Knowledge creation: individual and
organizational perspectives
Shih-Wei Chou and Yu-Hung Tsai
Department of Information Management, National
Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology,
Taiwan, R.O.C.
Received 15 October 2003
Revised 31 October 2003
Abstract.
A comprehensive model that delineates the
interrelationships among ‘user involvement’, ‘knowledge
cognition’, ‘organizational mechanisms’, and ‘knowledge
creation’ is absent. This study aims to fill this void. Unlike
previous research, this study examined the issues of
effective knowledge management from two perspectives:
individuals, i.e. user involvement and knowledge cognition,
and organizations, i.e. organizational mechanisms. In our
framework, we argued that the composite effect of ‘user
involvement’, ‘knowledge cognition’, and ‘organizational
mechanisms’ influences the result of knowledge creation. In
order to test the feasibility of this framework, we conducted
an empirical study. This study employed a survey
instrument to collect data from 500 organizations in
manufacturing, trade, transportation, service industries,
and academic institutions. A total of 271 useable responses
were analyzed. The major contributions of this research are
to: (a) develop a knowledge management framework based
on individual and organizational perspectives; and (b)
identify the impact of user involvement, knowledge
cognition, and organizational mechanisms on knowledge
creation. The implications of the study are provided, and
further research directions are proposed.
Keywords: knowledge creation; models; knowledge
cognition; user involvement; organizational
Correspondence to: Shih-Wei Chou, 2 Juoyue Rd, Nantz
District, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan, R.O.C., 824.
E-mail: swchou@ccms.nkfust.edu.tw
Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551504042803
mechanisms; knowledge management; organizations;
surveys
1. Introduction
Given the crucial role that knowledge creation plays in
contemporary business enterprises, a fundamental
question arises: what processes are facilitating knowl-
edge creation? Nonaka and Takeuchi [1] proposed a
research framework to describe knowledge creation
processes. This framework contains two dimensions:
epistemological and ontological. The former stands for
the characteristics of knowledge, which distinguish
tacit and explicit knowledge, and the key to knowledge
creation lies in the mobilization and conversion of tacit
knowledge. They argued that knowledge is created
through the interaction and intersection between tacit
and explicit knowledge, following four different modes
of conversion: socialization, externalization, combina-
tion, and internalization, i.e. the SECI processes. The
second dimension of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s frame-
work is ontological, which is concerned with the levels
of knowledge-creating entities or mechanisms that may
initiate the SECI processes such as individuals and
organizations. In order to create knowledge effectively,
the interactions and cooperation between the episte-
mological and ontological dimensions are important.
Since Nonaka and Takeuchi only provided a theore-
tical framework for acquiring and converting knowl-
edge, they did not identify the enabling conditions
from the ontological perspective. This study aims to
identify such factors. In other words, we argue that the
proper context for facilitating knowledge creation on
the individual as well as the organizational level is a
problem deserving further analysis.
In terms of individual perspective, according to
Nonaka et al.’s definition [2], information becomes
knowledge when it is interpreted by individuals and
205
Knowledge creation
given a context and anchored in the beliefs and
commitments of individuals. In addition, in Nonaka
and Takeuchi’s book [1], they argued that ‘autonomy’
is one of the most important factors that motivates
individuals to create new knowledge. Although Non-
aka and Takeuchi [1] and Nonaka et al. [2] provided a
rich conceptualization of knowledge creation from the
individual perspective, they did not identify concrete
guidelines for enabling knowledge creation. Thus, we
examined a selection of information science literature,
and argued that two types of characteristics concerning
individuals may have an impact on knowledge crea-
tion: user involvement from Barki and Hartwick [3]
and cognition of knowledge from King and Ko [4].
With regard to user involvement, according to Barki
and Hartwick’s theory [3], user involvement refers to a
psychological state reflecting the importance and
personal relevance of a new IS (information system)
to the user. Various researchers (Debrabander and
Edstrom [5]; Ives and Olson [6]; Powers and Dickson
[7]) also contended that user involvement is a
necessary condition for successful development of a
computer-based IS. In addition, contemporary litera-
ture indicated the important role of ISs in facilitating
knowledge management (e.g. Alavi and Leidner [8];
Nonaka et al. [2]). Thus, user involvement may have an
impact on knowledge creation. Another individual
characteristic is cognition of knowledge. Huber argued
[9] that only when individuals are cognitively willing
to ‘search and notice’ do they begin to appreciate the
value and usefulness of knowledge. King and Ko [4]
also contended that cognition is the most fundamental
and important part of initiating knowledge creation.
All the subsequent knowledge management processes,
such as knowledge sharing and dissemination, elabora-
tion, infusion, thorough understanding, and organiza-
tional performance, have their roots in cognition.
From the environmental or organizational perspec-
tive, according to the theory proposed by Nambisan et
al. [10], appropriate organizational design and activ-
ities may influence the result of knowledge creation.
Therefore, we argued that organizations might adopt
appropriate managerial interventions to facilitate
knowledge creation. In order to represent the appro-
priate managerial interventions offered by organiza-
tions, we borrowed the term ‘organizational
mechanisms’ from Nambisan et al. as embodying the
various learning and knowledge-sharing activities.
In summary, this research addresses the following
question: what are the respective roles of individuals as
well as organizations in facilitating knowledge crea-
tion? Since previous research did not examine the
206 Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI 10.1177/0165551504042803
impact on knowledge creation processes (i.e. SECI) from
both individual and organizational perspectives (i.e.
ontological entities), this study examines the factors
that influence knowledge creation in a broader and
comprehensive way. We argue that two characteristics
of technology users – user involvement and cognition –
might have an impact on knowledge creation. In
addition, appropriately designed organizational
mechanisms may also be critical to knowledge creation.
Based on the aforementioned explanations, we devel-
oped our research framework as shown in Figure 1.
2. Theoretical development
2.1. Knowledge, knowledge creation, and ba
Knowledge has been defined as ‘justified true belief’
(Nonaka and Takeuchi [1]). More specifically, the
definitions of knowledge range from ‘complex, accu-
mulated expertise that resides in individuals and is
partly or largely inexpressible’ to ‘much more struc-
tured and explicit content.’ According to Nonaka et
al.’s theory [2], knowledge is created through the
interaction and intersection between tacit and explicit
knowledge, following four different modes of conver-
sion, i.e. SECI. Nonaka and Konno [11] suggest that the
central theme of knowledge creation is the establish-
ment of an organization’s ‘ba.’ They define ‘ba’ as a
common place, context, or space for knowledge
creation. Nonaka and Takeuchi [1] contend that four
types of ba could be used to represent SECI. The first
type of ba is originating ba. It is a place where
individuals share experiences mainly through face-to-
face communication and by being at the same place
at the same time. Originating ba is associated with
the socialization mode of knowledge creation. The
second one is interacting ba. It may contribute to the
externalization mode of knowledge creation. Inter-
acting ba indicates a place where tacit knowledge
Fig. 1. Research framework.

