2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
Determinants of Knowledge Management Behavior
among Academics
Mohamed Jalaldeen Mohamed Razi, Md Habibullah
Department of Information Systems
International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
razimjm@iium.edu.my, hadi691@gmail.com
Abstract— The main focus of this work is to investigate the
predictors of knowledge management (KM) behavior among
university academics within the prevailing organizational
climate. The KM behavior has been operationalized using SECI
process (components of knowledge creation theory). A
hypothetical research framework has been developed based on
TRA, TPB and some related previous works. Survey based
quantitative research approach was used. The data were
collected using a self-administered questionnaire among 156
academic staff comprising different rank from a public university
in Malaysia. After data screening, data reduction and reliability
testing process, linear and stepwise multiple regression analysis
were performed using SPSS. Though most of the hypotheses
proposed were supported by linear regression analysis, only trust
among colleagues and Effort expectancy of KM were emerged as
the strong predictors of KM behavior according to stepwise
multiple regression.
Keywords— Knowledge Management; Knowledge Creation
Theory; Malaysia; SECI; KM Behavior, University
I. INTRODUCTION
Knowledge management (KM) as a discipline growing very
fast and progressing from an established academic discipline
[1] to a reference discipline [2]. Understanding of KM has been
advanced; more knowledge has been accumulated and
documented through publications. Now it is moving forward as
reference field which provides theoretical, conceptual, and
methodological foundation to other disciplines. Accordingly,
different facets of KM have been studied from different angles,
disciplines, and contexts including KM in higher learning
institutional environment in different countries.
The main aim of this study is to investigate the KM
behavior and its predictors among university academics within
the prevailing organizational climate in Malaysia. Though
academicians KM behavior has been investigated extensively
in the recent past, it is still believed more studies are needed in
this area of KM [3]. Among the previous works, most of the
studies focus on knowledge sharing behavior among academic
staff [3-10] and non-academic staff [11]. However, the current
study focuses on KM that includes both knowledge creation
(KC) and knowledge sharing (KS) behavior. We define KM
978-1-5090-6332-1/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
behavior, based on [12], as the involvement in the KM process
(KC and KS) by the organizational individuals (academic staff)
within the prevailing organizational (university) climate
(context). To reflect KC and KS, the KM has been
operationalized through SECI which considered as the basic
initiatives for KC and KS [13-15].
The SECI processes; socialization, externalization,
combination, and internalization, are the elements of
knowledge creation theory that posits an organization creates
knowledge through interactions between explicit knowledge
and tacit knowledge [16] and the knowledge grow in both
quality and quantity during this process of knowledge
conversion [17]. Esterhuizen et.al., [17] explains the SECI
process as follow; the process of tacit knowledge transfers to
tacit knowledge called socialization. As tacit knowledge is time
and space specific, and difficult to formalize, through shared
experience only it can be converted and shared. Similarly, the
process of explicit knowledge transfer to tacit knowledge
called externalization. Knowledge is formed when tacit
knowledge is articulated into explicit knowledge. This allows it
to be shared by others, and it then becomes the basis of new
knowledge. The process of transferring explicit knowledge to
more complex and systematic sets of explicit knowledge is
termed as combination. Explicit knowledge is gathered
internally in or external to the enterprise and then combined,
edited or processed to form new knowledge, which is then
disseminated among the members of the enterprise. Likewise,
the process of explicit to tacit knowledge transfer is considered
as internalization, which is closely related to ‘learning by
doing’. Created explicit knowledge is shared throughout an
enterprise and converted into tacit knowledge by individuals as
they embody it.
Therefore, the aim of this study to understands the KM
behavior and its predictors among academicians by
operationalizing the KM behavior by means of the SECI
process which is considered as the rout process of KM in an
organizational context [16]. Indeed, there was a similar kind of
effort [18] taken among academician previously, however, it
only measures the intention towards KM. The subsequent
section explain the research framework used in this study and
followed by a section that explain the methodology used and
741
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
the findings. The final section concludes the paper with a The relationship of IT and KM behavior well explained [14,
concluding remark. 33] in the academic environment as well [3, 4, 18].
