al. 2006), and ultimately, Thus, in this paper we aim at analyzing the effect of decision making (Schein 1985). Therefore, an organization’s different OCs on the implementation of ICT for KM, as culture should provide support and incentives as well as well as the success of such implementations. As interac- encourage knowledge-related activities by creating environ- tionist research does (Gallivan and Srite 2005), we argue ments for knowledge exchange and accessibility. that ICT and OC interact to produce various outcomes and Managers are becoming more aware of the problems focus on understanding how corporate values interact with created by having a corporate culture inconsistent with KM ICT features (orientations to knowledge codification or programs, since culture is a major impediment to KM personalization) to produce effective ICT implementation initiatives (DeTienne et al. 2004). It may be more effective for KM. In his pioneering work, Kanungo (1998) analyses to align the KM with the OC than to attempt to the impact of OC on network-based computer use and on change its culture (Park et al. 2004). Similarly, McDermott its implementation success in terms of user’s satisfaction and O’Dell (2001) recommend companies build their KM with the system. While Kanungo (1998) defined OC as approach to fit their culture, and find that, however strong task-oriented versus people-oriented, we suggest that a the commitment and approach to KM, corporate culture is better proxy in studying the influence of different OCs on stronger. Thus, OC must be considered as an antecedent of ICT use and successful implementation for KM is the CVF KM and not as a result. (Cameron and Quinn 1999) which distinguishes between Diverse researchers have listed cultural characteristics clan, market, hierarchical and adhocracy cultures. Prior that enhance successful KM. An effective corporate culture research in the area of KM has been on the CVF in order to for KM consists of norms and practices that promote the draw conclusions about the influence of diverse OCs on free-flow of information among employees and across intranet implementation for KM (Ruppel and Harrington The impact of organizational culture on the use of ICT 215

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE H1-H4 Based on the previous discussion, the following hypoth- Clan ICT FOR KM Market Codification eses are posited: Hierarchy Personalization Adhocracy H1: A hierarchical culture enhances the use of ICT for codification KM strategy. Fig. 2 Theoretical model H2: A clan culture enhances the use of ICT for personalization KM strategy. H3: An adhocracy culture enhances the use of ICT for 2001) or absorptive capacity and ICT implementation both KM strategies. success (Caccia-Bava et al. 2006). H4: A market culture is against the use of ICT for both KM strategies. Model The theoretical model is shown in Fig. 2.

Literature review has shown the importance OC may have on the success of KM. A key factor is the antecedent role Method of the OC based on the idea that it is easier to align KM with culture than changing culture role of the OC (Park et Sample and collection al. 2004). Considering Cameron and Quinn’s(1999) classification of OC, this paper will analyse those cultures The target population consists of firms in the Region of which contribute the most to the use of ICT for different Murcia (Spain), with at least ten employees. Three hundred KM strategies. ten valid responses were obtained from different industries. In spite of the importance of culture on KM and the The study assumes an error of 5.4% for p=q=50 and a relevance of the work by Cameron and Quinn (1999), so confidence level of 95.5%. A structured questionnaire con- far, few studies have used their model with the purpose of sisting of close-ended questions was developed. Face-to-face analysing the effect of each type of OC on KM. Hendriks surveys with the CEOs were conducted. Table 1 shows (2004) does take into account the CVF to link culture and characteristics of the sample. Studied companies are mainly knowledge sharing. Specifically, Hendriks (2004) states SMEs. Organizations have been divided in three homoge- that adhocracy (he called it entrepreneurial culture) is an nous groups, based on the year of their foundation. Range open culture featured by innovation, individual initiative limits for age of firm are determined by 1992 and 1981. and independence, key factors in companies who manage knowledge. The author also highlights that in a clan Measures culture, employees prefer teamwork and face-to-face meetings as means to share knowledge, as posited in the Organizational culture personalization KM strategy. On the contrary, a hierarchi- cal culture (Hendriks (2004) called it bureaucratic) has a Culture is measured through the Organizational Culture closed, formalised nature and hinders personal knowl- Assessment Instrument (OCAI) developed by Cameron and edge sharing in favour of normalization and codification Quinn (1999) which assesses six key dimensions of OC for internal communication. Lastly, Hendriks (2004) (Dominant Characteristics, Organizational Leadership, considers that a market culture enhances competitive Management of Employees, Organizational Glue, Strategic behaviours (even among colleagues), going against KM philosophy. Other works highlight cultural features which benefit or Table 1 Sample description ’ hinder KM, without considering Cameron and Quinn s Size Sample Sector Sample (1999) model. For instance, De Long and Fahey (2000) (%) (%) state that in a company where norms support individual – ownership, people are encouraged to refuse to share their 10 49 employees 71.3 Food and agriculture 34.5 knowledge. Recently, Leidner et al. (2006) have proven, 50–249 employees 24.5 Textile 11.6 through a case study of two firms, that a bureaucratic, >250 employees 4.2 Food trading 24.2 individualistic culture favours behaviours oriented to Age Sample (%) Services to companies 14.5 codification, whereas a bureaucratic, innovative and coop- after 1992 33.9 Manufacturing 3.2 erative culture enables participation and knowledge sharing 1981–1991 33.5 Other products 11.9 among employees by creating virtual communities, an distribution before 1981 32.6 approach similar to the personalization strategy. 216 C. Lopez-Nicolas, Á.L. Meroño-Cerdán