is converted to explicit knowledge and shared among
organizational members through dialogue and colla-
boration. The third one is cyber ba. It refers to a virtual
community where individuals may choose either
asynchronous or synchronous mode to communicate
with other people. The combination mode of knowl-
edge creation can be fulfilled by cyber ba. Finally,
exercising ba stands for the conversion of explicit to
tacit knowledge through the internalization mode.
Thereby, exercising ba provides an environment in
which organizational members accomplish individual
and organizational learning actively.
2.2. Individuals’ roles – involvement of IT and
cognition of knowledge
According to Nonaka et al.’s [2] theory, the roles
played by individuals are the fundamental part of
knowledge creation, because knowledge is created
through the interactions among individuals or between
individuals and their environments. Although the
roles of technology users as a source of knowledge
creation and creativity have been acknowledged in the
literature (Ciborra 1991 [12]; Nambisan et al. 1999
[10]), little research has examined the roles of
individuals in facilitating knowledge creation. There-
fore, we conducted an empirical study to examine IT
(information technology) users’ impact on knowledge
creation.
After examining a selection of MIS (management
information systems) research, we identified two
critical aspects concerning IT users’ roles in facilitating
knowledge creation – user involvement and user
cognition. The term user involvement has been used
in a variety of fields to describe a subjective psycho-
logical state reflecting the importance and personal
relevance of an issue (Sherif et al. 1965 [13]) such as an
advertisement or product (Krugman 1967 [14]), and an
individual’s job (Lawler and Hall 1970 [15]). In a
system development context, user involvement should
refer to a psychological state reflecting the importance
and personal relevance of a new system to the user
(Barki and Hartwick 1989 [3]). Nonaka et al. [2] have
identified the critical role that information systems
play in facilitating knowledge creation. In our study,
user involvement represents the importance and
personal relevance of a new system to users. Thus, it
seems reasonable to assume that IT users’ involvement
may have a positive impact on knowledge creation. We
developed our first hypothesis:
Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551504042803
S.W. CHOU AND Y.H. TSAI
Hypothesis 1: user involvement in IS is positively
related to knowledge creation.
According to King and Ko’s [4] theory, cognition
plays a critical role in initiating knowledge manage-
ment. They propose a framework that specifies the
possible stages where knowledge creation and manage-
ment occur. These stages include cognition, post-
cognition, organization related actions by the acquirer,
diffusion, infusion, thoroughness, organization related
actions by others, and organization performance. King
and Ko also argued that individuals’ cognition of
knowledge plays a critical role in facilitating organiza-
tion performance. In addition, only when individuals
are cognitively willing to ‘search and notice’ (Cohen
and Levinthal 1990 [16]; Huber 1991 [9]) do they begin
to appreciate the value and usefulness of knowledge.
Then, knowledge creation is possible. Therefore,
individuals’ cognition of knowledge is the fundamen-
tal part of knowledge creation. Organizations with
more cognition of knowledge usually realize the
importance of knowledge, thus are more willing to
share, adopt, and analyze knowledge. As a result, such
organizations achieve knowledge creation more effec-
tively and usually acquire better organization perfor-
mance. Although King and Ko’s conceptual framework
specifies the importance of individuals’ cognition of
knowledge in establishing successful knowledge crea-
tion, they do not empirically examine the relationship
between cognition and knowledge creation. This study
tries to fill this void. Thus, we have a second
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: the cognition of knowledge is positively
related to knowledge creation.
2.3. Organizational mechanisms
In Nambisan et al.’s research [10], a mechanism is
defined as a structural arrangement or a variety of
design actions to facilitate interactions and knowledge
exchange among organizational members. Empirical
studies also indicate that mechanisms concerning
learning and knowledge acquisition can exhibit differ-
ential efficacy with regard to user innovation. Vision-
ary teams (e.g. IT steering committees) have the ability
to provide a strategic vision for their organization as
well as to create contexts for the integration of business
and technical knowledge (King and Teo 1994 [17]).
Mechanisms (e.g. relationship manager) that establish
partnerships providers help to maintain dialogue,
between users and IS while training and learning
207
Knowledge creation
activities (e.g. attending conferences or trade fairs) may
provide awareness of working practices. Although the
roles played by the aforementioned mechanisms in
promoting interaction and knowledge transfer is
widely acknowledged, no empirical research specifi-
cally investigates how effective alternative mechan-
isms are in facilitating the knowledge creation process.
Thus, we have a third hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: the effect of OM is positively related to
knowledge creation.
Finally, in order to examine the effect on knowledge
creation in a comprehensive perspective, we have
considered the composite effect of the aforementioned
variables on knowledge creation. Our last hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 4: The composite effect of user involve-
ment, cognition, and OM is positively related to
knowledge creation.
3. Research methodology and development
The basic rationale of this study is to examine the
possible impacts on the processes of knowledge
creation from both individual and organizational
perspectives. In addition, we also argue that knowl-
edge creation is influenced by a composite effect that
combines user involvement, cognition of knowledge,
and organizational mechanisms. The research frame-
work is shown in Figure 1.
3.1. Operationalization of variables
3.1.1. Independent variables
(1) User involvement: according to Barki and Hart-
wick’s [3] definition, ‘user involvement’ refers to
a subjective psychological state reflecting the
importance and personal relevance that a user
attaches to a given system. We have explained the
critical role that user involvement may play in
facilitating knowledge creation. Barki and Hart-
wick have developed an instrument that contains
11 unipolar scales pertaining to importance and
personal relevance, e.g. non-essential/essential,
trivial/fundamental, significant/insignificant and
so on. They also conducted empirical research to
examine the validity and reliability of this
instrument, which demonstrates an acceptable
result. So we employed this 11-item instrument
208 Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI 10.1177/0165551504042803
to represent the importance and relevance of IT
users to IS usage;
(2) Cognition of knowledge: according to King and
Ko’s theory [4], cognition of information/knowl-
edge value chain is the fundamental and critical
issue that influences the performance of knowl-
edge management. In a knowledge management
context, cognition of knowledge contains two
elements: the willingness to search and notice
new information and the process involved in
doing so. In order to create knowledge, indivi-
duals have to acquire the necessary information
and knowledge first. To do so, individuals may
adopt appropriate tools such as Internet, search
engine, or other IT. Other possible issues con-
cerning cognition are ‘ability to identify useful
information’, ‘ability to solve problems with the
help of useful knowledge’, ‘ability to specify the
characteristics of knowledge’, ‘ability to use
existing experience to solve problems’, and ‘will-
ingness to spend time to search for specific
knowledge;’ and
(3) OM: Nambisan et al. (1999) [10] argued that
knowledge creation could potentially be encour-
aged and facilitated by appropriate managerial
interventions. Such managerial interventions are
also referred to as mechanisms that facilitate
structured and unstructured interactions between
technology users and technology providers. A
variety of mechanisms are defined such as an IT
steering committee (Druy 1984 [18]), a relation-
ship manager (Subramani et al. 1995 [19]), or an
advanced technology group (Zmud 1988 [20]), as
well as specific activities such as sending users to
IT conferences and trade fairs (Nilakanta and
Scamell 1990 [21]). Empirical studies also suggest
that such mechanisms may have positive impact
on organizational efficacy. For example, visionary
teams (e.g. IT steering committees) may support
strategic focus for organizational members and
facilitate the integration of management and
technical knowledge (King and Teo 1994 [17]).
3.1.2. Dependent variable The dependent variable in
our study is knowledge creation. Nonaka and Konno
(1998 [11]) claim that it is useful to provide an
organizational context, situation, or environment, i.e.
‘ba’, in facilitating knowledge creation. Four types of
ba are proposed to represent the corresponding modes
of knowledge creation. They are originating ba,
interacting ba, cyber ba, and exercising ba. We have
explained these concepts in Section 2.1.