II. RESEARCH FRAMEWORK H4a: IT Support will positively influence KM Intention
The conceptual framework for this study was developed H4b: IT Support will positively influence KM behavior
based on TRA [19] and TPB [20] that posits human intention
Performance Expectancy (PE) of KM means the degree to
will leads to their behavior. The conceptual model was
which an individual believes that involvement in KM processes
operationalized on the basis of previous related works [13, 21-
will help him/her to attain gains in job performance [24]. The
24]. For this study the KM behavior means the involvement in
works of [18, 34, 35] suggest the following relationship.
the SECI process by the academic staff within the prevailing
university cultural, structural and technical context. The H5a: PE of KM will positively influence KM Intention
socialization process refers to conversion of tacit knowledge to
new tacit knowledge through social interactions and shared H5b: PE of KM will positively influence KM behavior
experience among organizational members [25] while Effort Expectancy (EE) of KM explains the degree of ease
externalization means the expression of tacit knowledge and its associated with the involvement in KM process [24]. The
conversion into comprehensible forms that is easier to influence of effort expectancy on behavior is obvious [24, 36]
understand [26]. Similarly the combination process collect
explicit knowledge from inside or outside the organization and H6a: EE of KM will positively influence KM intention
then combined, edited, or processed to form more complex and H6b: EE of KM will positively influence KM behavior
systematic explicit knowledge and the internalization can be
understood as praxis, where knowledge is applied and used in Based on TRA [19] and TPB [20] the following hypothesis
practical situations and becomes the base for new routines [27]. formulated.
Trust among colleagues, top management support, H7: KM intention will positively influence KM behavior
decentralization of decision making process, and availability of Based on these arguments a hypothetical research model
Information Technology (IT) support are considered as the was developed as shown in Figure 1.
elements of organizational climate. To denote individual
acceptance, performance expectancy of KM (PE of KM) and
effort expectancy of KM (EE of KM) are incorporated.
Trust refers to the degree of reciprocal faith among the
colleagues in terms of intention and behavior within the
organization [21]. The positive relationship between trust and
KM has been established [28, 29] including in academic setups
[8].
H1a: Trust will positively influence KM intention
H1b: Trust will positively influence KM behavior
Management support means the degree of support from top
managers for KM through providing guidance and necessary
resources [22]. The effect of management support and KM
oriented leadership towards KM behavior has been elaborated
[1, 30] even in higher educational institutions [3].
Fig. 1. Research Model
H2a: Management Support will positively influence KM
intention
H2b: Management Support will positively influence KM III. METHODLOGY
behavior
A survey based quantitative research approach was used in
Decentralization refers to a management structure that this study. Accordingly a self-administered paper based
emphasizes employee autonomy and participation in decision questionnaire was used to collect data from 156 academics
making [23]. The positive effects of decentralization on KM from a public university in Malaysia. The respondents belongs
behavior acknowledged [31, 32]. to different academic ranks; Lecturers (25.6%), Assistant
Professor (35.9%), Associate Professor (23.1%), and Professor
H3a: Decentralization will positively influence KM (15.4%). The questionnaire items were adapted from previous
intention studies [13, 21-24]. Respondents were asked to indicate (on a
H3b: Decentralization will positively influence KM 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to
behavior “strongly agree”) their level of agreements on statements.
SPSS 16.0 was used for data analysis. Principal components
IT Support denotes to the degree of availability of IT factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha test were performed to
support for KM process initiatives within the organization [13]. examine the validity and reliability. The results are shown in

742
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
table 1. Factor loadings are well above the threshold value of Mgt. Support 0. 782
0.45 except EXT2B and EXT4B, and these items were MGT1,MGT2, 0.793, 0.842,
eliminated from further analysis. The Cronbach's alpha values MGT3 0.869
are also above 0.7 except for the variable PE of KM (0.4). Average ‘Mgt. Support’
5.77 0. 73
Nevertheless, the variable was considered for the further Score
Decentralization 0.823
analysis as the items were adapted from a reliable and robust
model of UTAUT [24]. Dec.1,Dec.2, 0.724, 0.834,
Dec.3,Dec.4 0.846, 0.830
IV. FINDINGS Average 5.76 0.75
‘Decentralization’ Score
Findings of descriptive analysis, as shown in Table I, IT Support 0.824
reveals that the respondents on average agree that they trust (ȝ
ITS1,ITS2, 0.777, 0845,
=5.93, ı=.55) their colleagues in the organization and agree ITS3,ITS4 0.832, 0.786
their top level managers are very supportive (ȝ =5.77, ı=.73) Average ‘IT Support’ 5.84 0.72
for KM behavior. Furthermore, they believe their respective Score
organizations follow decentralized (ȝ =5.76, ı=.75) decision PE of KM 0.420
making structure and provide enough IT support (ȝ =5.84, PE1,PE2, 0.720, 0.701,
ı=.72) for KM activities. The responded realized the PE3,PE4 0.464, 0.653
importance of KM for their performance improvement (ȝ Average ‘PE of KM’ 5.96 1.76
=5.96, ı=1.76) and believe it needs less effort (ȝ =6.06, ı=.50) Score
EE of KM 0.786
to involve in KM practices. Moreover, the important findings
of descriptive analysis is that the respondents are intend to EE1,EE2, 0.826, 0.823,
involve in KM (KM Intention) (ȝ =6.10, ı=.41) and they really EE3,EE4 0.651, 0.814
Average ‘EE of KM’ 6.06 0.50
practice KM behavior (ȝ =6.02, ı=.47) in their work. The Score
findings suggest that the prevailing organizational climate at KM Intention 0.873
this university is very supportive for KM implementation.