Emphases and Criteria of Success). In this research a Likert ICT for managing corporate knowledge. The scale based scale will be used so as to apply traditional statistics tests. on Lee and Choi (2003) consists of six items (Table 3) Table 2 shows items used and their values. Those marked and allows the researcher to distinguish the strategic with an asterisk are eliminated after validity and reliability approach a company follows for KM, since the first three analyses. An average score for each culture is obtained by items of the scale collect evidence about ICT for adding together all A responses (clan), B responses knowledge codification, whereas the last three items of (adhocracy), C responses (market) and D responses the scale are related to eCollaboration technologies for a (hierarchy), then dividing by six (key dimensions of personalization KM strategy. The purpose of the measure organizational culture construct). instrument is to know the use of ICT for KM rather than the ICT equipment. In a KM context the same technology ICT for KM can have different uses. For instance, the email is a collaborative and a communication tool, nonetheless it can In order to measure this variable in the questionnaire, be used as a tool for storing information. Thus, although definitions of codification and personalization KM some technologies could be a priori more related to strategies were considered. Also, prior research in this different KM strategies (see Section IT for KM), only area was reviewed in order to better gather the different ICT uses have been considered.

Table 2 Measure instrument for organizational culture

Mean SD

YOUR ORGANIZATION is mainly As an extended family. People seem to share a lot of themselves (*) 3,85 2,658 A very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks 3,27 1,048 Results oriented. People are very competitive and achievement oriented. 3,41 1,038 A very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do (*) 2,95 1,190 MANAGEMENT STYLE is characterised mainly by Teamwork, consensus, and participation. 3,79 0,953 Individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness. 3,32 1,006 Hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement. 2,95 1,152 Security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships. 3,94 1,058 SHARED VALUES among employees are mainly Loyalty, mutual trust and commitment. 3,85 0,937 Commitment to innovation and development, and emphasis on being on the cutting edge 3,36 0,958 The emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment, aggressiveness and winning theme 3,12 1,070 Formal rules, policies and maintaining a smooth-running organization 3,60 0,936 ORGANIZATION’S SUCCESS is mainly base on the basis of The development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people 3,83 0,922 Having the most unique or newest products and being a product leader and innovator 3,31 1,149 Winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition, being the leader of the competitive market 3,51 1,026 Efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost production are critical 3,87 0,889 ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP is mainly considered to exemplify Mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing 3,55 1,006 Entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking 3,75 0,941 A no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus (*) 3,94 0,740 Coordinating, organising, or smooth-running efficiency 3,89 0,971 STRATEGIC EMPHASIS is mainly on Human development 3,71 0,991 Facing new challenges 3,75 0,920 Achieving dominant positions in the marketplace 3,69 0,962 Permanence and stability 4,44 0,720 The impact of organizational culture on the use of ICT 217

Table 3 Measure instrument for ICT for KM Table 5 Regression results

Your company use information technologies to support Mean SD N=310 ICT for personalization ICT for codification

