Skip to main content

The effects of interaction between team climates and KMS value perception on knowledge activities: a multilevel socio-technical systems approach

Abstract

As individuals are the actual agents of knowledge management (KM) activities, they are influenced by the technical and social aspects of an organization. The effects of social and technical aspects on KM, however, have either been studied separately, or one aspect has been emphasized over the other. This study used the multilevel approach to investigate the interaction between technical and social systems within the work system of KM by examining how the social system moderates the effects of the technical system on KM activities. The social system is operationalized as a team climate, which is the socially shared perception among members within a team, whereas the technical system is operationalized as the perceived value of the KM systems (KMS), which is the technical information system that deals with organizational knowledge and is realized in the work setting in the form of the perception of individuals. We conducted a field study that involved 80 teams of 419 individuals from three knowledge-intensive companies. A hierarchical linear model was employed to analyze the multilevel structure: individual-level KMS perceptions for operational support and strategic decision support, and KM activities with the team-level affective and innovative climates. Our findings show that the innovative team climate magnifies the effect of the perceived KMS value of individuals for strategic decision support on their knowledge adoption; whereas, the affective climate strengthens the effect of the perceived KMS value of individuals for operational support on their knowledge transformation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Grant RM (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organ Sci 7(4):375–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Trist E (1981) The evolution of socio-technical systems, vol 2. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17(S2):109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Abdullah R, Selamat MH, Sahibudin S, Alias RA (2005) A framework for knowledge management system implementation in collaborative environment for higher learning institution. J Knowl Manag Pract 6(1):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lamb R, Kling R (2003) Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Q 27(2):197–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bostrom RP, Heinen JS (1977) MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective. Part I: the causes. MIS Q 1(3):17–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Fischer G, Herrmann T (2011) Socio-technical systems: a meta-design perspective. Int J Sociotechnol Knowl Dev 3(1):1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Kulkarni UR, Ravindran S, Freeze R (2007) A knowledge management success model: theoretical development and empirical validation. J Manag Inf Syst 23(3):309–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Del Giudice M, Della Peruta MR (2016) The impact of IT-based knowledge management systems on internal venturing and innovation: a structural equation modeling approach to corporate performance. J Knowl Manag 20(3):484–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG, Lee JN (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Q 29:87–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Xiaojun Z (2017) Knowledge management system use and job performance: a multilevel contingency model. MIS Q 41(3):811–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Furlan A, Galeazzo A, Paggiaro A (2019) Organizational and perceived learning in the workplace: a multilevel perspective on employees’ problem solving. Organ Sci 30(2):280–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Li X, Zhang J, Zhang S, Zhou M (2017) A multilevel analysis of the role of interactional justice in promoting knowledge-sharing behavior: the mediated role of organizational commitment. Ind Mark Manag 62:226–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Pan SL, Scarbrough H (1998) A socio-technical view of knowledge-sharing at Buckman Laboratories. J Knowl Manag 2(1):55–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Maruping LM, Magni M (2012) What’s the weather like? The effect of team learning climate, empowerment climate, and gender on individuals’ technology exploration and use. J Manag Inf Syst 29(1):79–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Glomb TM, Liao H (2003) Interpersonal aggression in work groups: social influence, reciprocal, and individual effects. Acad Manag J 46(4):486–496

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Alavi M, Leidner DE (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q 25(1):107–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Pasmore W, Francis C, Haldeman J, Shani A (1982) Sociotechnical systems: a North American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies. Hum Relat 35(12):1179–1204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Lyytinen K, Newman M (2008) Explaining information systems change: a punctuated socio-technical change model. Eur J Inf Syst 17:589–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Geels FW (2005) The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technol Anal Strateg Manag 17(4):445–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Hsu MH, Chang CM (2014) Examining interpersonal trust as a facilitator and uncertainty as an inhibitor of intra-organisational knowledge sharing. Inf Syst J 24(2):119–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Chang Y-W, Hsu P-Y, Shiau W-L, Tsai C-C (2015) Knowledge sharing intention in the United States and China: a cross-cultural study. Eur J Inf Syst 24(3):262–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Boh WF, Wong SS (2013) Organizational climate and perceived manager effectiveness: influencing perceived usefulness of knowledge sharing mechanisms. J Assoc Inf Syst 14(3):122–152

