Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Knowledge portals in Chinese consulting firms: a task–technology fit perspective

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Information Systems

Abstract

Although knowledge management (KM) has been examined in previous research, the utilization of KM technologies is still not well understood. Hence, in this study, a model was developed to investigate the utilization of KM technologies, specifically, knowledge portals, from the task–technology fit (TTF) perspective. An empirical study was conducted in the Chinese consulting industry to test the validity of the model. The results show that knowledge tacitness, output quality, and compatibility are positively related to utilization. Utilization and compatibility are positively related to performance. TTF is more strongly related to performance than to utilization. Implications of the results are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alavi M, Kayworth TR and Leidner DE (2005/2006) An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (3), 191–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M and Leidner DE (1999) Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS 1, 1–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M and Leidner DE (2001) Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong JS and Overton TS (1977) Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacheldor B (1999) Portals make business sense. InformationWeek, 18 October, 757, 81–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey JE and Pearson SW (1983) Development of a tool for measuring and analyzing computer user satisfaction. Management Science 29 (5), 530–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass F (1995) Empirical generalization and marketing science: a personal view. Marketing Science 14 (3), G6–G19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belanger F, Collins RW and Cheney PH (2001) Technology requirements and work group communications for telecommuters. Information Systems Research 12 (2), 155–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brancheau JC and Wetherbe JC (1990) The adoption of spreadsheet software: testing innovation diffusion theory in the context of end-user computing. Information Systems Research 1 (2), 115–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrows GR, Drummond DL and Martinsons MG (2005) Knowledge management in China. Communications of the ACM 48 (4), 73–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carte TA and Russell CJ (2003) In pursuit of moderation: nine common errors and their solutions. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 479–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan YE, Huff SL, Barclay DW and Copeland DG (1997) Business strategic orientation, information systems strategic orientation, and strategic alignment. Information Systems Research 8 (2), 125–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen ANK and Edgington TM (2005) Assessing value in organizational knowledge creation: considerations for knowledge workers. MIS Quarterly 29 (2), 279–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin WW, Marcolin BL and Newsted PR (2003) A partial least squares latent modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail motion/adoption study. Information Systems Research 14 (2), 189–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper RB and Zmud RW (1990) Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Management Science 36 (2), 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH, DeLong DWD and Beers MC (1998) Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review 39 (2), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis FD, Bagozzi RP and Warsaw PR (1989) User acceptance of information technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35 (8), 983–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delone WH and McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: the quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research 3 (1), 60–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delone WH and McLean ER (2003) The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (4), 9–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dishaw MT and Strong DM (1998a) Assessing software maintenance tool utilization using task–technology fit and fitness-for use model. Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice 10 (3), 151–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dishaw MT and Strong DM (1998b) Supporting software maintenance with software engineering tools: a computed task–technology fit analysis. Journal of Systems and Software 44 (2), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dishaw MT and Strong DM (1999) Extending the technology acceptance model with task–technology fit constructs. Information & Management 36 (1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazin R and Van de Ven AH (1985) Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 30 (4), 514–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drucker PF (1995) Managing in a Time of Great Change. Truman Talley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easley RF, Devaraj S and Crant MJ (2003) Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: an empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (4), 247–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards JR (1993) Problems with the use of profile similarity indices in the study of congruence in organizational research. Personnel Psychology 46 (3), 641–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein M and Ajzen I (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intentions and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer J and Shaw MJ (2002) A theory of task/technology fit for mobile applications to support organizational processes. Working Paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. http://citebm.business.uiuc.edu/B2Bresearch/TTF-theory.pdf.

  • Gebauer J, Shaw MJ and Gribbins MJ (2005) Towards a specific theory of task–technology fit for mobile information systems, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business Working Paper, 05-0101 http://www.business.uiuc.edu/Working_Papers/papers/05-0101.pdf.

  • Goodhue DL (1995) Understanding user evaluations of information systems. Management Science 41 (12), 1827–1844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhue DL (1998) Development and measurement validity of a task–technology fit instrument for user evaluations of information systems. Decision Sciences 29 (1), 105–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhue DL, Klein BD and March ST (2000) User evaluations of IS as surrogates for objective performance. Information and Management 38 (2), 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodhue DL and Thompson RL (1995) Task–technology fit and individual performance. MIS Quarterly 19 (2), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati DN (2003) Basic Econometrics, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta S (2003) Knowledge management and performance: a fit perspective. Ninth Americas Conference on Information Systems 2517–2523.

