4.7 Article

Investigating the role of business processes and knowledge management systems on performance: A multi-case study approach

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH
Volume 51, Issue 18, Pages 5565-5575

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2013.789145

Keywords

knowledge management; collaborative network; task-technology fit; knowledge management systems; business process; business performance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the ever-changing and competitive market place, organisations continuously need to improve their competitive advantage. One method to accomplish this is to form collaborative networks. Both knowledge management (KM) and KM systems play a pivotal role in the success of collaborative networks since information sharing and knowledge assets are so critical to the network. There has been a vast amount of research on KM systems but very little is known about how it affects individual and organisational performance. Drawing on the task-technology fit theory, in this study, we explore the fit or alignment between business process (task) and KM systems (technology) and its impact on KM systems utilisation based on multiple case studies. Subsequently, we investigate the impacts of both the task-technology fit and KM systems utilisation on individual and business performance. This paper contributes to the collaborative network/KM literature in several ways. First, it extends the task-technology fit theory to an important context of collaborative network/KM. Second, it replaces task with business process, which has the potential to help explain KM systems' success on business performance. Third, the paper explores the positive impact of task-technology fit on KM system utilisation and business performance. Fourth and finally, the study provides insight into the future development of KM systems and how to better align them with managerial purposes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available