sharing knowledge through intranets: a study of … browsers, search capabilities, and...

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 44, NO. 1, MARCH 2001 37

Sharing Knowledge ThroughIntranets: A Study of OrganizationalCulture and Intranet Implementation

—CYNTHIA P. RUPPELAND SUSAN J. HARRINGTON

Abstract—This study explores factors affecting the implementationof intranets, which are the technology upon which many knowledgemanagement (KM) systems are built. Because intranets facilitatesharing of employee knowledge, many believe that organizationalculture will influence intranet implementation. The results of thisstudy found that intranet implementation is facilitated by a culturethat emphasizes an atmosphere of trust and concern for other people(ethical culture), flexibility and innovation (developmental culture),and policies, procedures, and information management (hierarchicalculture). Management should ensure that the proper values are in placeto optimize intranet implementation and facilitate knowledge sharing.

Index Terms—Corporate culture, ethics, intranet, knowledgemanagement (KM), organizational communication, trust.

Manuscript received April 17, 2000;revised October 4, 2000.C. P. Ruppel is with theUniversity of Toledo,College of Business,Toledo, OH 43606-3390 USA(email: [email protected]).S. J. Harrington is withGeorgia College and State University,Milledgeville, GA 31061-9337 USA(email: [email protected]).IEEE PII S 0361-1434(01)01792-1.

In recent years, knowledgemanagement (KM) has capturedthe attention of both academicsand practitioners. KM canbe broadly defined as thestrategies and tactics utilized byorganizations to capture, manage,and leverage their intellectualcapital resource. The KM literaturedifferentiates between explicit andtacit knowledge [1]–[3]. Explicitknowledge is easily codified,verbalized, and published [1]–[3].Tacit knowledge, such as insights,intuitions, and hunches is not aseasily codified and is more difficultto articulate and transfer [2], [3].

While both types of knowledgeshould be shared or externalized,it is tacit knowledge that moststrongly facilitates learning, buildsintellectual capital, and adds valueand competitive advantage toorganizations because it is moredifficult for competitors to replicate[3]. Tacit knowledge includestechnical knowledge, such aspersonal skills and “know-how,”

and cognitive knowledge, such asbeliefs, ideals, values, and mentalmodels that we take for granted [2].Inkpen and Dimur [1] suggest thatan organization’s goal is to converttacit to explicit knowledge so itcan be shared more easily. Thissharing and communicating ofknowledge transforms individualknowledge into organizationalknowledge [1], [4].

Information becomes tacitknowledge when it is processedin the mind of an individual.Knowledge becomes explicitknowledge again when it iscommunicated or articulated toothers in an appropriate format(text, graphs, spoken, written,etc.) [5]. Because knowledge is inthe individual’s mind and mustbe processed and communicated,increased knowledge may resultfrom investments in connectingemployees through the useof electronic communicationtechnologies such as intranets[6]. Intranets initiate KM effortsbecause they allow the sharing of

0361–1434/01$10.00 © 2001 IEEE

38 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATION, VOL. 44, NO. 1, MARCH 2001

document-level information andconcepts or issues, rather thanthe record-level information thattraditional systems do [7].

The nature of the intranet withits browsers, search capabilities,and information-sharing abilities,enables a de facto KM system.Intranets facilitate communicationand interaction and createwhat has been referred to asa “knowledge connection” [1].An intranet supports KM in atleast three ways: (1) providingcompression of time and spaceamong the users, (2) offering theflexibility to exchange information,and (3) supporting informationtransfers and organizationalnetworking independent ofdirect contacts between users(cf. [8]). Scott [9] developeda theoretical framework thatsuggests the multiple waysintranets support knowledgeand gives numerous examples,including the inclusion of timelyinformation, metaphors, analogies,prototypes, discussion threads,debates, video clips, animation,and online databases on theintranet. Online networks allowthe combining of new knowledgewith existing information, andthey can generate and systematizeknowledge throughout theorganization [2]. Without sharedknowledge, an intranet’s impact onorganizational effectiveness wouldbe limited [1]. Therefore, KM andintranets are closely linked, withintranets enabling KM because oftheir ability to connect people.

Recently, attention has focusedon how to manage and enablethis knowledge process. Rugglesstates that KM is “an approach toadding or creating value by moreactively leveraging the know-how,experience and judgment residentwithin and, in many cases, outsideof an organization” [10, p. 80].He views KM from a processperspective. When knowledge isviewed as a process rather thanan asset, the emphasis is oncreating a proper environment toenable and facilitate the flow of

information [11]. Thus, KM canbe viewed as creating the properenvironment that facilitates theflow of tacit and explicit knowledge.Intranets, acting as pipelines todeliver knowledge, are seen ascritical to that environment [12],[13].

However, evidence (e.g., [5], [9],[14]–[16]) suggests that employeeacceptance of or resistance tointranets as a knowledge-sharingenvironment is a managementand corporate culture issue ratherthan a technology issue. A 1999(best practices) study by theAmerican Productivity and QualityCenter found that a company’sability to use technology to shareknowledge is based on employeeenthusiasm, or lack thereof, whichin turn is rooted in the corporateculture or subculture that issalient to the employee [14], [16].This paper examines the influencethat the organization’s culturehas on intranets. The intentionof this examination is to ensurethat a compatible culture existsto facilitate knowledge sharing,along with fostering the success ofintranets and KM efforts.

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ANDINTRANETSSince sharing on intranets is also asharing of some level of knowledge(either explicit knowledge in theform of manuals or procedures,or tacit knowledge in the form ofelectronic conversations or advice),an organizational culture thatsupports such sharing can lead tomore effective KM and intranet use.Instilling a culture of sharing andmaintaining information is criticalto intranet success. Edvinssonand Sullivan [17] propose a modelthat identifies the importance ofculture in managing knowledge bysuggesting culture is part of theintangible structural capital thatsupports the development andtransfer of knowledge.

Yet it has been suggested that aKM culture is the most difficultsuccess factor to build if the

culture does not already exist [13],[18]. In a study of KM practice, only19% of executives indicated thattheir organizational performancein “facilitating knowledge growththrough culture and incentives”was good or excellent [10]. Cultureis the shared interpretations andunderstanding of organizationalevents, and this understandingdevelops over time [19]. Denisonsuggests that “culture refers to thedeep structure of organizationswhich is rooted in the values,beliefs, and assumptions heldby organizational members”[20, p. 624]. These sharedcultural assumptions arepreconscious, powerful, anda group phenomenon [21] that donot change quickly.

Despite organizational culture’sinertia, successful KMimplementation has beenidentified as transformativeto the organization and its culture[22]. Managers believe that manyof the most important gains fromintranets are in improving workerproductivity and morale, decisionmaking, and information sharing[23]. Therefore, the effect of cultureon intranets, and, with the passageof time, the effect of intranets onorganizational culture are animportant part of KM practice [24].