3.1.3. Data Data were collected from firms in Taiwan
through a survey instrument. An initial version of the
survey instrument was developed based on the theory-
grounded operationalization of the various constructs.
This version was subsequently revised after pre-testing
with academic and industrial experts who have
knowledge concerning ‘user involvement and IS
usage’, ‘cognition of knowledge’, ‘organisational
mechanisms’, and ‘knowledge creation’. The
instrument was further pilot tested with CIOs from
different firms. The multiple phases of instrument
testing and development resulted in a significant
degree of refinement and restructuring of the survey
instrument as well as establishing the initial content
validity (Nunnally 1978 [22]).
The responding firms represented a wide variety of
organizations in manufacturing, trade, transportation
and service industries, computer industries, finance,
and academic institutions. The majority of the respon-
dents held bachelor degrees. There was an even
distribution among the types and sizes of these
organizations. Respondents were asked to indicate on
five-point scales ranging from (1) strongly disagree to
(5) strongly agree. A total of 271 usable responses were
returned, providing a response rate of 27.1%. Given
that the survey was unsolicited and the instrument
quite complex, this response rate can be considered
satisfactory and comparable to other studies in IS
research (Jain et al. 1998 [23]). Table A1 in the
appendix summarizes salient sample demographics.
4. Results
4.1. Validity and reliability
Factor analysis using principal components factor
analysis with factor extraction and VARIMAX rotation
was conducted to examine the unidimensionality/
convergent and discriminant validity (Hair et al. 1998
[24]). The four commonly employed decision rules
were applied to identify the factors (Nunnally 1978
[22]): (1) minimum Eigen value of 1; (2) minimum
factor loading of 0.4 for each indicator item; (3)
simplicity of factor structure; and (4) exclusion of
single item factors. Reliability was evaluated by
assessing the internal consistency of the indicator
items of each construct by using Cronbach’s a, which is
shown in Table A6 in the appendix (Hair et al. 1998
[24]). The results of factor analysis relating to uni-
dimensionality/convergent validity are shown in the
Appendix. A joint domain factor analysis was per-
Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551504042803
S.W. CHOU AND Y.H. TSAI
formed, including all of the items used to develop the
research constructs. The result provides significant
support for factorial/discriminant validity of the
measurement scales (see Tables A2–A5 in the appen-
dix).
The results of factor analysis relating to user
involvement, cognition, organizational mechanisms,
and knowledge creation are briefly described below:
(1) User involvement: the results of factor analysis
are shown in Table A3. Eleven unipolar scales are
used to represent user involvement, i.e. the
importance and personal relevance of a new
system to the user;
(2) Cognition: as shown in Table A4, 10 items are
used to represent users’ cognition concerning
knowledge creation and management. As can be
seen from Table A6, the reliability of these
measures is at a satisfactory level. The mean
value of the overall measurement of knowledge
cognition is 4.04, suggesting that, on average, the
respondents believe that their companies have
enough cognition concerning knowledge;
(3) Organizational mechanisms: in Table A2, 18
items are used to represent various organizational
mechanisms. As can be seen from Table A6, the
reliability of these measures is at a satisfactory
level. The mean value of the overall measurement
of OM is 3.56, suggesting that, on average, the
respondents believe that their companies provide
enough OM; and
(4) Knowledge creation: as shown in Table A5, 15
items are selected to represent various elements
of knowledge creation ba. As can be seen from
Table A6, the reliability of these four measures is
satisfactory. The mean value of the overall KC
(knowledge creation) measurement is 3.80, indi-
cating that, on average, the respondents believe
that their companies provide well-established bas
in facilitating KC.
The main objective of this study is to provide some
rich insights, derived from previous research and
theory, into three mechanisms, which represent two
different perspectives that may possibly initiate the
knowledge-creating processes. The first perspective is
individual. We adopted ‘user involvement’ and ‘cogni-
tion’ to represent an individual’s characteristics, and
identified their impacts on knowledge creation. The
second one is from an organizational viewpoint. We
employed organizational mechanisms to represent a
variety of activities that may have influence on
knowledge creation. In order to verify the feasibility
of such a framework, as shown in Figure 1, we
209
Knowledge creation