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Wasko MM, Faraj S (2005) Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Q 29(1):35–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Alavi M, Kayworth TR, Leidner DE (2005) An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. J Manag Inf Syst 22(3):191–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Handzic M (2011) Integrated socio-technical knowledge management model: an empirical evaluation. J Knowl Manag 15(2):198–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Borgatti SP, Cross R (2003) A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Manag Sci 49(4):432–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Zhang X (2017) Knowledge management system use and job performance: a multilevel contingency model. MIS Q 41(3):811–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Jahmani K, Fadiya SO, Abubakar AM, Elrehail H (2018) Knowledge content quality, perceived usefulness, KMS use for sharing and retrieval: a flock leadership application. VINE J Inf Knowl Manag Syst 48(4):470–490

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Davison RM, Martinsons MG (2016) Context is king! Considering particularism in research design and reporting. J Inf Technol 31(3):241–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Teigland R, Wasko M (2009) Knowledge transfer in MNCs: examining how intrinsic motivations and knowledge sourcing impact individual centrality and performance. J Int Manag 15(1):15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2008.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Shrivastava P (1983) A typology of organizational learning systems. J Manag Stud 20(1):7–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Sveiby K-E, Simons R (2002) Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work—an empirical study. J Knowl Manag 6(5):420–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Gray PH (2000) The effects of knowledge management systems on emergent teams: towards a research model. J Strat Inf Syst 9(2):175–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kim SH, Mukhopadhyay T, Kraut RE (2016) When does repository KMS use lift performance? The role of alternative knowledge sources and task environments. MIS Q 40(1):133–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Zhang X, Venkatesh V (2017) A nomological network of knowledge management system use: antecedents and consequences. MIS Q 41(4):1275–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Anthony RN (1965) Management planning and control systems: a framework for analysis. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Park Y, Kim S (2006) Knowledge management system for fourth generation R&D: KNOWVATION. Technovation 26(5–6):595–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.10.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Molloy S, Schwenk CR (1995) The effects of information technology on strategic decision making. J Manag Stud 32(3):283–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Floyd SW, Lane PJ (2000) Strategizing throughout the organization: managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Acad Manag Rev 25(1):154–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Wijnhoven F (2003) Operational knowledge management: identification of knowledge objects, operation methods, and goals and means for the support function. J Oper Res Soc 54(2):194–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Facteau JD, Dobbins GH, Russell JE, Ladd RT, Kudisch JD (1995) The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. J Manag 21(1):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ashkanasy NM, Wilderom CP, Peterson MF (2000) Handbook of organizational culture and climate. SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kozlowski SW, Klein KJ (2000) A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein KJ, Koslowski SW (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp 3–90

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Rousseau DM (1985) Issues of level in organizational research: multi-level and cross-level perspectives. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 7. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 1–37

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (2001) Reflections on shared cognition. J Organ Behav 22(2):195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Ostroff C (1993) The effects of climate and personal influences on individual behavior and attitudes in organizations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 56(1):56–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1995) Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad Manag Rev 20(2):343–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Chen C-J, Huang J-W (2007) How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management—the social interaction perspective. Int J Inf Manag 27(2):104–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Chen C-J, Huang J-W, Hsiao Y-C (2010) Knowledge management and innovativeness: the role of organizational climate and structure. Int J Manpow 31(8):848–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Islam MZ, Jasimuddin SM, Hasan I (2017) The role of technology and socialization in linking organizational context and knowledge conversion: the case of malaysian service organizations. Int J Inf Manag 37(5):497–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Oliver RL, Anderson E (1994) An empirical test of the consequences of behavior-and outcome-based sales control systems. J Mark 58(4):53–67

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Shadur MA, Kienzle R, Rodwell JJ (1999) The relationship between organizational climate and employee perceptions of involvement: the importance of support. Group Org Manag 24(4):479–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Kim MJ, Choi JN, Lee K (2016) Trait affect and individual creativity: Moderating roles of affective climate and reflexivity. Soc Behav Personal Int J 44(9):1477–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    West MA, Richter AW (2008) Climates and cultures for innovation and creativity at work. In: Zhou J, Shalley CE (eds) Handbook of organizational creativity. Erlbaum, New York, pp 211–236