Similarly, organizational culturehas been found to influencethe successful implementationof several other informationtechnologies (ITs), includingCASE, Lotus Notes, and advancedmanufacturing technologies[25]–[27]. Yet Cooper [21] andRobey et al. [28] suggest thatculture, which offers a promisingperspective to understandingcontradictory findings regarding ITand organizational transformation,is a factor that has been largelyignored by IT implementationresearchers.

In addition, mismatches betweeninformation technologies andtheir organizational settingshave caused an IT productivityparadox where the increased

RUPPEL AND HARRINGTON: SHARING KNOWLEDGE THROUGH INTRANETS 39

use of IT does not result inexpected increases in productivity[29]. Without a match betweenthe culture of an organizationand the cultural assumptionsembedded in an IT innovation,a costly implementation failureis likely to occur [30]. Culturecan prevent some IT projects andtheir associated organizationaltransformations from occurringwhen users cling to oldassumptions about autonomyand control [4].

This is also true for the ITinnovation, intranets, since,as Fichter suggests, “Intranetsare inherently about people andorganizational cultures” [31, p. 74].Some managers have suggestedthat the information/technologycomponent of KM is only 20% of theKM and intranet issue; culture andmanagement issues dominate [9].When intranets are implemented,their success depends stronglyon employees using them, notmerely their existence [32]. Insum, implementation effectivenessis related to the strength of anorganization’s culture for theimplementation of the specific ITinnovation [33].

What kind of culture supportsintranets? A culture that rewardsmembers for innovation andlearning can cause new insights togrow out of new IT implementations[34]. Otherwise, the existingculture may find a way to preserveold forms, such as face-to-facemeetings or hard-copy documents,despite electronic alternatives,because the old forms are part ofthe employees’ ingrained habitsand are familiar and comforting toorganizational members [28], [29].

Intranet implementers may alsoneed to encourage cooperationand win–win strategies to beeffective [31]. Some interpretiviststudies (e.g., [24], [35]) havefound that collaboration andcooperation, as well as trust,are key to understandingimplementation, usage, andoutcomes of information systems.

Mistrust is an aspect of culturethat has a negative impact onbuilding a KM culture, whereas“pleasure in helping others”has a positive impact [18], [34].Therefore, a culture that is notconducive to intranets is one thatemphasizes unilateral control,maximizing winning and losing,and minimizing the expression ofnegative feelings. This environmentcan create miscommunication,mistrust, protectiveness, andescalating errors [34], [36].

Trust or lack of trust is aperspective that goes beyondthe simple rational perspectivethat the organization wishes tomaximize economic efficiencyand effectiveness [35]. Trust cancreate social capital, defined as theincreased capability that arisesfrom the prevalence of trust, andis usually created and transmittedthrough cultural mechanisms:that is, organizations based oncultures of shared ethical valuesand trust can reduce regulationsand contractual overhead [35].Where an ethical and trustingculture may already exist, theremay be less need for monitoring orprivacy guidelines [37]. Thus, anethical and trusting culture mayreduce some burdens, increasesocial capital, and aid intranetimplementation.

The effect of culture may onlyincrease in the future. While theless critical, easy to implementsystems can be converted quickly,intranet-based mission-criticalapplications are in the early stagesof implementation, and they mayonly be used in certain areas oforganizations [15], [38]. Usingthe intranet for collaborativeapplications, such as discussiongroups, workflow, and documentmanagement, creates higher riskand longer time frames, but italso creates greater potentialfor performance improvement(cf. [38]). Employees must bewilling to share and trust othersto share [8]. Management mustrealize that knowledge must benurtured, supported, enhanced,

and cared for [2]. Platforms andcultures must be developed whereknowledge can freely emerge [2].

Therefore, this research focuseson the aspects of an organizationalculture that may affect the earlyimplementation and diffusionof intranets. A model of theresearch study can be found inFig. 1. Because the research wasconducted early in the intranetadoption trend, it is believed thatculture impacts intranet use.However, as time proceeds, thecausal flow may reverse: that is,intranets may cause changes tothe existing culture. The predictedcontinued and rapid growth of bothKM and intranets, and the need toexpand intranets enterprise-wideand even interorganizationally,suggests that this type of researchis of great interest to the businesscommunity as well as the academiccommunity.

DIMENSIONS OFORGANIZATIONAL CULTUREQuinn and Rohrbaugh [39]developed a framework fororganizational effectiveness that isbased on competing values. Thisframework has been used as anintervention in organizations toenhance performance, as well as inempirical research (e.g., [40]–[42])because of its ability to tap intothe aspects of organizationaleffectiveness via different values,assumptions, and interpretationsthat define an organization’sculture.

The first dimension of thisframework results from anorganization that either valuesorganizational flexibility ororganizational order. The otherdimension varies from an externalfocus to an internal focus. Thisresults in a framework containingfour quadrants:

• one with an external focuswhich values flexibility(developmental),

• another with an external focuswhich values order (rational),


• another with an internalfocus that values order(hierarchical), and

• the last with an internalfocus which values flexibility(group).

These quadrants representfour different value sets thatprovide competing viewpoints onthe meaning of organizationaleffectiveness.

An organization may containmultiple values, however,such as valuing order whileencouraging some flexibility, thusthe culture dimensions are notmutually exclusive. Instead, eachdimension reflects the strengthof the organization’s belief thatthe dimension is importantto achieving organizationaleffectiveness [41], [43]. Maximumeffectiveness may be achievedwhen an organization is strongin all dimensions. Organizationsshould be both adaptableand controlled, as well asfocused on growth and resourceacquisition while adhering to tightinformation management andformal communication [43].

While strength in these fourdimensions comprises someresearchers’ thinking on culture,

they are not intended to be allencompassing with respect toculture’s possible dimensions.One important dimension neededfor the sharing required by KMand intranets, and implied bythe above discussion, is anethical and trusting culture [15],[44], [45]. Cultural values forKM are “openness and honesty,sincere service attitude towardmembership,” and a “high trustculture for shared learning” [46, p.52]. None of the four dimensionsof the competing values frameworkspecifically address these values ofethics and trust. Meanwhile, ethicsresearchers have included suchdimensions in their culture studiesby using values of benevolence,egoism, and other principles inwork climates (cf. [47], [48]).Thus, while the competing valuesframework captures an internalversus an external focus orflexibility versus order, thereis nothing captured in thesecompeting values that suggeststhese important aspects of ethicsand trust are specifically relatedto any particular quadrant(s). Weprefer to think of an ethical cultureas an overarching concern forall members of the organization,regardless of the internal/externalfocus or flexibility/order values.Therefore, this study would be

remiss without a “fifth” dimensiondescribing the strength of theculture for ethics and trust, withthe resulting, proposed corporateculture dimensions relevant toKM shown in Fig. 2. We willnow examine each of the fourquadrants of the competing valuesframework, as well as the fifthdimension of ethical work climate,with respect to intranets and theorganizational culture.