Table 1
Regression analyses of the effect of user involvement, cognition, and organizational mechanisms on knowledge creation

Dependent Variable b R R2 F t p Tolerance

User involvement 0.234 0.234 0.055 15.523 3.94 0.000** 1.000

Cognition 0.276 0.276 0.073 22.202 4.712 0.000** 1.000
OM 0.654 0.654 0.427 200.67 14.17 0.000** 1.000
Dependent variable: knowledge creation; OM: organizational mechanisms; b: standardized regression coefficient
Note: significance level:** p < 0.05; * : p < 0.1

conducted empirical research. We employed regres-
sion analyses to examine four separate correlations in
this research framework.
(a) Relationship between user involvement and
knowledge creation: in order to predict the rela-
tionship between user involvement and knowledge
creation, we adopted simple regression. As results
from Table 1 indicate, p is less than 0.05, which
means there is a statistical significance between
user involvement and knowledge creation. In
addition, the standardized beta coefficient (b)
shows that user involvement has a positive impact
on knowledge creation. Thus, we conclude that
user involvement has positive correlation with
knowledge creation, and hypothesis 1 is substan-
tiated;
(b) Relationship between cognition and knowledge
creation: we employed simple regression to exam-
ine the relation between cognition and knowledge
creation. As shown in Table 1, p is less than 0.05,
which means there is a statistical significance
between cognition and knowledge creation. The
standardized beta coefficient ðbÞ indicates that
cognition has a positive impact on knowledge
creation. Therefore, cognition has positive correla-
tion with knowledge creation, and hypothesis 2 is
substantiated;
(c) Relationship between organizational mechanisms
and knowledge creation: we adopted simple
regression to test the relation between organiza-
tional mechanisms and knowledge creation. In
Table 1, p is less than 0.05, which means there is a
statistical significance between organizational
mechanisms and knowledge creation. The standar-
dized beta coefficient ðbÞ shows that organizational
mechanisms have a positive impact on knowledge
creation. Thus OM has positive correlation with
knowledge creation, and hypothesis 3 is substan-
tiated; and
(d) Relationship between the composite effect and
knowledge creation: in order to assess the compo-
site effect of user involvement, cognition, and
organizational mechanisms on knowledge crea-
tion, we adopted stepwise regression analyses.
With the help of this method, we can test the
contribution of each independent variable to the
regression model. As indicated in Tables 2 and 3,
‘organizational mechanisms’ (independent vari-
able) is the best predictor of knowledge creation
(dependent variable), since it was selected first.

Table 2
Stepwise regression analyses of the composite effect (user involvement, cognition, and
organizational mechanisms) on knowledge creation

Model R R2 Adjusted R2 Standard error of estimate Durbin-Watson

Model 1 0.652a 0.426 0.424 6.02

Model 2 0.673b 0.453 0.449 5.88
Model 3 0.679c 0.462 0.456 5.85 2.152&
a: Independent variable: constant and OM
b: Independent variable: constant, OM, and cognition
c: Independent variable: constant, OM, cognition, and user involvement
Dependent variable: knowledge creation

210 Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI 10.1177/0165551504042803