Codification Betas Sign. Betas Sign. Searching and accessing necessary and relevant 3,76 1,027 information Constant ,606 ,093 1,590 ,000 Simulation and prediction 2,91 1,189 Hierarchy ,031 ,654 ,029 ,681 Systematic and regular information storage 3,80 1,013 Clan culture ,139 ,048 ,035 ,623 Personalization Adhocracy ,284 ,000 ,306 ,000 Internal collaborative work 2,94 1,180 Market culture ,055 ,431 ,048 ,504 External collaborative work 2,80 1,130 R2 adjusted ,175 ,000 ,129 ,000 Communication among organization members 3,56 1,042

Reliability and validity of measures zation is consistent with the values shared by members of clan companies, like teamwork, facilitating employees’ In order to assess the validity and reliability of the participation and knowledge sharing (Cameron and Quinn measures, different analyses were performed (Table 4). 1999), and the human-orientation where personalization Relatively high values of reliability (alpha higher than 0.7) KM strategy is focused on. place a premium and validity (item-to-total correlation higher than 0.4 and on dynamic, entrepreneurial, innovative and creative work- factor loading in a single factor over 0.5) imply that the places (Cameron and Quinn 1999) where new concepts like instruments used in this study are adequate. eCollaboration technologies are welcome for managing knowledge by both codification and personalization. However, the data analysis does not provide any Results significant evidence about the influence of hierarchical and market cultures (H1 and H4). Despite contradicting the The main objective of our empirical study is to assess the idea that bureaucratic cultures hinder personal knowledge extent to which diverse OCs affect the implementation of sharing and favour codification for internal communication ICT for KM. To determine the effect of OCs on the use of (Hendriks 2004), no support for H1 means that the ICT for personalization and codification of knowledge, existence of rules and order may have no correlation with multiple regression analysis has been performed. ICT use for KM, such as intranets (Ruppel and Harrington Based on the regression results shown in Table 5, we can 2001). Even though some researchers have advised against state that only clan and adhocracy cultures can enhance the market culture for KM (Hendriks 2004), and some others use of ICT for KM. Specifically, clan values are found to be have found a negative correlation between ICT success and determinant in the implementation of ICT for personaliza- cultural values associated to market culture (Harper and tion, while an adhocracy culture has a positive significant Utley 2001), our results, however, suggest that no conclu- influence on ICT for both codification and personalization sion may be drawn concerning the positive or negative KM strategies. This supports H2 and H3. The positive influence of market culture values on the use of ICT for impact of a clan culture on the use of ICT for personali- KM. This finding is in line with the idea that implementing

Table 4 Statistics for reliability and validity tests

Measures Items Mean SD Convergent validity Discriminant validity Reliability (correlation of item with (factor loading on (Cronbach alpha) total store-item) single factors)

Hierarchical 5 3,957 0,586 0,429; 0,452; 0,438; 0,478; 0,444 0,646; 0,658; 0,679; 0,713; 0,664 0,686 Clan 5 3,748 0,751 0,660; 0,673; 0,726; 0,528; 0,644 0,798; 0,807; 0,846; 0,678; 0,782 0,840 Adhocracy 6 3,461 0,691 0,564; 0,482; 0,548; 0,452; 0,564; 0,727; 0,653; 0,706; 0,620; 0,724; 0,776 0,543 0,709 Market 5 3,338 0,776 0,496; 0,641; 0,579; 0,544; 0,599 0,667; 0,797; 0,744; 0,720; 0,765 0,792 ICT for Personalization 3 3,094 0,971 0,806; 0,735; 0,559 0,928; 0,892; 0,771 0,833 ICT for Codification 3 3,488 0,898 0,666; 0,561; 0,622 0,867; 0,762; 0,842 0,776 218 C. Lopez-Nicolas, Á.L. Meroño-Cerdán