Developmental Culture Adevelopmental culture is a culturethat values flexibility and hasan external focus. Cooper [21]and Cooper and Quinn [40]identify a developmental cultureas one where an organizationfaces a complex, turbulent,and politicized environment.Management believes that chancesfor organizational survival andgrowth are increased throughthe promotion of organizationalinsight, innovation, and adaptation[21], [40].

The rapid spread of intranetssuggests that those who wish toremain competitive would be awareof the trend toward intranets andtheir widely touted benefits andrelatively low costs [23]. With thecompetition rapidly implementingintranets as discussed above, it

Fig. 1. Research model of intranet implementation.


would seem that an organizationwith a developmental culturewould also feel pressure toimplement one. Organizationswith an external view and concernfor competitive pressures wouldimplement an intranet since itsbarriers are low. Moreover, adevelopmental culture is moreflexible and innovative and willingto try new things. In such a culture,change and the importance orideological appeal of the task beingundertaken motivates individuals[26]. Intranets flourish whereinformation resource utilizationis an active, rather than reactive,cultural component [8]. Therefore,we propose:

H1: There is a positiverelationship between adevelopmental culture andintranet implementation.

Rational Culture The rationalculture is one in which theorganization is aware of itsenvironment and reacts toit as a cohesive unit in anintentionally optimizing manner.Key management activities aredesigned to maximize profitthrough planning, directing, andgoal setting [21], [40]. The rationalculture reacts to its environmentin a manner that optimizesorganizational productivity.Because it values order andstability, it establishes controlstructures with varying degrees of

formalization and centralizationto deal with contextual factors,such as organizational sizeand environmental uncertainty[40]. Structures vary becausenearly all decisions are driven byrational-economic criteria.

Since many intranets havegrown without formal returnon investment (ROI) analysis[23], organizations that requiresuch ROI calculations would beless likely to create intranetsin a grass-roots manner. It hasbeen suggested that amongearly adopters these grass-rootsor “underground” intranets faroutnumber official intranets [49].Moreover, the pre-implementationROI is difficult to estimate, withpost-implementation estimatesonly now being declared at 1000%ROI [24]. It may be that rationalcultures will implement intranetsnow that such estimates arebecoming known, but not as earlyimplementers which are the focusof this study.

While the external focus ofthis culture would make theorganization aware of the rapidadoption of intranets, the desirefor order may stifle innovationsthat tend to be in early stagesof development because it isdifficult to maintain order andencourage productivity whileexperimenting with intranets.

Intranets, especially those formedas a grass-roots phenomenon,can conflict with this culture’sdesire for formalization andcontrol. Thus, while intranets weredeveloped to lessen informationoverload and to allow the sharingof knowledge, they can likewiselead to the very thing theywere designed to decrease [50].Therefore, we propose:

H2: There is no relationshipbetween a rational culture andintranet implementation.

Hierarchical Culture Thehierarchical culture is one inwhich the environment is notconsidered a significant factor.Rather, management interestis focused upon measurement,documentation, and informationmanagement [21], [40]. Sincethis culture is concerned withan internal focus and order, itidentifies ways to bring order to theinternal organization. It is highlyspecialized, departmentalized, andhas internal control structures.Leaders tend to be conservativeand wish to obtain timely,regular reports of internalinformation. Individuals complywith organizational mandatesbecause roles are formally statedand enforced through rules andregulations. Although the focus isinternal, the emphasis is on thetask rather than the individualperforming the task [21].

Fig. 2. Five dimensions of organizational culture.


Intranets have an internal focusand can be used to publish policiesand procedures. Research (e.g.,[15]) suggests that intranetsare quickly and easily usedfor publishing internal policiesand procedures, resulting ingreatly lowered publication costs,and this represents the mostcommon intranet application.Thus intranets are consistent witha hierarchical culture’s values thatemphasize policies, procedures,and information management withtheir internal focus.

In addition, Lynch [49] suggeststhat the biggest issue in intranetuse is content management.A hierarchical culture wouldhave much if not all of thiscontent already in place, althoughit may exist in paper form.Similarly, Curry et al. [15] suggestthat establishing policies andprocedures for intranet use,content management, and securityare recommended as key elementsof intranet management. In ahierarchical culture where controland security are valued [26],security procedures and projectmanagement methods may alreadybe implemented. These securitymeasures, as previously discussed,are important to the technicalability to implement intranets.Therefore, we propose:

H3: There is a positiverelationship between ahierarchical culture andintranet implementation.

Group Culture The group cultureis one in which the maintenanceof the organization and its humanresources is key, emphasizingcohesive relationships, individualcommitment, and contribution.While this culture is inwardlyfocused, it also values flexibility.Managers promote employeedialogue, participation, andtraining to accomplish this goal[21], [40].

Orlikowski [24], in her studyof the impact of culture onLotus Notes, a technology with

a knowledge-sharing purpose,found that a competitive culturethat does not support cooperationor sharing is counterculturalto the underlying premise ofthese technologies. KM requires atechnical architecture that is moreopen, social, transparent, flexible,and respectful of employees [51].Intranets, with the capability foropening up communication andinformation in a technologicallytransparent manner withinan organization, have thecapability to encourage suchsharing through features likediscussion groups or, what is beingreferred to in the literature as,communities of practice. Kirsner[32] states intranet success is60% communication and 40%technology. In a culture ofcooperation and sharing, intranetsenhance the ability to shareknowledge, and group culturesappear to be compatible withintranets.

In addition, group culturesvalue affiliation, human resourcedevelopment, and employeeparticipation in decision making.Such values may encourageemployee commitment throughincreased group collaboration,trust, and tradition [26], [42]. Oneof the frequently cited uses ofintranets is for human resourcemanagement purposes. Theintranet can be used to provideinformation concerning employeebenefits and job openings,as well as training materials.Moreover, greater participationis encouraged, as informationnot previously available nowbecomes available to employees.This enhanced ability to findthe information to do theirjobs may be important, for ithas also been suggested thatpersonal responsibility is anenabler of KM [22]. Similarly,it has been suggested that KMefforts should try to avoid theloss of intellectual capital byretaining employees throughenabling personal developmentand empowerment [22], [45].In sum, group cultures would

likely support the development ofintranets. Therefore, we propose:

H4: There is a positiverelationship between agroup culture and intranetimplementation.

Ethical Culture While thecompeting values frameworkdescribes values often used fordecision making, it does notinclude specific measures for trustand an ethical work environment.Group culture is believed tofacilitate trust through affiliationand member participation [26],but the group culture measuredoes not measure trust or theethical values of benevolenceand concern associated withtrust. Yet evidence exists thatif a climate of benevolence andtrust does not exist, knowledgesharing will be diminished [15],[44], [45]. Davenport [13] suggeststhat sharing knowledge is an“unnatural act.” Therefore, forfirms where employees areconcerned mainly with their ownbest interests and there is a lowlevel of trust, the inherent sharingof information on an intranet iscounter-cultural [34], [46].