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Hurley RF, Hult GTM (1998) Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. J Market 62:42–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Gray RJ (2001) Organisational climate and project success. Int J Project Manag 19(2):103–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Hammedi W, Van Riel AC, Sasovova Z (2013) Improving screening decision making through transactive memory systems: a field study. J Prod Innov Manag 30(2):316–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lin C-P, Liu C-M, Liu N-T, Huang H-T (2020) Being excellent teams: managing innovative climate, politics, and team performance. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell 31(3–4):353–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Basaglia S, Caporarello L, Magni M, Pennarola F (2010) IT knowledge integration capability and team performance: the role of team climate. Int J Inf Manag 30(6):542–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Hoegl M, Parboteeah KP, Munson CL (2003) Team-level antecedents of individuals’ knowledge networks*. Decis Sci 34(4):741–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Liao S-H, Chang W-J, Hu D-C, Yueh Y-L (2012) Relationships among organizational culture, knowledge acquisition, organizational learning, and organizational innovation in Taiwan’s banking and insurance industries. Int J Hum Resour Manag 23(1):52–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Bibi S, Khan A, Qian H, Garavelli AC, Natalicchio A, Capolupo P (2020) Innovative climate, a determinant of competitiveness and business performance in Chinese law firms: the role of firm size and age. Sustainability 12(12):4948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Lee J, Min J, Kwak C, Pee L, Lee H (2019) Share or send and receive? The impact of team knowledge outflow/inflow with IT support on performance. J Knowl Manag 23(8):1523–1542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Barczak G, Sultan F, Hultink EJ (2007) Determinants of IT usage and new product performance. J Prod Innov Manag 24(6):600–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Kang JH, Solomon GT, Choi DY (2015) CEOs’ leadership styles and managers’ innovative behaviour: investigation of intervening effects in an entrepreneurial context. J Manag Stud 52(4):531–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Lai VS, Mahapatra RK (1997) Exploring the research in information technology implementation. Inf Manag 32(4):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Jasperson J, Carter PE, Zmud RW (2005) A comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Q 29(3):525–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Hsieh JP-A (2007) Explaining employees’ extended use of complex information systems. Eur J Inf Syst 16:216–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Ke W, Tan C-H, Sia C-L, Wei K-K (2012) Inducing intrinsic motivation to explore the enterprise system: the supremacy of organizational levers. J Manag Inf Syst 29(3):257–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Liang H, Peng Z, Xue Y, Guo X, Wang N (2015) Employees’ exploration of complex systems: an integrative view. J Manag Inf Syst 32(1):322–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Acur N, Kandemir D, De Weerd-Nederhof PC, Song M (2010) Exploring the impact of technological competence development on speed and NPD program performance. J Prod Innov Manag 27(6):915–929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Cai Z, Liu H, Huang Q, Liang L (2019) Developing organizational agility in product innovation: the roles of IT capability, KM capability, and innovative climate. R&D Manag 49(4):421–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Liang H, Xue Y, Ke W, Wei KK (2010) Understanding the influence of team climate on IT use. J Assoc Inf Syst 11(8):414–432

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Gatian AW, Brown RM, Hicks JO Jr (1995) Organizational innovativeness, competitive strategy and investment success. J Strat Inf Syst 4(1):43–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Kellermanns FW, Eddleston KA, Sarathy R, Murphy F (2012) Innovativeness in family firms: a family influence perspective. Small Bus Econ 38(1):85–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Sandhawalia BS, Dalcher D (2011) Developing knowledge management capabilities: a structured approach. J Knowl Manag 15:313–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Liu S, Deng Z (2015) Understanding knowledge management capability in business process outsourcing. Manag Decis 53:124–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    González-Romá V, Peiró JM, Subirats M, Mañas MA (2000) The validity of affective work team climates. In: Vartiainen M, Avallone F, Anderson N (eds) Innovative theories, tools and practices in work and organizational psychology. Hogrefe & Huber, Göttingen, pp 97–109