SOC1I,SOC2I, 0.505, 0.459,
After the descriptive analysis, with the intention of testing SOC3I,SOC4I 0.570, 0.582
the hypotheses, both linear regression and stepwise (multiple) EXT1I,EXT2I, 0.661, 0.628,
EXT3I,EXT4I 0.675, 0.742
regression analysis were performed. The findings of linear COM1I,COM2I, 0.649, 0.604,
regression analysis are shown in table II. It explains the COM3I,COM4I 0.638, 0.540
relationship between one dependent variable and one INT1I,INT2I, 0.518, 0.463,
independent variable at given time. Accordingly, each INT3I,INT4I 0.531, 0.621
independent variable was entered to regression models with Average ‘KM Intention’ 6.10 0.41
Score
dependent variables, KM intention and KM behavior,
KM Behavior 0.866
separately. Accordingly, trust among the colleagues, PE of KM
and EE of KM were became the predictors of KM intention. SOC1B,SOC2B, 0.594, 0.508,
SOC3B,SOC4B 0.552, 0.571
However, when the KM behavior was considered as dependent EXT1B,EXT3B, 0.628, 0.481
variable, in addition to those three variables, decentralized
decision making structure also became the predictor. Perhaps, COM1B,COM2B, 0.626, 0.777,
COM3B,COM4B 0.621, 0.588
the respondents might have thought that decentralization might INT1B,INT2B, 0.614, 0.704,
not be important for KM application when they perceive that INT3B,INT4B 0.522, 0.623
they will involve in KM, however, when they really involve Average ‘KM Behavior’ 6.02 0.47
with it they might have realized the significant effects. Score
Management support, and IT support, though expected as
predictors of KM intention, and KM behavior, became non-
significant. The different nature of academic world from TABLE II. RESULTS OF LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS
business industry might be the reason for the rejection of Independent Dependent Variable
hypotheses as the hypotheses were formulated, mainly, based Variable
on industry based literature. KM Intention KM Behavior
Beta t Sig. Beta t Sig.
Trust 0.504 7.247 0.000 0.427 5.863 0.000
Mgt. Support 0.095 1.187 0.237 0.072 0.890 0.375
TABLE I. RESULTS OF DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS, FACTOR LOADINGS, Decentralization 0.064 0.797 0.426 0.216 2.750 0.007
AND RELIABILITY IT Support 0.107 1.338 0.183 0.169 2.128 0.035
Std. PE of KM 0.212 2.696 0.008 0.175 2.200 0.029
Mean Factor Alpha EE of KM 0.509 7.341 0.000 0.479 6.764 0.000
Item Dev.
(ȝ) Loadings (Į) KM Intention 0.587 8.991 0.000
(ı)
Trust 0.747
Trust1,Trust2, 0.802, 0.880, Then with an intention of examining the simultaneous
Trust3,Trust4 0.772, 0.551 effect of independent variables on dependent variables,
Average ‘Trust’ Score 5.93 0.55
stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed. The

743
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
analysis was performed twice separately, considering KM
intention and KM behaviors as dependent variable. The results
are shown in table III. Similar to the findings of linear
regression analysis, the stepwise multiple regression also
provide a mixed output. Trust, decentralization, PE of KM and
EE of KM became the prominent predictors of KM intention
while only trust and EE of KM evolved significant predictors
of KM behavior. Accordingly, Trust and EE of KM are the
common significant predictors of KM intention and KM
behavior among the selected university academics.
regardless of availability of IT facilities that might have
influenced the irrelevancy of IT support. As the findings
suggest if the policy makers want to make sure the academics
exhibit KM behavior, they have to take measures to develop a
trust culture among academics and develop a decentralized
decision making organizational structure. Furthermore, it has to
be inculcated among the academics that involvement in KM
behavior would enhance their performance in their profession
and it would need very less effort and would easy to adapt to
KM culture.