Employees may fear sharingknowledge for fear of becomingredundant, giving away expertise,or being embarrassed [16].Employees who lack other formsof control or power may useknowledge as a control anddefense device [44] unless theyfeel that they will be treatedfairly and respectfully. Theneed for empathy and concernfor others is fundamental tosharing knowledge [2], [34],[44], [45]. These propositionsare consistent with findings ofthe previously mentioned studyon the impact of culture onLotus Notes implementation[25]. It is also consistent withSchwartz [38], who suggeststhat the real value of intranetdevelopment comes from the levelof interdepartmental collaborationrequired to design and implementthe sites. When studying intra-firmnetworks, it was found that


cooperative behavior may emergewhen trust exists, leading toa positive association betweentrust and the extent of resourcesexchanged within units of afirm [52]. Similarly, Inkpen [53]found trust a necessary elementof the organizational culturethat facilitates the effectiveimplementation and utilization ofknowledge. Thus, organizationsthat encourage a caring, trustingenvironment, while discouragingself-interests, would be morelikely to implement intranetssuccessfully. Therefore, wepropose:

H5: There is a positiverelationship between anethical, trusting culture andintranet implementation.

METHODOLOGYA survey was constructed andused to obtain as broad a crosssection of organizations aspossible and compare acrossthese organizations the effect ofdifferent culture types on intranetimplementation. According toKerlinger [54], such surveys havethe advantage of accuracy andcan be used to obtain socialfacts, beliefs, and attitudes. Sincemany qualitative accounts ofculture’s effect on KM have beenreported, survey methodology isan appropriate methodology forconfirming or denying hypothesesgenerated based on qualitativeaccounts.

Surveys were sent to U.S.information systems (IS) managersrandomly selected from a nationalmailing list. IS managers wereselected because it was believedthey were in the best positionto assess their organizationalculture and the extent of intranetimplementation. Several sourceshave argued that when studyingculture, managers are theappropriate source of evaluationof the overall culture [29], [55],[56]. Managers’ values, behaviors,and interpretations become thesentiments that organizational

members reflect, resulting in ahomogeneous culture with respectto morality [19], [57]. Thus, itseems reasonable that managerswould be in the best position todescribe management values andattitudes toward their employees’interests, the overall managementexpectations that are reflected inthe culture, and the culture itself.

Approximately 375 surveys weremailed in 1996, and were believedto reach the appropriate person,with 44 surveys returned for aresponse rate of 12%, which islower than desired. Since otherstudies (e.g., [47], [58]) on ethicshave also had low responserates, we were concerned thata nonresponse bias may haveentered into the study. To ensurethere was no response bias, afollow-up survey was sent in 1998,asking nonrespondents why theydid not respond and also askingthem to reply to a shortenedversion of the intranet survey thatdid not include ethics or trustquestions. The responses to thefollow-up suggest that the majorreasons for not responding were:(1) too many surveys: 36%, (2)not enough time: 23%, (3) lengthof survey: 20%, and (4) companypolicy not to respond to surveys:8%. Only 3% responded that thesensitive nature of the questionswas a reason, suggesting thatthere is no response bias amongthose previously responding.

The shortened survey sent in thesecond round duplicated only thequestions concerning intranets.Because questions on ethics andtrust were not included, the secondsurvey was not intended to beused in the statistical analysis.Instead, it was used to confirmthat the original respondentsand nonrespondents were nodifferent in their implementationof intranets and to confirm thatintranets were being used in amanner consistent with KM andthe concepts of this study.

To further test for therepresentativeness of the

respondents, industryclassifications of the respondentswere compared to the industryclassification of the mailing listas a whole, and no significantdepartures were found. Also, thesurvey asked about technologiesother than intranets; so thesample is not biased toward onlythose organizations that are usingintranets. Therefore, we do notbelieve there is a nonresponse biaseven though the response rate isless than desired.

Measure s Culture was measuredusing several previously usedculture/climate questions fromYeung, Brockbank, and Ulrich [41]and Victor and Cullen [47]. Thesequestions have been analyzedin previous studies [48], [59]and have been found to havegood reliability and constructvalidity. Previous research [41],[42] has also suggested that anorganization with more than onestrong culture type is possibleand desirable since the culturetypes are ideals. In fact, thoseorganizations that emphasizeall four dimensions (group,hierarchical, developmental, andrational values) have been foundto be associated with betterorganizational performance [41].A complete list of the questionsused, together with their loadingon the relevant cultural factor,can be found in Table I. Factoranalysis was used to determineif the culture questions loadedinto the four competing valuesquadrants as well as the “fifthdimension” of ethical culture, asdiscussed above. The questionsloaded as expected, as shown inTable I. The resulting measuresalso had good internal reliability,as shown in our results section.

Intranet implementation wasdetermined by responses tothe following categories: neverconsidered, currently beingconsidered, initial implementation,partial implementation, fullyimplemented, and tried andrejected. This categorical measure


is preferable to a dichotomoususe/not use variable. It allows the

assignment of a rank order to thelevel of intranet implementation

and allows analysis of thevariables with respect to the level

TABLE IFACTOR ANALYSIS


of implementation rather thanmerely to its adoption.

RESULTSA frequency table ofimplementation is given inTable II below. Implementationlevels among respondents between1996 and 1998 changed little. Onlyabout 11% have never consideredusing an intranet, and 20% havefully implemented it. Overall, about69% of the organizations havebegun implementing intranets,with another 22% consideringusing them in 1998. These figuresappear consistent with reports inthe popular literature [38] and lend

TABLE IIINTRANET IMPLEMENTATION

support for the representativenessof the sample.

In the 1998 survey, the res-pondents were asked to estimatethe percent of their intranetusage across various categories.The results were (1) publishinginformation: 34%, (2) sharingknowledge (such as “bestpractices”): 33%, (3) deliveringapplications: 17%, (4) training:6%, (5) other: 8% (with email mostfrequently described). Intranets arebeing used for knowledge sharingand management activities. Therespondents were also askedwhether the intranet had improvedinternal communications in theirorganizations. Ninety percent(90%) responded that it had, with aminimum estimated improvementof 5%, an average 35%, and amaximum of 200%.

Correlation Results The strongerthe developmental culture, thegreater intranet implementationis (see Table III below), thussupporting H1. A developmentalculture, because of its externalfocus and willingness to undergochange, would be aware ofintranets’ rapid growth and bewilling to explore and implementintranets.