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Gray JA (1990) Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cogn Emot 4(3):269–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Collins AL, Lawrence SA, Troth AC, Jordan PJ (2013) Group affective tone: a review and future research directions. J Organ Behav 34(S1):S43–S62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Sy T, Côté S, Saavedra R (2005) The contagious leader: impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. J Appl Psychol 90(2):295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Tran V (1998) The role of the emotional climate in learning organisations. Learn Organ 5:99–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Amabile TM, Conti R, Coon H, Lazenby J, Herron M (1996) Assessing the work environment for creativity. Acad Manag J 39(5):1154–1184

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Maimone F, Sinclair M (2010) Affective climate, organizational creativity, and knowledge creation: case study of an automotive company. In: Zerbe WJ, Hartel CEJ, Ashkanasy NM (eds) Emotions and organizational dynamism. Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, pp 309–332

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Edmondson A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q 44(2):350–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Bierhoff HW, Müller GF (1999) Positive feelings and cooperative support in project groups. Swiss J Psychol 58(3):180–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Xue Y, Bradley J, Liang H (2011) Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. J Knowl Manag 15(2):299–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Estrada CA, Isen AM, Young MJ (1997) Positive affect facilitates integration of information and decreases anchoring in reasoning among physicians. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 72(1):117–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    George JM, King EB (2007) Potential pitfalls of affect convergence in teams: functions and dysfunctions of group affective tone. In: Mannix EA, Neale MA, Anderson CP (eds) Research on managing groups and teams, vol 10. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 97–124

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Bloodgood JM, Salisbury WD (2001) Understanding the influence of organizational change strategies on information technology and knowledge management strategies. Decis Support Syst 31(1):55–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Butler T, Murphy C (2007) Understanding the design of information technologies for knowledge management in organizations: a pragmatic perspective. Inf Syst J 17(2):143–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Bryk AS, Raudenbush SW (1992) Hierarchical linear models for social and behavioral research: applications and data analysis methods. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Hofmann DA, Griffin MA, Gavin MB (2000) The application of hierarchical linear modeling to organizational research. In: Klein KJ, Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: foundations, extensions, and new directions. Wiley, San Francisco, pp 467–511

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J Appl Psychol 69(1):85–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Fowler F (1993) Survey research methods, 2nd edn. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14(3):396–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1998) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Acad Market Sci 16(1):74–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Wixom BH, Todd PA (2005) A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Inf Syst Res 16(1):85–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag 12(4):531–544

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q, Xue Y (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effects of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Q 31(1):59–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Mehta A, Mehta N (2018) Knowledge integration and team effectiveness: a team goal orientation approach. Decis Sci 49(3):445–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Hall R, Andriani P (2003) Managing knowledge associated with innovation. J Bus Res 56(2):145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Brockmann EN, Anthony WP (2002) Tacit knowledge and strategic decision making. Group Org Manag 27(4):436–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Durcikova A, Fadel KJ, Butler BS, Galletta DF (2011) Knowledge exploration and exploitation: the impacts of psychological climate and knowledge management system access. Inf Syst Res 22(4):855–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Kettinger WJ, Li Y, Davis JM, Kettinger L (2015) The roles of psychological climate, information management capabilities, and IT support on knowledge-sharing: an MOA perspective. Eur J Inf Syst 24(1):59–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Snijders T, Bosker R (1999) Multilevel analysis: an introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Sabherwal R, Chan YE (2001) Alignment between business and IS strategies: a study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders. Inf Syst Res 12(1):11–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH (2001) Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 18(1):185–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Flatten TC, Engelen A, Zahra SA, Brettel M (2011) A measure of absorptive capacity: scale development and validation. Eur Manag J 29(2):98–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Tse HHM, Dasborough MT, Ashkanasy NM (2008) A multi-level analysis of team climate and interpersonal exchange relationships at work. Leadersh Q 19(2):195–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by a research fund from Chosun University, 2020.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Junyeong Lee.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Table 5 Operational definition and measurement items of constructs
Table 6 Exploratory factor analysis
Table 7 Common method bias analysis
Table 8 Results of predicting knowledge adoption and knowledge transformation with full moderation of team climates

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Min, J., Lee, J., Ryu, S. et al. The effects of interaction between team climates and KMS value perception on knowledge activities: a multilevel socio-technical systems approach. Inf Technol Manag (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-021-00337-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Perceived KMS value for strategic decision and operational support
  • Knowledge adoption
  • Knowledge transformation
  • Multilevel research
  • Affective climate
  • Innovative climate