  • Hellström T, Kemlin P and Malmquist U (2000) Knowledge and competence management at Ericsson: decentralization and organizational fit. Journal of Knowledge Management 4 (2), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson JC and Lee S (1992) Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective. Management Science 38 (6), 757–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huizing A and Koster E (1997) Balance in business reengineering: an empirical study of fit and performance. Journal of Management Information Systems 14 (1), 93–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt TA and Prawitt DF (2001) Does congruence between audit structure and auditor's locus of control affect job performance? Accounting Review 76 (2), 263–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igbaria M and Guimaraes T (1993) Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction among information center employees. Journal of Management Information Systems 9 (4), 145–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janz BD and Prasarnphanich P (2003) Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Sciences 34 (2), 351–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL (1989) The effect of task demands and graphical format on information processing strategies. Management Science 35 (3), 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa SL and Staples DS (2000) The use of collaborative electronic media for information sharing: an exploratory study of determinants. Journal of Strategic Information Systems 9 (2/3), 129–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalling T (2003) Knowledge management and the occasional links with performance. Journal of Knowledge Management 7 (3), 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kankanhalli A, Tan BCY and Wei KK (2001) Seeking knowledge in electronic knowledge repositories: an exploratory study. Twenty-Second International Conference on Information Systems, New Orleans 123–133.

  • Kesner RM (2003) Building a knowledge portal: a case study in web-enabled collaboration. Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal 19 (2), 13–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khazanchi D (2005) Information technology (IT) appropriateness: the contingency theory of ‘fit’ and IT implementation in small and medium enterprises. Journal of Computer Information Systems 45 (3), 88–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klaus T, Gyires T and Wen HJ (2003) The use of web-based information systems for non-work activities: an empirical study. Human Systems Management 22 (3), 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein R (2007) An empirical examination of patient–physician portal acceptance. European Journal of Information Systems 16 (6), 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreng VB and Wu C-Y (2007) Evaluation of knowledge portal development tools using a fuzzy AHP approach: the case of Taiwanese stone industry. European Journal of Operational Research 176 (3), 1795–1810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwan MM and Balasubramanian P (2003) KnowledgeScope: managing knowledge in context. Decision Support Systems 35 (4), 467–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee JN, Miranda SM and Kim YM (2004) IT outsourcing strategies: universalistic, contingency, and configurational explanations of success. Information Systems Research 15 (2), 110–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim VKG (1996) Job insecurity and its outcomes: moderating effects of work-based and nonwork-based social support. Human Relations 49 (2), 171–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin T-C and Huang C-C (2008) Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents: an integration of social cognitive theory and task technology fit. Information & Management 45 (6), 410–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack R, Ravin Y and Byrd RJ (2001) Knowledge portals and the emerging digital knowledge workplace. IBM Systems Journal 40 (4), 925–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malholtra NK, Kim SS and Patil A (2006) Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Management Science 52 (12), 1865–1883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy RV, Aronson JE and Mazouz K (2001) Measuring the validity of task–technology fit for knowledge management systems. Proceedings of the Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems 1757–1760.

  • Mee W, Katz E, Alem L and Kravis S (2007) Sociotechnical challenges in the design of a knowledge portal. Information, Communication & Society 10 (1), 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore GC and Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research 2 (3), 192–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy US and Kerr DS (2000) Task/technology fit and the effectiveness of group support systems: evidence in the context of tasks requiring domain specific knowledge. Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1–10.

  • Nambisan S and Wang YM (2000) Web technology adoption and knowledge barriers. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 10 (2), 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Konno N (1998) The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review 40 (3), 40–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pablos PO (2002) Knowledge management and organizational learning typologies of knowledge strategies in the Spanish manufacturing industry from 1995 to 1999. Journal of Knowledge Management 6 (1), 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce JL, Gardner DG, Dunham RB and Cummings LL (1993) Moderation by organization-based self-esteem of role condition–employee response relationships. Academy of Management Journal 38 (2), 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY and Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Premkumar G, Ramamurthy K and Saunders CS (2005) Information processing view of organizations: an exploratory examination of fit in the context of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (1), 257–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd edn, Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan SD and Prybutok VR (2001) Factors affecting the adoption of knowledge management technologies: a discriminative approach. Journal of Computer Information Systems 41 (4), 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryu C, Kim YJ, Chaudhury A and Rao HR (2005) Knowledge acquisition via three learning processes in enterprise information portals: learning-by-investment, learning-by-doing, and learning-from-others. MIS Quarterly 29 (2), 245–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheepers R (2006) A conceptual framework for the implementation of enterprise information portals in large organizations. European Journal of Information Systems 15 (6), 635–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven CB (1981) Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 26 (3), 349–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz M and Jobe LA (2001) Codification and tacitness as knowledge management strategies: an empirical exploration. Journal of High Technology Management Research 12 (1), 139–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staples DS and Seddon PB (2004) Testing the technology-to-performance chain model. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing 16 (4), 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein EW and Zwass V (1995) Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Information Systems Research 6 (2), 85–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Su Z, Jiang J, Liu T, Xie GT and Pan Y (2004) Market intelligence portal: an entity-based system for managing market intelligence. IBM Systems Journal 43 (3), 534–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam M and Venkatraman N (2001) Determinants of transnational new product development capability: testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge. Strategic Management Journal 22 (4), 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanriverdi H (2005) Information technology relatedness, knowledge management capability, and performance of multibusiness firms. MIS Quarterly 29 (2), 311–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teo TSH (2005) Meeting the challenges of knowledge management at the housing and development board. Decision Support Systems 41 (1), 147–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JD (1967) Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson RL, Higgins CA and Howell JM (1991) Personal computing: toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly 15 (1), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thong JYL (1999) An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses. Journal of Management Information Systems 15 (4), 187–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd P and Benbasat I (1994) The influence of decision aids on choice strategies: an experimental analysis of the role of cognitive effort. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 60 (1), 36–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML (1979) Work characteristics and subunit communication structure: a contingency analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (1), 82–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umanath NS (2003) The concept of contingency beyond ‘It depends’: illustrations from IS research stream. Information and Management 40 (6), 551–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V and Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46 (2), 186–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB and Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: towards a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27 (3), 425–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman N (1989) The concept of fit in strategy research: towards verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review 14 (3), 423–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessey I (1991) Cognitive fit: a theory-based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature. Decision Sciences 22 (2), 219–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voelpel SC, Dous M and Davenport TH (2005) Five steps to creating a global knowledge-sharing system: Siemens’ ShareNet. Academy of Management Executive 19 (2), 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yahya S and Goh WK (2002) Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management 6 (5), 457–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zack MH (1999) Developing a knowledge strategy. California Management Review 41 (3), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander U and Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: and empirical test. Organization Science 6 (1), 76–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs I and Buckland BK (1998) A theory of task/technology fit and group support systems effectiveness. MIS Quarterly 22 (3), 313–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Decision Sciences, NUS Business School, 1 Business Link, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    Thompson S H Teo & Bing Men