An ethical culture is also highlysignificantly correlated (r 0.36;p 0.05) with intranet

implementation, supportingH5. This factor measures concernfor others in the organization,as well as mutual confidenceand trust. This confidence andtrust most likely are necessaryfor the sharing of information,which is important and inherentin intranets [15], [45]. Also asexpected, H2 was supported sinceno significant relationship existsbetween a rational culture andintranet implementation.

While H4, the relationship betweengroup culture and intranets, wasnot directly supported by thecorrelation analysis, the groupculture was highly correlated withthe ethical culture, which wasrelated to intranet implementation.Similarly, the hypothesis (H3)relating a hierarchical culture tointranet implementation was notsupported at the p 0.05 levelof significance. It was, however,marginally significant (p 0.10),suggesting that the existence ofrules and order may have someeffect on the use of intranetssince procedures and rules for itsdevelopment and use may exist.

Stepwis e Regre s s ion Results Thefive cultures were entered into astepwise regression to determinethe impact of each culture onintranet use. As can be seen inTable IV, the first culture to enterthe regression was the ethical

TABLE IIICORRELATION RESULTS


culture, accounting for about 14%of the variation in intranet use.

Beyond the explanation of intranetimplementation provided byan ethical culture, the nextculture to enter the regressionwas the hierarchical culture,accounting for an additional 10%of the variation. Although thehierarchical culture does not byitself correlate with intranet useat the p 0.05 level (i.e., it wassignificant at p 0.10), it doesexplain the variance in intranetuse beyond that explained by anethical culture. Thus, the rationaleprovided above for a positiverelationship between hierarchicalculture and intranets appearssupported when a threshold levelof an ethical culture already exists.

Limitations This study wasan attempt to explore the earlyadoption and implementationof intranets as an informationtechnology supporting KM. Sinceit was a national mailing of asomewhat lengthy, blind surveyto busy managers, we believethe response rate was low. Evenso, because of the low responserate, the generalizability of thesefindings is somewhat in question,and it is important that the studybe replicated both in the U.S. andother cultures.

The conclusions for this studyare largely drawn on datacollected at the advent of intranetsand KM before intranets had

much opportunity to alter theculture. This study points outthe need for the consideration ofculture when a new technologyor procedure is implementedthat may be incompatible withthe existing culture. Thus, thisresearch is important, for manyorganizations are just nowimplementing intranets and/orare devoting a larger share oftheir intranets toward KM efforts.Such organizations can benefitfrom understanding culture’srole in intranet implementation,not only as intranets expandacross the wider enterprise,but also as intranets expandinter-organizationally in the formof extranets or supply chainmanagement linkages.

This study of early intranetadoption is also important for otherreasons. While many anecdotalaccounts of a potential cultureclash with KM and intranets havebeen described in the popularpress, few, if any, studies haveempirically analyzed the previouslyvalidated dimensions of cultureacross many organizations, ashas this study. Also, as the toolsfor building intranets and thetechnology changes, follow-upresearch would help identify whichdimensions of culture becomemore important or are affectedas intranets become more widelydiffused, thereby enabling theunderstanding of intranets andKM implementation, as well asculture, over time.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY ANDRESEARCHThe results of this study suggestthat early adoption of intranet useis most likely to occur in firmswhere the organizational culture isethical or, as characterized in thisstudy, as having a high concernfor the other person and anatmosphere of mutual confidenceand trust. Although the data forthis research was conducted in theearly stages of intranet adoption,the results are applicable both toorganizations that have alreadyadopted intranets, as well as toorganizations considering intranetadoption, because organizationalculture changes very slowly.To build a culture of trust andconcern for the other person takestime, and even organizations thatwere early adopters of intranetswould benefit from understandingwhat culture to strive for (i.e.,an ethical culture) and why it isadvantageous.

This study points out thatwhere information sharing andcommunication are important tosuccess (as in KM), an ethical,trusting culture may act as afacilitator. Where the cultureis such that employees areconcerned mainly with theirown best interests and there isa low level of trust, the sharingof information on an intranetis counter-cultural. Since thisresearch was conducted during theearly implementation of intranets,

TABLE IVSTEPWISE REGRESSION RESULTS FOR INTRANET

IMPLEMENTATION


future research may wish to lookat whether an ethical culturebecomes more or less important inthe sustaining of intranet use. Forexample, it may be that the lack ofan ethical culture acts as a barrierto adoption, but once implementedand in use over time, intranetuse may be ingrained and thusnot require a high level of trust.Alternately, increasing emphasison eliciting and sharing tacitknowledge from employees who areexperts in some domain may causean even greater need for trust infuture intranet implementations.

Counter to our hypothesis,group culture did not affectintranet implementation. Yet otherstudies have found that groupculture is associated with moreemployee communication [41], afoundation of intranets. However,an explanation may be offered bythis study in that group culturewas strongly correlated with ethicalculture. Such a relationship hasbeen found in previous research[42]. It may be that groupculture acts as an antecedentto an ethical culture, and soindirectly is important in intranetimplementation. Moreover,different kinds of communicationmay be involved; for example, thetypes of communication requiredfor developing trust relationsmay be different than thoserequired for developing employeecommunication through intranets.Further research is required toclarify the types of communicationrequired for trust relations versusintranets and KM systems, as wellas determining whether groupculture effects an ethical culture.

This study found that adevelopmental culture isdirectly and positively relatedto intranet implementation, ashypothesized. Organizationsfostering a developmentalculture are more proactiveand aware of changes in theirenvironment. They also tend to bein competitive environments. The

confirmation that organizationswith developmental cultures areimplementing intranets suggeststhat they may also be among thefirst to implement extranets orbusiness-to-business systems,since such systems extend theintranet to customers or suppliers.It is estimated that 82% oforganizations with intranetsexpect extranets to increase in thenext three years; more supportfor collaboration with businesspartners is expected as well [60].If the current study’s findingsare extended to extranets, adevelopmental culture combinedwith an ethical culture may berequired for maximum extranetimplementation, as well as broaderinter-organizational knowledgesystems. A question raised iswhether an ethical or trustingrelationship will be necessary, and,if so, how will it be built betweenorganizations and their businesspartners. An examination into thetypes of trust relationships (e.g.,integrity, competence, honesty,commitment, legal contracts)between business partners mayprovide insights important inextending these findings toextranet implementation.

This study also found that astronger hierarchical culture hassome (albeit weak) effect on thelevel of intranet implementation.It is presumed that hierarchicalcultures are conducive to intranetsbecause of the procedures,manuals, and controls that arealready in place. It is not clear,however, whether a strongerhierarchical culture will, in thefuture, act as a facilitator or abarrier to further intranet growth.The intranet literature suggeststhat we are moving into phase IIof intranet development [38] inwhich intranets are being used todeliver more than the publishingof policies and procedures. Thissuggestion is supported by our1998 findings that, while 34% ofintranets are used for publishingpurposes, a nearly equivalentnumber (33%) are now being used

for knowledge sharing. Intranetsare being used to link to legacysystems to deliver mission-criticalapplications, to deliver training,to share knowledge in real time inchat rooms, etc. This rapid growthand greater linking of systemscan cause organizations to losesome control [50]. Therefore,a hierarchical culture, whichunder earlier circumstances aidedintranet use, may inhibit its furtheruse. A stronger hierarchical culturemay act as an initial facilitator toadoption but be less importantin established intranets. Futureresearch may wish to examinethese relationships further.

