Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does knowledge management matter for information technology applications in China?

  • Published:
Asia Pacific Journal of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the role of knowledge management (KM) in mediating and moderating the relationship between information technology (IT) and firm performance based upon the data collected from 236 firms in China. Through a structural equation model and hierarchical regression analysis, we found that KM capability partially mediated the performance impact of IT resources. Furthermore, KM capability affected the strength of the IT-performance relationship. The theoretical contributions and managerial implications are discussed and limitations of the study are highlighted accordingly.

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
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, L. S., & West, S. C. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. 2001. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1): 107–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almashari, M., Zarri, M., & Alathari, A. 2002. An empirical study of the impact of knowledge management on organization performance. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(5): 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation model. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua, A., Konana, P., Whinston, A., & Yin, F. 2004. An empirical investigation of net-enabled business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(4): 585–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2): 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3): 588–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bharadwaj, A. S. 2000. A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1): 169–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2): 230–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, T. A., & Turner, D. E. 2000. Measuring the flexibility of information technology infrastructure: Exploratory analysis of a construct. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(1): 167–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. 1989. A Primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G. 1999. Fostering synergies between information technology and managerial and organizational cognition: The role of knowledge management. Technovation, 19: 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, Y. S. 2000. An empirical study of factors affecting successful implementation of knowledge management. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska.

  • Choi, B., & Lee, H. 2003. An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporation performance. Information and Management, 40(5): 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. 2000. Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78(2): 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemons, E. 1986. Information systems for sustainable competitive advantage. Information and Management, 11: 131–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemons, E. K., & Row, M. C. 1991. Sustaining IT advantage: The role of structural differences. MIS Quaterly, 15(3): 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16: 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowston, K., & Myers, M. D. 2004. Information technology and the transformation of industries: three research perspectives. Journal of Strategic Management Information Systems, 13: 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. 2001. Organization theory and design. New York: South-Western College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darroch, J. 2005. Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3): 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demeester, M. 1999. Cultural aspects of information technology implementation. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 56: 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G., & Robinson, R. 1984. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately held firm and conglomerate business unit. Strategic Management Journal, 5(3): 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devaraj, S., & Kohli, R. 2003. Performance impacts of information technology: Is actual usage the missing link? Management Science, 49(3): 273–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Common methods bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1(4): 374–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Santos, F. M. 2002. Knowledge-based view: A new theory of strategy? In Pettigrew, A., Howard, T. & Whittington, R. (Eds.). Handbook of strategy and management: 139–164. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1): 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage. California Management Review, 33(3): 114–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G., & Wernefelt, B. 1989. Determinants of firm performance in relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strategic Management Journal, 10(5): 399–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, H. H. 1967. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. 1996. Tacit knowledge, innovation and technology transfer. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 8(2): 91–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jantunen, A. 2005. Knowledge processing capabilities and innovative performance: An empirical study. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3): 336–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelloway, K. 1998. LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., & Ye, R. L. 1999. Information technology and firm performance: Linking with environmental, strategic and managerial contexts. Information & Management, 35: 43–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. 2001. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(5): 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. 2001. Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1): 57–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinsons, M. G., & Davidson, R. M. 2007. Strategic decision making and support systems: Comparing American, Japanese and Chinese management. Decision Support Systems, 43: 284–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melville, N., Kraemer, K., & Gurbaxani, V. 2004. Information technology and organizational performance: An integrative model of IT business Value. MIS Quarterly, 28(2): 283–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohamed, M., Stankosky, M., & Murray, A. 2006. Knowledge management and information technology: Can they work in perfect harmony? Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(3): 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montealegre, R. 1999. A temporal model of institutional interventions for information technology adoption in less-developed countries. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(1): 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. 2000. A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industry and Corporate Change, 9: 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palvia, P. C. 1997. Developing a model of the global and strategic impact of information technology. Information and Management, 32(5): 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peng, M. W. 2002. Towards an institutional-based view of business strategy. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19: 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. 1986. Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4): 531–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T. C., & Dent-Micallef, A. D. 1997. Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal, 18(5): 375–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivard, S., Raymond, L., & Verreault, D. 2006. Resource-based view and competitive strategy: An integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 15: 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal, R., & Sabherwal, S. 2005. Knowledge management using information technology: Determinants of short-term impact on firm value. Decision Sciences, 36(4): 531–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. 2003. Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2): 237–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. 1992. Managing IT for success: The empowering business partnership. Working Paper, Financial Executives Research Foundation.