Authors
  1. Thompson S H Teo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bing Men
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thompson S H Teo.

Appendix

Appendix

Instrument and sources

Knowledge tacitness (Source: Subramaniam & Venkatraman, 2001)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with the following statements.

(1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree)

The knowledge required for my task is:

KTC1: easy to comprehensively document in manuals or reports

KTC2: easy to comprehensively understand from written documents

KTC3: easy to precisely communicate through written documents

KTC4: easy to communicate without personal experience.Task interdependence (Source: Jarvenpaa & Staples, 2000)

(1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree)

TIT1: My work is often completed with staff from other departments.

TIT2: My work often involves sharing knowledge or information with other departments.

TIT3: The results of my work are dependent on the efforts of people from within my department.

TIT4: The knowledge and information I need is often subject to change.

TIT5: My work often involves using knowledge or information from other departments.

TIT6: The results of my work are dependent on the efforts of people from other departments.

Output quality

Please rate the scale below according to how you feel about the knowledge content provided by the K-portal in your company.Completeness (Source: Bailey & Pearson, 1983)

OPQC1: Incomplete (1)–Complete (7)

OPQC2: Inconsistent (1)–Consistent (7)

OPQC3: Insufficient (1)–Sufficient (7)

OPQC4: Inadequate (1)–Adequate (7)

Relevancy (Source: Bailey & Pearson, 1983)

OPQR1: Useless (1)–Useful (7)

OPQR2: Irrelevant (1)–Relevant (7)

OPQR3: Hazy (1)–Clear (7)

OPQR4: Bad (1)–Good (7)Compatibility (Source: Moore & Benbasat, 1991)

Please indicate the extent to which you agree/disagree with the following statements.

(1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree)

COMP1: Using the K-portal is compatible with my work.

COMP2: Using the K-portal is completely compatible with my current situation.

COMP3: I think that using the K-portal fits well the way I like to work.

COMP4: Using the K-portal fits into my work style.Utilization (Source: Thompson et al., 1991)

Frequency

UTL1: On the average, how frequently do you use the K-portal in your company?

□ Never/almost never

□ Less than once a month

□ A few times a month

□ A few times a week

□ About once a day

□ Several times a dayIntensity

UTL2: On the average, how much time do you spend per week using the K-portal in your company?

□ Never/almost never

□ Less than 1 h

□ 1–2 h

□ 2–4 h

□ 4–7 h

□ More than 7 h

Please indicate the extent to which you use the K-portal in your company to perform the following tasks for obtaining knowledge (1 – not at all to 7 – to a great extent).

UTL3: Searching/retrieving knowledge.

UTL4: Synthesizing, summarizing or analyzing available knowledge.

UTL5: Collaborating with colleagues for knowledge purpose.

Performance (Source: Henderson & Lee, 1992)

Please evaluate the extent of your performance with the assistance of the K-portal.

(1 – very low to 7 – very high)

IPP1: The efficiency of the operations in my work.

IPP2: The adherence to plan and budgets of my work.

IPP3: The amount of work I produce.

IPP4: Effectiveness of my interaction with people from other projects, teams or units.

IPP5: The quality of my work.

IPP6: The ability to meet the goals of my work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Teo, T., Men, B. Knowledge portals in Chinese consulting firms: a task–technology fit perspective. Eur J Inf Syst 17, 557–574 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.41

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2008.41

Keywords

Search

Navigation