As hypothesized, a strongerrational culture was not relatedto intranet implementation.The grass-roots, ad hoc, natureof intranets that do not haveto be cost-justified does notrequire a culture that valuesobjectives-based measures.Because early intranets havebeen characterized as relativelylow cost to implement and quickto return “soft” benefits, therehas not been a need for suchmeasures. Investment in intranetsto expand KM ability and extranetsis expected to increase [61]. Asthese intranets and KM systemsmature and require investment inmore sophisticated informationarchitectures, metrics to assessthe benefits of such systems maybe necessary or desirable [5],and the values associated witha rational culture may take onincreasing importance.

Overall, the significant relationshipbetween organizations with strongdevelopmental, ethical, andhierarchical cultures and intranetgrowth may be accounted for byhow intranets are implemented.Initial intranet implementation,as studied here, is believed to belargely ad hoc and grass-rootsoriented, concentrating onthe publishing of policies andprocedures. Initial implementationimplies that strong developmentaland hierarchical cultures are


most conducive to intranetimplementation.

As intranet implementations addmore features (database access,delivering applications, andchat rooms) to meet specificorganizational objectives,it may be that the greatersharing of information acts inopposition to the control valued byhierarchical cultures, altering theorganizational mindset toward thevalues underlying the group andrational cultures. The model inFig. 1 represents one suggested bythe literature as appropriate. Whilethis study empirically examinesonly the solid arrows, the resultsof this study, as well as theresearch (e.g., [22], [24]), suggestthe relationships indicated by thedotted lines are appropriate areasfor future research.

Further, the rapid growth ofintranets has been described as a“phenomenon” [62], [63], and webelieve this status warrants studyby the academic community. Whena technology with low barriers toadoption makes rapid deploymentpossible, this study suggeststhat the people-based issuessuch as culture are increasinglyimportant, and they representa significant potential barrier toeffective use despite the adoptionof the technology. Thus, thisstudy validates the need for thestudy of organizational cultureas a factor in the adoption andimplementation of IT innovationssuch as intranets, as well as othertypes of innovations designedto facilitate communication.Increasingly, IT innovations have acommunications component, andthe results of this empiricalstudy suggest the role oforganizational culture in theadoption and implementation ofthese innovations should not beignored when conducting futurestudies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICEOrganizations wishing toimplement an intranet are

best served by building a trustingand cooperative culture amongthe employees who are placingand using information on theintranet. In addition, the need fortrust suggests that the contentcontained on the intranet must bewell managed and kept up-to-datefrom its inception so employees canrely upon its accuracy and trustcan be built in the informationavailable on the intranet. Intranetsand KM systems require a shiftaway from the traditional rewardsystems based on individualperformance and know-how toa shared, collaborative workenvironment [5]. A reward systembased on a measure of knowledgesharing, such as the number,quality, and reuse of publicationsplaced on the intranet, mayexpedite the organizational change[5], [46].

Managers may wish to answer thequestions in Table I to determinewhich cultural dimensions arestrongest within their organization.Also important would be what typeof knowledge already exists or ismissing from their organization.Then action can be taken to eithermake the KM effort and intranetfit the culture or alter the cultureto be more appropriate for theknowledge needed. For example,developmental cultures, which areinnovative, are likely to be moreconducive to “best practices” orsharing of new ideas, whereashierarchical cultures may be betteroriented to more immediate accessto existing data and reducedprinting costs.

Also, the awareness of the externalversus internal focus of theorganizations will make theorganization more or less awareof developments in intranet andKM efforts and either more orless conducive to implementingan intranet and KM system.The popularity of intranets isbecoming increasingly difficult toignore, and as a result of havingan external, proactive focus,a developmental culture withemployees willing to try new things

should help the organizationexplore intranet use, and perhapsnovel use, in an effort to remaincompetitive. Ninety percent ofthe organizations with intranetsin this study found internalcommunications improved, and anestimated average of 33% of eachorganization’s intranet use was forsharing knowledge (such as bestpractices). Such promising resultspublished here and elsewheremay encourage organizationswith strong developmentalculture to go beyond thecurrent traditional uses, suchas publishing information, tomore cutting-edge uses suchas for prototypes, internal chatrooms for holding meetings andsharing ideas, and buildingcommunities of practice. Moreover,such a developmental mindsetshould encourage employees toextend the intranet to processimprovements and significantmarketing-related outcomes,such as customer-relateddatabases, repositories of externalknowledge (such as competitiveintelligence), extranets and otherinter-organizational systems suchas supply-chain systems.

A stronger hierarchical culture mayaid in the early implementationof intranets. However, proceduresand controls should not beregarded as a method of replacingtrust with control, but ratheras a framework to facilitatecollaboration and provide contentfor the intranet. Initially, theexistence of order and procedureshelps deal with several of theproblems associated with theimplementation of intranets, suchas security, content management,and making users aware of itsexistence and encouraging themto use it [64], [37]. In hierarchicalorganizations, a promisingapproach would be to initiate atop-down directed approach and,after implementing common datastorage and collaboration software,demonstrate how that systemcould save organizational memberstime gathering information andchecking potential problems [16].


Examples of what might be on suchan intranet are structured internalknowledge, such as researchreports, marketing materials,and techniques and methods.Using the intranet as part of amethod to check the completenessor quality of work may also beappropriate. Of note, however, isthat a hierarchical culture taken tothe extremes is not advisable [44].Too much power concentrated atthe top and lack of concern foremployees may stifle knowledgesharing because of its potentiallynegative effect on the ethical andtrusting dimension of culture.

While strong ethical,developmental, and hierarchicalculture dimensions are conduciveto intranet implementation, itmay be difficult to change anexisting culture where group orrational dimensions predominate.Imposing a technology thatradically changes the culture orbypasses the usual organizationalchain of command, as intranetsdo, can result in power strugglesand unexpected resistance (cf.,e.g., [65]). In general, the approachto KM and intranets should fit theorganization, its employees whoare potential intranet users, andits culture [16], [31].

In group cultures wherecollaboration is alreadyestablished, one obstacle maybe that the information or material

for the intranet may not yetbe coded. Providing incentivesand systems to encourage datacapturing may be appropriate.Intranets may be built to facilitateease of data capture. Waysto capture informal, internalknowledge may include discussiondatabases of know-how or “lessonslearned.” Moreover, chat rooms,discussion threads, and systemsfor spontaneous team-buildingand debates may be especiallysuitable for group cultures thathave a high degree of team andgroup interaction.