ICTs for KM does not require a culture that values state that high levels of flexibility, like in clan and adhocracy objectives-based measures, as Ruppel and Harrington cultures, are argued to likely be able to deal with uncertainty (2001) found for intranet use. and be more successful in the implementation of new Table 6 shows a summary of the model testing and the technologies than firms characterized by control. consequent support or non-support of each hypothesis. Another implication of this paper is that prior to the implementation of a KM program, a diagnosis of the corporate culture is needed. The fundamental behind this Conclusions idea refers to the fact that organizational culture is an antecedent of KM as it may be more effective to align the The paper aims at analyzing the influence of diverse OCs, KM system with the OC than to attempt to change its by building on the CVF by Cameron and Quinn (1999), on culture (Park et al. 2004). We suggest that this is true, at the use of ICT for strategic KM (codification and least, in the short term. Such a diagnosis of the organiza- personalization). Indeed, the paper combines literature from tional culture may also be an opportunity to analyze future different areas, namely KM, ICT and OC, and provides scenarios. Specifically, cultures featured by flexibility are some interesting results which contribute to advances in those that allow firms to leverage ICT for KM. Thus, we these research fields. recommend building and enhancing flexible environments. According to the results found in this research and In the context of KM, benefits from ICT depend on the reported here, an interesting conclusion may be drawn: values and practices within the company. Organizations none of the cultures significantly hinder the use of ICT for who value and innovation will make the most strategic KM. In other words, only positive effects on KM of the technologies they have. have been found, specifically in the case of cultural values As with any other research, ours suffers from some associated with clan and adhocracy. Prior research has limitations. First, the sample was obtained from the Region focused on highlighting cultural features which hinder KM of Murcia (Spain). In this sense, findings may be and new ICT implementation. For instance, De Long and extrapolated to other Spanish areas and other countries, Fahey (2000) state that in a company where norms support since economic and technological development in Murcia individual ownership, people are encouraged to refuse to and Spain is similar to other OECD Member countries. share their knowledge. Salient research on the influence of However, in future research, a sampling frame that OCs on the use of ICT highlights the negative effect of combines firms from different countries could be used in developmental culture (adhocracy) on ICT implementation order to provide a more international perspective to the (McDermott and Stock, 1999). Our findings show, however, subject. Second, our research is based on a survey that none of the values associated to any of the four types of performed in a specific moment of time. A longitudinal OC (hierarchy, clan, adhocracy and market) have a signifi- study should be carried out since KM is thought to be a cant negative impact on the use of ICT for KM. This may long-term concern (Tomas and Hult 2003) with an impact have important implications for academics as further on future performance (Dröge et al. 2003), OC is malleable research is needed to clarify the determinant role of OC in over time (Gallivan and Srite 2005) and ICT implementa- enhancing and hindering KM. Besides, managers may feel tions are likely to impact on OC (Leidner and Kayworth more confident in managing OC and values for managing 2006). Third, (OL), sometimes their knowledge resources and technologies because none of considered as a part of a greater phenomenon called KM, is the cultures have been found to significantly hinder the use acknowledged as a key issue on . of ICT for strategic KM. However, a detailed analysis of OL exceeds the purpose of Overall, we may conclude that OCs featured by flexibility, our research, needing further research in future investiga- innovation and dynamism (like in clan and adhocracy tions. Fourth, our research has focused on the organizational cultures) are found to have a greater influence on KM through dimension of culture, leaving other culture types aside. ICT. This is in line with McDermott and Stock (1999), who Culture at the national, organizational or subunit levels has