Table 3
Stepwise regression analyses to assess the research model
Dependent variable b t
OM 0.625
Cognition 0.123
User involvement 0.104
Dependent variable: knowledge creation; b: standardized regression coefficient
Note: significance level: ** : p < 0.05; * : p < 0.1
‘User involvement’ is the worst predictor of knowl-
edge creation, because it was selected last by the
stepwise regression analysis. The cumulated var-
iance is 45.6%. All three independent variables
have significant influence on knowledge creation
(at p < 0.05 level). In addition, the composite effect
of ‘user involvement’, ‘cognition’, and ‘organiza-
tional mechanisms’ is positively related to knowl-
edge creation. In order to test the impact of
collinearity, we calculated the tolerance. As shown
in Table 3, the values of tolerance are all close to 1,
which indicates that the interpretation of the
regression variate coefficients should not be
affected adversely by multi-collinearity. In other
words, the results of Table 3 are stable and
generalizable. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is substan-
tiated.
The results of our hypotheses are shown in Table 4.
Figure 2 demonstrates the final conceptual model of
the relationships among user involvement, cognition,
organizational mechanisms and knowledge creation.
We split the sample ðN ¼ 271Þ into two parts at the
medium ‘knowledge creation’ as shown in Table 5. As
indicated in Tables 6 and 7, for the group with more
Fig. 2. Relationships among OM, cognition, user involvement,
and knowledge creation.
Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551504042803
S.W. CHOU AND Y.H. TSAI
P Tolerance
13.876 0.000** 0.975
2.491 0.013** 0.811
2.129 0.034** 0.826
knowledge creation activities, all of the three indepen-
dent variables, i.e. OM, cognition, and user involve-
ment, have significant impact on knowledge creation.
However, for the group with less knowledge creation
activities, only OM has a significant influence on
knowledge creation. These findings indicate that an
individual’s characteristics—involvement and cogni-
tion—have an impact on knowledge creation provided
the organizations have many SECI activities. Whether
the knowledge-creating activities are many or few, OM
demonstrates significant impact on knowledge creation.
4.2. Limitations
There are two limitations in this study. First, the
results might be skewed due to potential response bias
associated with the informants, who are not diverse
enough to provide all the necessary information about
user involvement, cognition of knowledge, and orga-
nizational mechanisms. Diversified informants and
structured methods of triangulation are perhaps the
best methods to obtain appropriate data regarding user
involvement, cognition of knowledge, and organiza-
tional mechanisms. Second, our study may not present
a comprehensive description of individual character-
istics as well as organization mechanisms. We devel-
oped the content of organizational mechanisms
according to Nambisan et al. (1999 [10]), Subramani
et al. (1995 [19]), Zmud (1988 [20]) and Raghunathan
(1992 [25]). In addition, the theory of user involvement
comes from Barki and Hartwick (1989 [3]). We also
employed King and Ko’s (2001 [4]) framework to
represent the cognition of knowledge. Since the
individual and organizational perspectives that may
influence knowledge creation vary a lot, our study only
provides the contingencies that have an impact on
knowledge creation. In order to establish a more
comprehensive model concerning knowledge manage-
ment, we may need more theory and empirical
211
Knowledge creation
Table 4
Results of hypotheses test
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: user involvement in IS is positively related to knowledge
creation.
Hypothesis 2: cognition of knowledge is positively related to knowledge
creation.
Hypothesis 3: the effect of OM is positively related to knowledge creation.
Hypothesis 4: the composite effect of user involvement, cognition, and OM
is positively related to knowledge creation.
research to examine the interrelationships among
individual, organization, and knowledge creation.
5. Conclusion and Discussion
This study investigates the role of individuals and
organizations in facilitating knowledge creation. More
specifically, as stated earlier, we employed user
involvement and cognition of knowledge to represent
the characteristics of individuals (Barki and Hartwick
1989 [3]; Barki and Hartwick 1994 [26]; King and Ko
2001 [4]). In addition, we adopted organizational
mechanisms to represent a variety of design actions
provided by organizations that may influence IT users’
knowledge creation (Nambisan et al. 1999 [10]). Unlike
previous research, this study examines the impact of
both individuals and organizations on knowledge
creation in a more comprehensive way.
From the individual perspective, researchers (Alavi
and Leidner 2001 [8]; Nonaka and Takeuchi 2000 [2])
have identified the critical role that information
systems or information technology play in facilitating
knowledge creation, such as knowledge storage/retrie-
val, knowledge transfer, and knowledge application.
Research also indicates user involvement is a neces-
sary condition for IS success. In addition, according to
King and Ko’s (2001 [4]) knowledge value chain model,
cognition of knowledge plays a critical role in initiat-
Table 5
Knowledge creation groups
Group Low Group High ðN ¼ 141Þ F Sign.
ðN ¼ 130Þ
Mean(3.378) Mean(4.301) 438.61 0.000
212 Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI 10.1177/0165551504042803
Result Reference
Substantiated Table 3, Figure 2
Substantiated Table 3, Figure 2
Substantiated Table 3, Figure 2
Substantiated Table 3, Figure 2
ing knowledge. Although it is reasonable to emphasize
the importance of user involvement and cognition on
knowledge creation, we cannot neglect the impact on
knowledge creation of organizational factors, such as
organizational mechanisms (Alavi and Leidner 2001
[8]; Nambisan et al. 1999 [10]).
Since previous researchers analyzed the factors
influencing the effectiveness of knowledge creation
only from a single viewpoint, i.e. the individual (user
involvement and cognition) or the organizational
(organizational mechanisms) viewpoint, or proposed
a conceptual framework (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995
[1], Nonaka et al. 2000 [2]) without any empirical
experiment to indicate its feasibility, their research is
either not comprehensive or not practical. Our study
avoids such single viewpoint analysis by examining
the influence of both individual and organization on
the effectiveness of knowledge creation. Based on 271
respondents from organizations in manufacturing,
trade, transportation and service industries, computer
industries, finance, and academic institutions, we
found that user involvement, cognition, and organiza-
tional mechanisms are all positively related to the
effect of knowledge creation. As a whole, the compo-
site effect of the aforementioned aspects also exerts a
positive effect on facilitating knowledge creation.
The research results support the theoretical frame-
work shown in Figure 1. In order to identify the
relationships of the components in this framework, we
employed regression analyses. The results are shown
in Figure 2. These results indicate that ‘user involve-
ment’, ‘cognition’, and ‘organizational mechanisms’ all
facilitate knowledge creation. The factor that has the
most significant impact on knowledge creation is
organizational mechanisms. As shown in Table A2,
we identified several activities of OM that facilitate
knowledge creation. The cognition of knowledge also
demonstrates a positive influence on knowledge crea-
 S.W. CHOU AND Y.H. TSAI

Table 6
Pearson correlations for two knowledge creation groups

Group Depend. Var. Knowledge creation (high) Knowledge creation (low)

OM 0.604** 0.369*
Cognition 0.307* 0.045
User involvement 0.274** 0.067
Note: * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05

tion, although the impact is less than that of OM.
Finally, ‘user involvement in IS’ has the least influence
on knowledge creation.
The major contribution of this study is the embodi-
ment of a conceptual framework, which specifies the
relationships among user involvement, cognition of
knowledge, OM, and knowledge creation. We have
seen that the implications of this study for theory
development include extensions and refinement of the
ideas proposed in different streams of research: user
involvement (Barki and Hartwick 1989 [3]), user
cognition of knowledge (King and Ko 2001 [4]),
organizational mechanisms (Nambisan et al. 1999
[10]), as well as knowledge creation (Nonaka and
Takeuchi 1995 [1], Nonaka et al. 2000 [2]).
The implications for the research model in Figure 2
are three-fold. First, as shown in Table 3, user
involvement has a significant impact on knowledge
creation. According to Barki and Hartwick’s definition
(1994 [26]), user involvement is a subjective psycho-
logical state, reflecting the importance and personal
relevance of an object or event. In our study, user
involvement was used to represent the importance and
personal relevance of an IS for a technology user. Since
previous research did not identify the relationship
between user involvement and knowledge creation,
one of the contributions of our study is to demonstrate
that an individual’s subjective judgement of IT influ-
ences the effectiveness of knowledge creation. Since IT
may facilitate knowledge creation (Nonaka et al. 2000
[2]), how to implement and utilize an IS becomes
critical. According to previous research (Debrabander
and Edstrom 1977 [5]; Ives and Olson 1984 [6]; Powers
and Dickson 1973 [7]), user involvement provides a
solution, because it contributes to improving system
quality or acceptance. Combining this argument with
our research result, we therefore argued that user
involvement is a type of ‘ba’, which provides the
appropriate context to facilitate knowledge creation.
Second, we identified another important issue—
cognition of knowledge–belonging to the individual
level, that has an impact on knowledge creation.
According to King and Ko’s (2001 [4]) definition,
cognition of knowledge stands for the willingness to
search and notice new information. They proposed a
framework to specify the critical factors that can
facilitate knowledge management. In this framework,
cognition plays a fundamental role in a knowledge-
creating value chain. In order to create knowledge,
individuals have to be willing first to devote their time
and energy to identify the useful information, and
share their knowledge as well as adopt new knowl-
edge. Our study also shows that individuals who know
how to approach unfamiliar or new problems effec-
tively usually achieve knowledge creation more easily.
As shown in Figure 2, cognition and user involvement
demonstrate almost the same effect on knowledge
creation. Both of them have a positive influence on

Table 7
Stepwise regression analyses for two knowledge creation groups

Group Depend. Var. Knowledge creation (high) Knowledge creation (low)

OM 0.567*** 0.369***
Cognition 0.183*** N.S.
User involvement 0.152** N.S.
Adjusted R square 0.428 0.129
Note: N.S. (not significant); * p < 0.1; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01

Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551504042803 213
Knowledge creation
knowledge creation. According to Nonaka et al’s (2000
[2]) definition, one of the categories of ba is to facilitate
‘interaction’. Knowledge is created through interaction
among individuals or between individuals and their
environments. Since individuals with a higher ‘cogni-
tion of knowledge’ are usually more eager to interact
with other people or environments, they probably
achieve more knowledge creation. Therefore, it seems
that individual cognition is another type of ‘ba’ which
facilitates knowledge creation.
Finally, we identified 18 types of OM in facilitating
knowledge creation as shown in Table A2. These items
stand for a variety of mechanisms from the organiza-
tional perspective that can facilitate IT users’ knowl-
edge. In other words, individuals’ knowledge creation
activities can be encouraged through appropriately
designed mechanisms. According to Nambisan et al.’s
(1999 [10]) definition, some mechanisms can facilitate
the acquisition of context-free knowledge in a firm,
such as subscribing to general and advanced IT
journals and encouraging employees to attend IT
conferences and trade shows. In addition, OM can
help organization members to acquire knowledge
about the applications of IT in the general business/
industry (external) context. They range from acquiring
new IT deployment opportunities from IT conferences/
trade fairs, inviting IT vendors to demonstrate new
technologies and related applications, to cooperating
with external agencies to develop IT applications.
Other types of OM help to acquire knowledge about the
application of IT in an organization’s own (internal)
context and perform knowledge conversion; these
include strategic IT planning teams which can estab-
lish the linkage between a firm’s strategic objectives
and its IS portfolio, customer support units helping
users to channel their feedback to the internal IS group,
or helping users to achieve their day-to-day IS opera-
tions, IT benchmarking projects that sanction surveys
and studies of IT practices in peer/competitor firms,
and the like, see Table A2. These types of OM are very
similar to those of previous researchers’ classifications
of OM (Nambisan et al. 1999 [10]; Nonaka and
Takeuchi 1995 [1]). Our study shows that the compo-
site effects of these types of OM have a positive impact
on knowledge creation. As shown in Figure 2, the
impact of OM on knowledge creation is much higher
than those of ‘user involvement’ and ‘cognition.’
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995 [1]) used SECI to
describe the interaction and conversion between tacit
and explicit knowledge. Another issue of Nonaka and
Takeuchi’s framework is ontological, which is con-
cerned with the levels of knowledge-creating entities
214 Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI 10.1177/0165551504042803
such as individual and organization. Our study
identified the linkage between the modes of knowledge
creation and the various ‘ba’: ‘user involvement’,
‘cognition’, and ‘organizational mechanisms’ (Nonaka
et al. 2000 [2]), which represent a context, place, or
space for creating knowledge. Such linkage is valuable
for managers to establish their knowledge creation
environment. Without our empirical findings on the
relationships between knowledge creation modes and
the appropriate usage of ba, it is less likely that
knowledge creation will be achieved.
As shown in Figure 2, the impact of the three types
of ‘ba’ on knowledge creation is different. The first two
belong to the ‘individual’ ontological category. ‘Orga-
nizational mechanisms’ is the organizational level of
the ontological category. Our findings indicate that the
organizational-level ba has much more influence on
knowledge creation than do individual-level ba. In
summary, our study implies that when the ontological
sphere of knowledge creation becomes broader, i.e.
knowledge-creating entities move from individual
level to organizational level, more knowledge creation
processes will occur. In order to manage and facilitate
knowledge creation effectively, both individual and
organizational level activities are important, however,
the latter are more important than the former. From a
pragmatic standpoint, this study provides guidelines
for those managers who want to establish an environ-
ment to facilitate knowledge exchange and creation.
For development and advancement of theory, we may
need to identify additional categories of individual as
well as organizational-level characteristics, such as
organizational context and IT characteristics that are
relevant to knowledge creation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the comments from
anonymous reviewers who have provided remarkable
insights to improve the quality of this paper. This
project was supported by the National Science Council
(NSC) of Taiwan, R.O.C.
References
[1] I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating
Company (O.U.P., New York, 1995).
[2] I. Nonaka, R. Toyama, and N. Konno, SECI, ba, and
leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge
creation Long Range Planning (32) (2000) 5–34.