TABLE III. RESULTS OF MULTIPLE (STEPWISE) REGRESSION ANALYSIS The finding of this study can be an addition to the rich
KM literature and might be a good guidance to the decision
Independent Dependent Variable makers or policy makers of higher educational institutions in
Variable
Malaysia. However, the research framework proposed in this
KM Intention KM Behavior
Beta t Sig. Beta t Sig.
study has to be tested at different organizations with different
Trust 0.476 7.305 0.000 0.329 4.816 0.000 samples and sample size to generalize the findings with strong
Mgt. Support -0.040 -0.436 0.663 -0.131 -1.884 0.061 confidence level.
Decentralization -0.190 -2.946 0.004 0.019 0.262 0.794
IT Support -0.104 -1.107 0.270 -0.060 -0.840 0.402 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
PE of KM 0.149 2.450 0.015 0.114 1.708 0.090 This work has been supported through International Islamic
EE of KM 0.404 6.395 0.000 0.397 5.816 0.000
University Malaysia Research Initiative Grant Scheme
(RIGS16-148-0312).
Based on these analyses, the summary of hypotheses tests
are shown in Table IV.
REFERENCES
TABLE IV. SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES TESTS
Hypotheses Based on Based on [1] M. J. Donate and J. D. S. de Pablo, "The role of knowledge-oriented
Linear Regression Stepwise Regression leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation," Journal
H1a Supported Supported of Business Research, vol. 68, pp. 360-370, 2015.
H1b Supported Supported
[2] A. Serenko and N. Bontis, "The intellectual core and impact of the
H2a Not Supported Not Supported
knowledge management academic discipline," Journal of Knowledge
H2b Not Supported Not Supported Management, vol. 17, pp. 137-155, 2013.
H3a Not Supported Not Supported
H3b Supported Not Supported [3] S. Devi Ramachandran, S.-C. Chong, and K.-Y. Wong, "Knowledge
H4a Not Supported Not Supported management practices and enablers in public universities: a gap
H4b Supported Not Supported analysis," Campus-Wide Information Systems, vol. 30, pp. 76-94, 2013.
H5a Supported Supported [4] M. Mahmoud, A. M. Rasli, M. F. bin Othman, and B. M. Abdulahad,
H5b Supported Not Supported "The effect of organizational culture on knowledge sharing among
H6a Supported Supported academic staff holding an administrative position in university," Journal
H6b Supported Supported Of Management Info, vol. 3, pp. 67-83, 2014.
H7 Supported -
[5] M. Sadiq Sohail and S. Daud, "Knowledge sharing in higher education
institutions: Perspectives from Malaysia," VINE, vol. 39, pp. 125-142,
2009.
V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION FINDINGS
[6] A. Jolaee, K. Md Nor, N. Khani, and R. Md Yusoff, "Factors affecting
The findings reveal that the respondents believe trust knowledge sharing intention among academic staff," International
among the peers, top management support, decentralized Journal of Educational Management, vol. 28, pp. 413-431, 2014.
structure, and IT support exist in their respective organization [7] C. Wei Chong, Y. Yen Yuen, and G. Chew Gan, "Knowledge sharing of
and they believe involvement in KM behavior is easy and academic staff: A comparison between private and public universities in
useful in their career. Both linear regression and stepwise Malaysia," Library Review, vol. 63, pp. 203-223, 2014.
regression analysis suggest that among the predictors [8] C. N.-L. Tan and S. Md. Noor, "Knowledge management enablers,
(independent variables) trust, decentralization, PE of KM, and knowledge sharing and research collaboration: a study of knowledge
EE of KM are the significant factors that positively influence management at research universities in Malaysia," Asian Journal of
Technology Innovation, vol. 21, pp. 251-276, 2013.
the KM intention and KM behavior. The rejection of
hypotheses related to top management support and IT support [9] K. K. Jain, M. S. Sandhu, and G. K. Sidhu, "Knowledge sharing among
as significant predictors align with previous findings [8]. academic staff: A case study of business schools in Klang Valley,
Malaysia," 2007.
The nature of the academic profession which is a self- [10] T. Ramayah, J. A. Yeap, and J. Ignatius, "Assessing knowledge sharing
driven and highly independent (autonomy) might be the reason among academics a validation of the Knowledge Sharing Behavior Scale
for insignificance of top management support. Similarly, (KSBS)," Evaluation review, vol. 38, pp. 160-187, 2014.
naturally the academic profession demands to be involved in [11] M. S. Rahman, A. M. Osmangani, N. M. Daud, and F. A. M.
teaching (dissemination) and learning (seeking) knowledge AbdelFattah, "Knowledge sharing behaviors among non academic staff

744
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)
of higher learning institutions: Attitude, subjective norms and behavioral
intention embedded model," Library Review, vol. 65, pp. 65-83, 2016.