Table 6 Summary of hypothe- ses testing Hypotheses Support

H1: Hierarchical culture enhances the use of ICT for codification KM strategy. NO H2: Clan culture enhances the use of ICT for personalization KM strategy. YES H3: Adhocracy culture enhances the use of ICT for both KM strategies YES H4: Market culture is against the use of ICT for both KM strategies. NO The impact of organizational culture on the use of ICT 219 an influence on ICT (Gallivan and Srite 2005)and Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human and studying those diverse dimensions of culture may be of knowledge management via commitment. Employee Relations, – great interest for understanding the implementation of KM 25(2), 182 202. Kanungo, S. (1998). An empirical study of organizational culture and (King, 2008). Finally, the interplay of ICT, OC, human Network-based computer use. Computers in Human Behavior, 14 resources and organizational design may have an impact on (1), 79–91. KM strategy and ICT effectiveness and its study may be of Khalifa, M., & Liu, V. (2003). Determinants of successful knowledge interest for research. management programs. Electronic Journal on Knowledge Manage- ment, 1(2), 103–112. King, W. (2008). Questioning the conventional wisdom: culture- Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the anonymous knowledge management relationships. Journal of Knowledge reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments and suggestions. Management, 12(3), 35–47. Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance. Journal of Manage- – References ment Information Systems, 20(1), 179 228. Leidner, D., & Kayworth, T. (2006). A review of culture in information systems research: toward a theory of information Bhatt, G. D., Gupta, J. N. D., & Kitchens, F. (2005). An exploratory technology culture conflict. MIS Quarterly, 30(2), 357–399. study of groupware use in the knowledge management process. Leidner, D., Alavi, M., & Kayworth, T. (2006). The role of culture in Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 8(1), 28–46. knowledge management: a case study of two global firms. Bierly, P., & Daly, P. (2002). Aligning human resource management International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2(1), 17–40. practices and knowledge strategies: A theoretical framework. In C.W. McDermott, C., & Stock, G. (1999). Organizational culture and Choo & N. Bontis (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual advanced manufacturing technology implementation. Journal of capital and organizational knowledge. Oxford University Press. , 17(5), 521–533. Caccia-Bava, M., Guimares, T., & Harrington, S. (2006). Hospital McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to organization culture, capacity to innovate and success in technology sharing knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), adoption. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 20(3), 76–85. 194–217. Moffett, S., McAdam, R., & Parkinson, S. (2002). Developing a Cameron, K., & Quinn, R. (1999). Diagnosing and changing model for technology and cultural factors in knowledge organizational culture. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Series management. Knowledge and Process Management, 9(4), in Organizational Development. 237–255. Cooper, L. P. (2003). A research agenda to reduce risk in new product Park, H., Ribiere, V., & Schulte, W. (2004). Critical attributes of development through knowledge management. Journal of Engi- organizational culture that promote knowledge management imple- neering and , 20(1/2), 117–140. mentation success. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(3), De Long, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to 106–117. knowledge management. Academy of Management Executive, 14 Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Day (4), 113–127. . De Man, W., & van den Toorn, W. (2002). Culture and the adoption Ruppel, C., & Harrington, S. (2001). Sharing knowledge through and use of GIS within organisations. International Journal of intranets: a study of organizational culture and intranet imple- Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 4(1), 51–63. mentation. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, DeTienne, K. B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C., & Harris, S. (2004). Toward a 44(1), 37–52. model of effective knowledge management and directions for Sambamurthy, V., & Subramani, M. (2005). Knowledge problems in future research. Journal of Leadership & , organizations: foreword to special issue on information technologies 10(4), 26–43. and knowledge management. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 1–7. Dewett, T., & Jones, G. (2001). The role of in Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership.San the organization: a review, model, and assessment. Journal of Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Management, 27(3), 313–346. Sher, P., & Lee, V. (2004). Information technology as a facilitator for Dröge, C., Claycomb, C., & Germain, R. (2003). Does knowledge enhancing dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. mediate the effect of context on performance? Some initial Information and Management, 41(8), 933–945. evidence. Decision Sciences, 34(3), 541–568. Skyrme, D. (2001). Capitalizing on knowledge: From e-business to k- Flanagin, A. (2002). The elusive benefits of the technology support of business. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. knowledge management. Management Communication Quarterly, Tarafdar, M., & Vaidya, S. (2006). Challenges in the adoption of E- 16(2), 242–248. Commerce technologies in India: the role of organizational Gallivan, M., & Srite, M. (2005). Information technology and culture: factors. International Journal of Information Management, 26 identifying fragmentary and holistic perspectives of culture. (6), 427–496. Information and Organization, 15(4), 295–338. Tomas, G., & Hult, M. (2003). An integration of thoughts on Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for knowledge management. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 189–419. managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116. Tsui, E. (2005). The role of IT in KM: where are we now and where Harper, G., & Utley, D. (2001). Organizational culture and successful are we heading? Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 3–6. information technology implementation. Engineering Manage- Zack, M. (1999). Developing a knowledge strategy. California ment Journnal, 13(2), 11–15. Management Review, 41(3), 125–145. Hendriks, P. (2004). Assessing the role of culture in knowledge Zhang, M., & Tansuhaj, P. (2007). Organizational culture, information sharing. Proceedings of 5th European Conference on Organiza- technology capability, and performance: the case of born global tional Knowledge, Learning, and Capabilities (OKLC), 1–24. firms. Multinational Business Review, 15(3), 43–77.