[3] H. Barki and J. Hartwick, Rethinking the concept of user
involvement, MIS Quarterly 13(1) (1989) 53–63.
[4] W.R. King and D. Ko, Evaluating knowledge manage-
ment and the learning organisation: an information/
knowledge value chain approach, Communications of
the Association for Information Systems 5(14) (2001) 1–
26.
[5] B. Debrabander and A. Edstrom, Successful information
systems development projects, Management Science
24(2) (1977) 191–199.
[6] B. Ives and M.H. Olson, User involvement and MIS
success: a review of research, Management Science 30(5)
(1984) 586–603.
[7] R.F. Powers and G.W. Dickson, MIS project manage-
ment: myths, opinions, and reality, California Manage-
ment Review 15(3) (1973) 147–156.
[8] M. Alavi and D.E. Leidner, Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems: conceptual founda-
tions and research issues, MIS Quarterly 25(1) (2001)
107–136.
[9] G.P. Huber, Organisation learning: the contributing
processes and the literature, Organisation Science 2(1)
(1991) 88–115.
[10] S. Nambisan, R. Agarwal, and M. Tanniru, Organisa-
tional mechanisms for enhancing user innovation in
information technology, MIS Quarterly 23(3) (1999)
365–395.
[11] I. Nonaka and N. Konno, The concept of ‘ba’: building
foundation for knowledge creation, California Manage-
ment Review 40(3) (1998) 40–54.
[12] C.U. Ciborra, From thinking to tinkering: the grassroots
of strategic information systems. In: J.I. DeGross, I.
Benbasat, G. DeSanctis, and C.M. Beath (eds), Proceed-
ings of the Twelfth International Conference on Infor-
mation Systems (New York, 1991).
[13] C.W. Sherif, M. Sherif, and R.E. Nebergall (eds), Attitude
and Attitude Change (Saunders, Philadelphia, 1965).
[14] H.E. Krugman, The measurement of advertising involve-
ment, Public Opinion Quarterly (30) (1967) 583–596.
Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551504042803
S.W. CHOU AND Y.H. TSAI
[15] E.E. Lawler and D.T. Hall, Relationship of job character-
istics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic
motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology 54(4) (1970)
305–312.
[16] W.M. Cohen and D.A. Levinthal, Absorptive capacity: a
new perspective on learning and innovation, Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly 35(1) (1990) 128–152.
[17] W.R. King and T. Teo, Facilitators and inhibitors for the
strategic use of information technology, Information and
Management 27(2) (1994) 71–81.
[18] E. Druy, An evaluation of data processing steering
committees, MIS Quarterly (8) (1984) 257–265.
[19] M. Subramani, S. Lacono, and J.C. Henderson, Bridging
the IS-line interface: the role of the relationship
manager. In: Proceeding of the First Americas Con-
ference on Information Systems (Pittsburgh, 1995).
[20] R.W. Zmud, Building relationships throughout the
corporate entity. In: J.J. Elam et al. (eds), Transforming
the IS Organisation (ICIT Press, Washington DC, 1988).
[21] S. Nilakanta and R.W. Scamell, The effect of information
sources and communication channels on the diffusion
of innovation in a database development environment,
Management Science 36(1) (1990) 24–40.
[22] J.C. Nunnally (ed.), Psychometric Theory (McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1978).
[23] H. Jain, K. Ramamurthy, H. Rhy, and M. Yasai-
Ardekani, Success of data resource management in
distributed environments: an empirical investigation,
MIS Quarterly 22(1) (1998) 1–29.
[24] J.F. Hair, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, and W.C. Black,
Multivariate Data Analysis (PPC Books, Tulsa, 1998).
[25] T.S. Raghunathan, Impact of the CEO’s participation on
information systems steering committees, Journal of
Management Information Systems 8(4) (1992) 83–96.
[26] H. Barki and J. Hartwick, Measuring user participation,
user involvement, and user attitude, MIS Quarterly 18(1)
(1994) 59–82.
215
Knowledge creation