For rational cultures,because of their goal andmeasurement-oriented values,sharing knowledge should bemade part of the business strategyand ongoing objectives. Successesresulting from knowledge sharingshould be widely disseminated.Content on the intranet mayinclude research papers (whitepapers), lessons learned, ordeliverables with value-addeddescription [46]. One approach isto piggyback sharing knowledgeonto other key business initiativesor onto efforts to solve specificbusiness problems [16]. Trustbuilding, through the useof face-to-face contact, maybe important to building aknowledge-sharing culture whererational cultures have previouslyrewarded individual achievement.

CONCLUSIONSThis research adds to the bodyof literature on intranets, ITinnovation, and KM. As theknowledge shared across intranetscontinues to move from the postingof public documents, such asemployee manuals and otherexplicit knowledge, to greatersharing of tacit knowledge, anethical and trusting culture willbecome increasingly important. Itis this sharing of tacit knowledgethat will yield organizations morecompetitive advantage from KMefforts [3]. Moreover, as intranetsare opened up as extranets tooutside organizations for access,trust between organizations willlikely gain importance. Therefore,the role of trust in intranet growthand KM will continue to be a majorconcern and may increase inimportance as intranets continueto develop.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTThe authors are grateful to L. Jinfor her assistance on this project.Funding was provided through theFaculty Research Award programof the Georgia College and StateUniversity Graduate School andResearch Services Department andthrough the Academic Challengeprogram at The University ofToledo.

REFERENCES

[1] A. C. Inkpen and A. Dinur, “Knowledge management processesand international joint ventures,” Organiz. Sci., vol. 9, no. 4, pp.454–468, 1998.

[2] I. Nonaka and N. Konno, “The concept of ‘Ba’: Building a foundation forknowledge creation,” Calif. Manag. Rev., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 40–54, 1998.

[3] I. Nonaka, P. Reinmoeller, and D. Senoo, “The ‘ART’ of knowledge:Systems to capitalize on market knowledge,” Euro. Manag. J., vol.16, no. 6, pp. 673–684, 1998.

[4] D. Robey, “The paradoxes of transformation,” in Steps to the Future:Fresh Thinking on the Management of IT-Based OrganizationalTransformation, C. Sauer and P. W. Yetton, and Assoc., Eds. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1997.

[5] M. Alavi and D. E. Leidner, “Knowledge management systems: Issues,challenges, and benefits,” Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst., vol. 1, no. 7,pp. 1–37, 1999.

[6] J. Roos and G. von Krogh, “The epistemological challenge: Managingknowledge and intellectual capital,” Euro. Manag. J., vol. 14, no.4, pp. 333–337, 1996.


[7] R. Zhang, “Web-based knowledge management,” in Proc. 2000Information Resources Management Association Conf., M. Khosrowpour,Ed. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2000, pp. 531–534.

[8] V. S. Lai and R. K. Mahapatra, “Evaluation of intranets in a distributedenvironment,” Decision Supp. Syst., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 347–357, 1998.

[9] J. E. Scott, “Organizational knowledge and the internet,” DecisionSupp. Syst., vol. 23, pp. 3–17, 1998.

[10] R. Ruggles, “The state of the notion: Knowledge management inpractice,” Calif. Manag. Rev., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 80–99, 1998.

[11] L. Fahey and L. Prusak, “The eleven deadliest sins of knowledgemanagement,” Calif. Manag. Rev., vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 265–276, 1998.

[12] C. Frappaolo and S. Capshaw, “Knowledge management software:Capturing the essence of know-how and innovation,” Inform. Manag.J., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 44–48, 1999.

[13] T. Davenport. (WWW page and hardcopy, 1999 , Feb.) Secrets ofsuccessful knowledge management. Knowledge, Inc. [Online].Available: http:/ /webcom.com/quantera/Secrets.html

[14] C. Comeau-Kirschner, “Knowledge management: The sharing culture,”Manag. Rev., vol. 89, no. 1, p. 8, 2000.

[15] A. Curry and L. Stancich, “The intranet—An intrinsic component ofstrategic management?,” Int. J. Inform. Manag., vol. 20, no. 4, pp.249–268, 2000.

[16] R. McDermott and C. O’Dell. (2000, Aug.) Overcoming the‘cultural barriers’ to sharing knowledge. [Online]. Available:http:/ /www.apqc.org/free/articles/km0200/index.htm

[17] L. Edvinsson and P. Sullivan, “Developing a model for managingintellectual capital,” Euro. Manag. J., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 356–364, 1996.

[18] T. H. Davenport. (1999, Feb.) Some principles of knowledgemanagement. Information Technology White Paper 1998. [Online].Available: http:/ /www.itmweb.com/essay538.htm

[19] J. R. Rentsch, “Climate and culture: Interaction and qualitativedifferences in organizational meaning,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 75, no.6, pp. 668–681, 1990.

[20] D. R. Denison, “What is the difference between organizational cultureand organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade ofparadigm wars,” Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 619–654, 1996.

[21] R. Cooper, “The inertial impact of culture on IT implementation,”Inform. Manag., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 1994.

[22] E. M. Knapp, “Knowledge management,” Bus. Econ. Rev., vol. 44, no.4, pp. 3–6, July 1998.

[23] C. Waltner. (2000, May) Intranet ROI: Leap of faith [Online] Inform. WeekOnline. Available: http:/ /www.informationweek.com/735/intranet.htm

[24] E. G. Carayannis, “The strategic management of technological learningin project/program management: The role of extranets, intranets andintelligent agents in knowledge generation, diffusion and leveraging,”Technovation, vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 697–703, 1998.

[25] W. J. Orlikowski, “Learning from Notes: Organizational issues ingroupware implementation,” Inform. Soc., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 237–251,1993.

[26] , “CASE tools as organizational change: Investigating incrementaland radical changes in systems development,” MIS Quart., vol. 17, no.3, pp. 309–340, 1993.

[27] R. E. Zammuto and E. J. O’Connor, “Gaining advanced manufacturingtechnologies’ benefits: The roles of organizational design and culture,”Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 701–728, 1992.

[28] D. Robey, N. A. Wishart, and A. Rodriguez-Diaz, “Merging themetaphors for organizational improvement: Business processre-engineering as a component of organizational learning,” Accounting,Manag., Inform. Technol., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 23–39, 1995.

[29] E. Brynjolfsson and L. Hitt, “Beyond the productivity paradox,”Commun. ACM, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 49–55, 1998.

[30] T. Romm, N. Pliskin, Y. Weber, and A. Lee, “Identifying organizationalculture clash in MIS implementation: When is it worth the effort?,”Inform. Manag., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 99–109, 1991.

[31] D. Fichter, “Seven habits for effective intranet project managers,”Online, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 74–75, 1999.

[32] S. Kirsner, “Intranet marketing 101,” CIO Web Business, p. 36, 38,Dec. 1, 1999.


[33] K. J. Klein and J. S. Sorra, “The challenge of innovationimplementation,” Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 1055–1080,1996.

[34] G. vonKrogh, “Care in knowledge creation,” Calif. Manag. Rev., vol.40, no. 3, pp. 134–153, 1998.

[35] K. Kumar, H. G. van Dissell, and P. Bielli, “The merchant ofPrato—Revisited: Toward a third rationality of information systems,”MIS Quart., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 199–226, 1998.

[36] C. Argyris and D. A. Schon, Organizational Learning: A Theory of ActionPerspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.

[37] D. C. Chou, “Developing an intranet: Tool selection and managementissues,” Internet Res.: Electron. Networking Applic. and Policy, vol.8, no. 2, pp. 142–148, 1998.

[38] J. Schwartz, “Collaboration—More hype than reality—Trust KnowledgeManagement remains the province of an intrepid few organizationsthat share their best practices,” Internetweek, Oct. 25, 1999.

[39] R. E. Quinn and J. Rohrbaugh, “A competing values approach toorganizational effectiveness,” Public Productivity Rev., vol. 5, no.2, pp. 122–140, 1981.

[40] R. B. Cooper and R. E. Quinn, “Implications of the competing valuesframework for management information systems,” Human ResourceManag., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 175–201, 1993.

[41] A. K. O. Yeung, J. W. Brockbank, and D. O. Ulrich, “Organizationalculture and human resource practices: An empirical assessment,” inResearch in Organizational Change and Development, R. W. Woodmanand W. A. Pasmore, Eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI, 1991, vol. 5, pp. 59–81.

[42] R. E. Zammuto and J. Y. Krakower, “Quantitative and qualitativestudies of organizational culture,” in Research in Organizational Changeand Development, W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore, Eds. Greenwich,CT: JAI, 1991, vol. 5, pp. 83–114.

[43] R. E. Quinn, Beyond Rational Management. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass, 1988.

[44] R. B. Brown and M. J. Woodland, “Managing knowledge wisely: Acase study in organizational behavior,” J. Appl. Manag. Studies, vol.8, no. 2, pp. 175–198, 1999.

[45] P. N. Rastogi, “Knowledge management and intellectual capital—Thenew virtuous reality of competitiveness,” Human Syst. Manag., vol. 19,no. 1, pp. 39–48, 2000.

[46] J. Liebowitz, Building Organizational Intelligence: A KnowledgeManagement Primer. Boca Raton, FL: CRC, 1999.

[47] B. Victor and J. B. Cullen, “The organizational bases of ethical workclimates,” Admin. Sci. Quart., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 101–125, 1988.

[48] J. B. Cullen, B. Victor, and J. W. Bronson, “The ethical climatequestionnaire: An assessment of its development and validity,” Psychol.Rep., vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 667–674, 1993.

[49] G. Lynch, “Intranets—Just another bandwagon?,” Logistics Focus, vol.5, no. 1, pp. 8–9, 1997.

[50] J. Gantz. (2000, May) Controlling the coming chaos ofintranets. [Online] Computerworld. Available: http:/ /www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/000306F3F6

[51] Y. Malhotra, “Tools@work: Deciphering the knowledge managementhype,” J. Quality and Participation, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 58–60, 1998.

[52] W. Tsai and S. Ghoshal, “Social capital and value creation: The role ofintrafirm networks,” Acad. Manag. J., vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 464–476, 1998.

[53] A. C. Inkpen, “Creating knowledge through collaboration,” Calif.Manag. Rev., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 123–140, 1996.

[54] F. N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Social Research, 3rd ed. New York:Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1986.

[55] A. C. Boynton, R. W. Zmud, and G. C. Jacobs, “The influence of ITmanagement practice on IT use in large organizations,” MIS Quart., vol.18, no. 3, pp. 299–318, 1994.

[56] R. S. Upchurch and S. K. Ruhland, “An analysis of ethical work climateand leadership relationship in lodging operations,” J. Travel Res.,vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 36–42, 1995.

[57] T. M. Jones, “Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethicsand economics,” Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 404–437, 1995.


[58] S. L. Nwachukwu and S. J. Vitell, “The influence of corporate cultureon managerial ethical judgments,” J. Bus. Ethics, vol. 16, no. 8, pp.757–776, 1997.

[59] R. E. Quinn and G. Spreitzer, “The psychometrics of the competingvalues culture instrument,” in Research in Organizational Change andDevelopment, R. W. Woodman and W. A. Pasmore, Eds. Greenwich,CT: JAI, 1991, vol. 5, pp. 115–142.

[60] T. Horgan. (2000, May) What’s happening inside?. [Online] CIOMag. Available: http:/ /www.cio.com/forums/intranet/edit/in-tranet_trends.html

[61] J. Sanchez. (2000, May) Euro intranet services to grow sevenfoldby 2003. [Online] Computerworld Online Services. Available:http:/ /www.computerworld.com/home/news.nsf/all/9903121eurnet

[62] P. Korzeniowski, “Intranet bets pay off,” InfoWorld, vol. 19, no. 2,pp. 61–62, 1997.

[63] M. R. Kriss, “Corporate intranets of the future,” Telecommun. Mag.:Intranet Bus. Technol. Suppl., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. S22–S25, January1997.

[64] H. Hall, “Online information sources: Tools of business intelligence?,”J. Inform. Sci., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 139–143, 2000.

[65] K. Sayer and L. Harvey, “Empowerment in business processreengineering: An ethnographic study of implementation discourses,”in Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Information Systems, K. Kumar and J. I.DeGross, Eds. Atlanta, GA, Dec. 15–17, 1997, pp. 427–440.

Cynthia P. Ruppel is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at The University

of Toledo. Her research interests include the adoption, implementation, and use of IT

innovations, focusing on those related to enabling virtual business arrangements,

and she is particularly interested in those factors relating to the human/social

aspects of these ITs. She has published in IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PROFESSIONAL

COMMUNICATION, Database, Journal of Business Ethics, and Information Resources

Management Journal, as well as others.

Susan J. Harrington is a Professor of Information Systems (IS) at Georgia College and

State University. She has 12 years of IS experience in Fortune 500 companies and

has spent the last 14 years researching the effective implementation of information

technologies and how management behaviors impact IS employee performance. She

has published articles and been quoted in several IS academic and practitioner

journals, including MIS Quarterly and Computerworld. Her current research examines

the role of the organization’s absorptive capacity and culture in the adoption and

successful implementation of a wide variety of emerging technologies, including

virtual corporations and e-commerce.

sharing knowledge through intranets: a study of … browsers, search capabilities, and...

Documents