[12] M. Razi and N. Karim, "An Instrument to Assess Organizational
Readiness to Implement Knowledge Management Process," in
Knowledge Management International Conference 2010 (KMICe2010),
2010.
[13] H. Lee and B. Choi, "Knowledge management enablers, processes, and
organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical
examination," Journal of management information systems, vol. 20, pp.
179-228, 2003.
[14] W. Teerajetgul and C. Charoenngam, "Factors inducing knowledge
creation: empirical evidence from Thai construction projects,"
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 13, pp.
584-599, 2006.
[15] I. Becerra-Fernandez, A. Gonzalez, and R. Sabherwal, Knowledge
Management: Challenges, 2004.
[16] I. Nonaka, P. Byosiere, C. C. Borucki, and N. Konno, "Organizational
knowledge creation theory: a first comprehensive test," International
Business Review, vol. 3, pp. 337-351, 1994.
[17] D. Esterhuizen, C. S. Schutte, and A. Du Toit, "Knowledge creation
processes as critical enablers for innovation," International Journal of
Information Management, vol. 32, pp. 354-364, 2012.
[18] M. J. M. Razi, N. S. A. Karim, and N. Mohamed, "Knowledge
management readiness measurement: Case study at institution of higher
learning in Malaysia," in 2011 International Conference on Research and
Innovation in Information Systems, 2011, pp. 1-5.
[19] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An
introduction to theory and research: Addison-Wesley, 1975.
[20] I. Ajzen, "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational behavior and
human decision processes, vol. 50, pp. 179-211, 1991.
[21] S. Y. Choi, Y. S. Kang, and H. Lee, "The effects of socio-technical
enablers on knowledge sharing: an exploratory examination," Journal of
Information Science, vol. 34, p. 742, 2008.
[22] H. F. Lin, "Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: an
empirical study," International Journal of Manpower, vol. 28, pp. 315-
332, 2007.
[23] G. Meirovich, Y. Brender-Ilan, and A. Meirovich, "Quality of hospital
service: the impact of formalization and decentralization," International
Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, vol. 20, pp. 240-252, 2007.
[24] V. Venkatesh, M. G. Morris, G. B. Davis, and F. D. Davis, "User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view," MIS
quarterly, pp. 425-478, 2003.
[25] M. Alavi and D. E. Leidner, "Review: Knowledge management and
knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research
issues," MIS quarterly, pp. 107-136, 2001.
[26] I. Becerra-Fernandez and R. Sabherwal, "Organizational knowledge
management: A contingency perspective," Journal of management
information systems, vol. 18, pp. 23-55, 2001.
[27] I. Nonaka and R. Toyama, "The knowledge-creating theory revisited:
knowledge creation as a synthesizing process," Knowledge Management
Research &# 38; Practice, vol. 1, pp. 2-10, 2003.
[28] C. Chen and S. Hung, "To give or to receive? Factors influencing
members' knowledge sharing and community promotion in professional
virtual communities," Information & Management, vol. 47, pp. 226-236,
2010.
[29] M. R. Lee and Y. C. Lan, "Toward a unified knowledge management
model for SMEs," Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38, pp. 729-
735, 2011.
[30] J. M. Pawlowski and M. Bick, "The global knowledge management
framework: Towards a theory for knowledge management in globally
distributed settings," Leading Issues in Knowledge Management,
Volume Two, vol. 2, p. 134, 2015.
[31] C. Chen and J. Huang, "How organizational climate and structure affect
knowledge management--The social interaction perspective,"
International Journal of Information Management, vol. 27, pp. 104-118,
2007.
[32] A. Willem and M. Buelens, "Knowledge sharing in inter-unit
cooperative episodes: The impact of organizational structure
dimensions," International Journal of Information Management, vol. 29,
pp. 151-160, 2009.
[33] J. F. Cohen and K. Olsen, "Knowledge management capabilities and
firm performance: A test of universalistic, contingency and
complementarity perspectives," Expert Systems with Applications, vol.
42, pp. 1178-1188, 2015.
[34] W. Li, "Virtual knowledge sharing in a cross-cultural context," Journal
of Knowledge Management, vol. 14, pp. 38-50, 2010.
[35] N. Behringer and K. Sassenberg, "Introducing social media for
knowledge management: Determinants of employees’ intentions to
adopt new tools," Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 48, pp. 290-296,
2015.
[36] M. Razi, "Applicability of technology acceptance in knowledge
management implementation," in The 6th International Conference on
Information Technology (ICIT 2013), Amman, Jordan, 2013.
745