Appendix

Table A1
Sample demographics

Frequency

Education ðN ¼ 271Þ Percentage (%)

High School 1 0.4

Bachelor 171 63.1
Master 99 36.5
Position*
>3 124 45.8
3 105 38.7
2 36 13.3
1 6 2.2
Experience (years)
<1 10 3.7
1*2 46 17
3*5 76 28
6 * 10 61 22.5
> 10 78 28.8
Functional Area
Computer industries 77 28.4
Finance 41 15.1
Transportation and Service 35 12.9
Manufacturing 52 19.2
Trade 43 15.9
Academic institutions 23 8.5
Note: * In terms of number of positions away from the CEO

216 Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI 10.1177/0165551504042803
 S.W. CHOU AND Y.H. TSAI

Table A2
Factor analysis for organizational mechanisms

No. Item Factor loading

1 Advanced technology group is responsible for maintaining an awareness of, disseminating knowledge 0.702
about, and managing the introduction of new information technologies
2 Subscribe to general IT journals for employees 0.567
3 Subscribe to advanced IT journals for IS managers 0.684
4 Encourage employees to attend IT conferences/trade fairs 0.613
5 Acquire new IT deployment opportunities from IT conferences/trade fairs 0.596
6 Invite IT vendors to demonstrate new technologies and related applications 0.689
7 Cooperate with external agencies to develop IT applications 0.696
8 IT advisory board provides suggestions for IT deployment 0.802
9 IT steering committee provides the priorities for IT deployment 0.793
10 Strategic IT planning team can establish the linkage between a firm’s strategic objectives and its IS 0.766
portfolio
11 IT benchmarking projects sanction surveys and studies of IT practices in peer/competitor firms 0.789
12 IT task group is responsible for the requirement analysis of a new IS 0.783
13 Customer support unit helps users to achieve their day-to-day IS operations 0.752
14 Customer support unit helps users to channel their feedback to the internal IS group 0.730
15 User groups exchange their experiences of IT deployment 0.738
16 User groups provide their feedback to IS managers 0.672
17 User lab is useful for users to experiment with new IT 0.717
18 Relationship manager is responsible for managing the relationships between IS department and end 0.767
users
Eigen value ¼ 9.393; Variance ¼ 24.086; Cumulated Variance ¼ 24.086%; Mean (S.D.) ¼ 3.56(0.95)

Table A3
Factor analysis for user involvement

No. Item Factor loading

How involved are you in using an IS?

1 Essential Non-essential 0.760

2 Trivial Fundamental 0.696
3 Significant Insignificant 0.687
4 Important Unimportant 0.770
5 Not needed Needed 0.708
6 Irrelevant to me Relevant to me 0.654
7 Of no concern to me Of concern to me 0.616
8 Matters to me Does not matter to me 0.458
9 Means nothing to me Means a lot to me 0.632
10 Exciting Unexciting 0.505
11 Of interest to me Of no interest to me 0.497
Eigen value ¼ 4.856; Variance ¼ 12.452; Cumulated Variance ¼ 36.538%; Mean (S.D.) ¼ 3.11(0.86)

Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI: 10.1177/0165551504042803 217
Knowledge creation

Table A4
Factor analysis of knowledge cognition

No. Item Factor loading

1 In order to acquire knowledge, I usually adopt internet, intranet, expert systems, and other search 0.594
engines.
2 In order to search into a problem, I am willing to devote my time to collecting related knowledge. 0.710
3 I can distinguish whether the knowledge is useful or not. 0.760
4 I am willing to search for the related knowledge concerning unfamiliar problems. 0.738
5 I set up the possible goals that I want to achieve when I face a new or unfamiliar problem. 0.504
6 I am willing to share my experiences and knowledge 0.566
7 I can propose innovative ideas when I face a new or unfamiliar problem. 0.527
8 I can design appropriate solutions when I face a new problem. 0.667
9 I usually avoid the same problems coming up in advance. 0.584
10 In order to solve the same problems effectively, I employ the knowledge acquired from experiences. 0.681
Eigen value ¼ 4.838; Variance ¼ 12.404; Cumulated Variance ¼ 48.942%; Mean (S.D.) ¼ 4.04(0.72)

Table A5
Factor analysis of knowledge creation

No. Item Factor loading

1 Trust the information provided by coworkers 0.624

2 Members of task group are willing to share their experience 0.648
3 Sharing knowledge by face-to-face interaction 0.641
4 Sharing individuals’ experience 0.678
5 Employ similar terminology and methodology to solve problems 0.538
6 Employ e-mail for knowledge exchange 0.456
7 Working environment facilitates communication and collaboration 0.731
8 To express knowledge by metaphor or analogy 0.520
9 Members of task group exchange ideas with one another with the help of advanced IT 0.692
10 IS with useful functions to easily access information 0.688
11 Transmit information by advanced IT 0.645
12 Document is standardized 0.598
13 Provide formal training 0.591
14 IS with simulation software 0.564
15 Learning by doing 0.715
Eigen value ¼ 5.887; Variance ¼ 39.246; Cumulated Variance ¼ 39.246%; Mean (S.D.) ¼ 3.80(0.84)

Table A6
Results of the reliability analysis

Construct Variable Cronbach’s a

The composite effect of user involvement,

cognition, and organizational mechanisms
User involvement 0.8584
Cognition 0.8532
Organizational mechanisms 0.9455
Knowledge creation Knowledge creation 0.8848

218 Journal of Information Science, 30 (3) 2004, pp. 205–218 # CILIP, DOI 10.1177/0165551504042803