  • Santhanam, R., & Hartono, E. 2003. Issues in linking information technology capability to firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 27(1): 125–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, P. L., & Dick, A. 1993. Using moderator variables in structural equation models. Advances in Consumer Research, 20: 637–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serban, A. M., & Luan, J. 2001. Overview of KM. New Direction for Institutional Research, 113: 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. 2004. Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Information & Management, 41: 933–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiegler, I. 2000. Knowledge management: A new idea or a recycled concept. Communications of the AIS, 14(3): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegler, I. 2003. Technology and knowledge: Bridging a “generating” gap. Information and Management, 40: 533–539.

    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 

  • Tanriverdi, H. 2006. Performance effects of information technology synergies in multi-business firms. MIS Quarterly, 30(1): 57–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thong, J. Y. L., Yap, C. S., & Raman, K. S. 1996. Top management support, external expertise and information systems implementation in small businesses. Information Systems Research, 7(2): 248–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tippins, M. J., & Sohi, R. S. 2003. IT competency and firm performance: Is organizational learning a missing link? Strategy Management Journal, 24: 745–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi, I. 1999. Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(3): 103–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. 2004. The context-specific nature of competence and corporate development. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 21: 123–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M., & Hulland, J. 2004. Review: The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1): 107–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsham, G. 2001. Knowledge management: The benefits and limitations of computer systems. European Management Journal, 19(6): 599–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Shantou University Business School, Guangdong, 515063, China

    Danming Lin, Qiang Liang, Zongling Xu & Runtian Li

  2. School of Business, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangdong, 510275, China

    Weimin Xie

Authors
  1. Danming Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qiang Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zongling Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Runtian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Weimin Xie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danming Lin.

Appendix: Measurement items in questionnaire

Appendix: Measurement items in questionnaire

Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following statements, using the seven-point Likert scale (with 7 = strongly agree, to 1 = strongly disagree):

Information technology resources (ITR)

 IT infrastructure (ITINF)

1. IT infrastructure assists in our organization’s technological innovation (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

2. Compared to the competitors, the expenditure about IT investment in our organization is more (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

3. The IT infrastructure in the organization would be difficult and expensive for rivals to duplicate (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

4. The IT infrastructure in our organization can be upgraded and reusable (e.g. hardware, software; Byrd & Turner, 2000).

5. Our organization equips a wide variety of types of information equipments (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

IT human resources (ITHR)

1. The personnel in our organization are well trained in the use of various information technology (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

2. IT personnel in our organization are skilled in IT development, management and maintenance (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

3. IT personnel are able to interpret business problems and develop appropriate technical solutions (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

4. Our IT personnel have the ability to plan, organize, and lead projects (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

IT strategy making (ITSM)

1. The strategies of our IT group are well aligned with organization’s marketing policies and practices (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

2. Our IT personnel understand our organization’s polices and plans (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

3. Our top management is involved in and supports the IT system and applications (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

4. The employees in our organization accept the application of new information technology (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

5. The strategies of the IT group and our organization’s strategies are well aligned (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

Knowledge management capability (KMC)

1. In our organization, information flow is free (Daft, 2001).

2. We frequently use cross-departmental teams to solve key problems (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

3. When the personnel encountered the technical problems, they can seek help within organization (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

4. When the personnel encountered the technical problems, they can seek help beyond organization (Byrd & Turner, 2000).

5. In our organization, the customer information is managed well (e.g. with the help of IT; Byrd & Turner, 2000).

6. The personnel in our organization can acquire needed knowledge (e.g. with the help of IT; Byrd & Turner, 2000).

7. In our organization, sharing the information and resource among various departments is promoted (e.g. with the help of IT; Byrd & Turner, 2000).

Firm performance (FPER)

1. Over the past 3 years, our financial performance has been outstanding (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

2. Over the past 3 years, our financial performance has exceeded our competitors (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

3. Over the past 3 years, our sales growth has been outstanding (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

4. Over the past 3 years, we have been more profitable than our competitors (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

5. Over the past 3 years, our sales growth has exceeded our competitors (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, D., Liang, Q., Xu, Z. et al. Does knowledge management matter for information technology applications in China?. Asia Pac J Manage 25, 489–507 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-008-9087-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-008-9087-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation