Content uploaded by Anders Avdic
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anders Avdic on Mar 18, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1778
Knowledge Management Systems Acceptance
Fredrik Ericsson
Örebro University, Sweden
Anders Avdic
Örebro University, Sweden
Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc., distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge management is a set of systematic actions
that organizations can take to obtain the greatest value
from the knowledge available to it (Davenport & Prusak,
1998). Systematic means that knowledge management is
made up of intentional actions in an organizational con-
text. Value means that knowledge management is mea-
sured according to how knowledge management projects
contribute to increased organizational ability (see for
example Prieto & Gutiérrez, 2001; see Goldkuhl & Braf,
2002, on the subject of organizational ability). The moti-
vation for knowledge management is that the key to
competitive advantage for organizations in today’s busi-
ness world is organizations’ ability to manage knowledge
(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
Knowledge management as an intentional and value-
adding action is not easy to accomplish in practice
(Scarbrough & Swan, 1999). Scarbrough and Swan
(1999) present several case studies in knowledge man-
agement, successful and unsuccessful in their respec-
tive knowledge management projects. A major point
and lessons learned from the case studies is that preva-
lent approaches in knowledge management overstate
technology and understate how technology is imple-
mented and applied.
To succeed with knowledge management, encom-
passing development of information technology-based
information system, some requirements have to be ful-
filled. An important aspect in the development process is
system acceptance. Implementation is at large a process
of acceptance. Implementation is the process where the
system becomes an integrated part of the users’ or work-
ers’ work practice. Therefore implementation is essential
to make a knowledge management project successful in
order attain an increased organizational ability and to
succeed with knowledge management.
ISSUES OF KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT—SYSTEMS AND
ACCEPTANCE
In this section we provide broad definitions and discus-
sion of the topics to support our positions on the topics
of knowledge management and systems acceptance.
MANAGING KNOWLEDGE
Work in knowledge management has a tendency to omit
social or technological aspects by taking on one of two
perspectives on knowledge management, the anthropo-
centric or the technocratic view (Sveiby, 2001; Swan,
1999). The anthropocentric and the technocratic views
represent two contradictory views on knowledge man-
agement and can be summarized as technology can or
technology cannot. The gap between the anthropocentric
and technocratic view depends on a difference of opin-
ions concerning the notion of knowledge. The techno-
cratic view conceives knowledge to be some organized
collection of data and information, and the anthropocen-
tric view conceives knowledge to reside in humans, not in
the collection (Churchman, 1971; Meredith & Burstein,
2000). Our conception of knowledge is that of the anthro-
pocentric view. Taking on an anthropocentric view on
knowledge management does not mean that we discard
knowledge management technologies; we rather take on
a balanced view on the subject. Information technology
can support knowledge management in an organization
through a number of different technological components,
for example intranets, extranets, data warehouses, and
database management systems (Borghoff & Pareschi,
1998; Tiwana, 2000; Ericsson & Avdic, 2002). The point in
taking on an anthropocentric view of knowledge manage-
ment is not to lose sight of the knower who gives meaning
to the information and data found in IT-based knowledge
management systems.
Copyright © 2005. IGI Global. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright
law.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/30/2012 4:27 PM via OREBRO UNIV
9781591407942 ; Khosrowpour, Mehdi.; Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Volumes 1-5
Account: s3912154
1779
Knowledge Management Systems Acceptance
K
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS
Information systems can include either operative or direc-
tive and decision support information (Langefors, 1966;
Yourdon, 1989). Operative systems provide system users
with information necessary in workers’ daily work, while
directive and decision support systems provide system
users with information that improves the quality of deci-
sions workers make in daily work. Knowledge manage-
ments systems are systems developed to manage knowl-
edge directly or indirectly to give support for an improved
quality of a decision made in workers daily work, and as
an extension, an increased organizational ability. A knowl-
edge management system typically includes directive
information, for example in guiding a user’s choice in a
specific work situation. Such systems are often optional
in the sense that users can deliberately refrain from using
the system and/or refrain from taking the directed action.
Accordingly, user acceptance is crucial for the degree of
usage of knowledge management systems.
ACCEPTANCE OF TECHNOLOGICAL
SYSTEMS
Technology acceptance has been subject of research by,
for example, Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshav (1989), who
developed the well-known Technology Acceptance Model
(TAM) and later a revised version of the original model,
TAM2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). TAM is an explanative
model explaining user behavior of computer technologies
by focusing on perceived ease of use, perceived useful-
ness, attitude towards use, and behavioral intentions as
determinants of user behavior. TAM2 is an extension of
the original model including external factors related to
perceived usefulness.
The framework for system acceptance, Requirements
of Acceptance Model (RAM) have some resemblances
with TAM and the later TAM2. RAM is in comparison
with TAM descriptive in nature. Workers’ work practice
is treated as an integrated element of RAM, compared with
not being treated as a determinant of system use in the
original TAM and as an external factor in TAM2. Further,
RAM covers acceptance of knowledge management sys-
tems, and TAM/TAM2 cover a broad range of computer
technologies. RAM systematically acknowledges factors
important in implementation of knowledge management
systems to gain acceptance of such systems.
REQUIREMENTS OF THE
ACCEPTANCE MODEL
We perceive acceptance to be a function of perceived
relevance, systems accessibility, and management sup-
port. Together these elements constitute our framework
RAM. In this section we present the requirements of
acceptance in RAM. The Requirements of Acceptance
Model is illustrated in Figure 1.
PERCEIVED RELEVANCE
The workers, who are to use the system, must perceive the
knowledge management system as relevant. Since it is
possible for workers to work without using the system, it
has to be obvious that usage of the system implies adding
value to the work result. An additional aspect of relevance
related to perceived relevance is how the system should
be integrated in running work, that is, to make the system
an integrated part of the workers’ work practice.
In summary, perceived relevance is about workers,
who are to use the system, perceiving the system as
(Ericsson & Avdic, 2003)
• adding value to the work results; and
• being integrated in running work.
ACCESSIBILITY
To obtain acceptance of knowledge management sys-
tems, accessibility has to be satisfactory. It must be
accessible to the workers who are to use the system.
Accessibility is a question of who is to be the user (type
of workers concerning organizational position), what
Figure 1. Requirements of Acceptance Model (Ericsson
& Avdic, 2003)
Management support
Perceived relevancePerceived relevance
System accessibilitySystem accessibility
ACCEPTANCEACCEPTANCE
Copyright © 2005. IGI Global. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright
law.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/30/2012 4:27 PM via OREBRO UNIV
9781591407942 ; Khosrowpour, Mehdi.; Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Volumes 1-5
Account: s3912154
1780
Knowledge Management Systems Acceptance
action and work the system is to support (daily work,
product development, innovation, etc.), where users get
access to the system (the physical access), when the
system is ready to use, and how the system’s interface
fulfills the goal of the system.
In summary, systems accessibility is about (Ericsson
& Avdic, 2003):
• knowing who the user is;
• systematizing the actions workers perform in the
work practice the system is to support;
• deciding the system’s physical access;
• securing a certain degree of usage before the sys-
tem is put into operation; and
• ensuring the system’s design meets the goals of the
system.
MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
Management support is vital according to many models
on information systems development, especially when
the system is a directive/decision support system
(Yourdon, 1989). Knowledge management systems are
typically directive systems, and workers have a choice in
deciding whether to use the system or not. Management
support is important to stress the value for workers to use
the system and to make conditions for workers to do so.
DEVELOPMENT IS A PROCESS OF
ACCEPTANCE
There must be a fit between workers’ work practice and
technology to get acceptance of knowledge management
systems. The technology used to create a knowledge
management system must fit the actions workers perform
in their work practice. On an overall level there must be a
fit between technology and actions performed by indi-
vidual workers, and between individual workers and the
organization as a whole, thus forming a coherent whole.
It is in the development of knowledge management sys-
tems that the requirements of acceptance are fulfilled. A
common conception concerning information systems
development is that it constitutes analysis, design, con-
struction, and implementation of information systems
(Hirschheim, Klein & Lyytinen, 1996).
The groundwork for acceptance is made during the
design, but foremost when implementing the system.
Workers who are to use the system should be engaged at
an early stage of the development process. The point of
including workers at an early stage is to acquaint users
with the system and the purpose of the system. Further,
this is an opportunity for workers to influence the system’s
design and content. The most prominent aspect addressed
when involving workers at an early stage is that of choos-
ing and determining the meaning of crucial concepts
managed by the system. Crucial concepts managed by the
system are the knowledge represented in the system, and
by determining concepts, knowledge represented in the
system takes on a systematized character. Further, by
involving the workers in the process of choosing and
determining the meaning of crucial concepts managed by
the system, the knowledge represented in the system
does not lose its origin or meaning. The point is to keep
the knowledge represented in the system within a frame of
understanding or meaning, as perceived by workers. A
knowledge management systems should be seen as a tool
developed to support workers in learning and acquiring
knowledge about actions taking place at work. This re-
quires closeness between how concepts are perceived by
Perceived relevance—Workers, who are to use the system, have to perceiv
e
the system as:
• Adding value to work results
• Being integrated in running work
Systems accessibility—System accessibility is about:
• Knowing who the user is
• Systematizing actions workers perform in the work practice the system i
s
to support
• Deciding the physical location where users get physical access to the
system
• Securing usage of the system before it is put into operation
• The systems’ design must meet up to the goals of the system
Management support—Fundamental because management authorizes
development of systems
Table 1. Summary of RAM (Ericsson & Avdic, 2003)
Copyright © 2005. IGI Global. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright
law.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/30/2012 4:27 PM via OREBRO UNIV
9781591407942 ; Khosrowpour, Mehdi.; Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Volumes 1-5
Account: s3912154
1781
Knowledge Management Systems Acceptance
K
workers and how such concepts are represented in a
system.
FUTURE TRENDS
Research on technology acceptance (i.e., Davis et al.,
1989; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000) has focused on user
behavior of computer technologies. RAM is developed
for and is used to assess acceptance of knowledge man-
agement systems. Acceptance has not been a crucial
issue within the knowledge management area. A problem
with knowledge management systems is that they work in
theory, but seldom in practice (Wickramasinghe, 2003). A
contributing factor to that picture may very well be that of
having overlooked usage-related problems connected to
knowledge management systems. In that sense, knowl-
edge management systems acceptance can be expected to
be an area for further research in the future.
CONCLUSION
Acceptance of knowledge management systems is a func-
tion of perceived relevance, systems accessibility, and
management support. Together these elements consti-
tute our framework RAM. RAM is summarized in Table 1.
The Requirements of Acceptance Model point to-
wards several important aspects concerning relevance,
accessibility, and support. The groundwork for system
acceptance is the development process. Development is
very much a process of acceptance as a process of
developing the system itself. Through requirements of
acceptance, knowledge management systems can remain
and continue to be a contributing factor for the
organization’s ability to do business.
REFERENCES
Borghoff, U.M. & Pareschi, R. (Eds.). (1998). Information
technology for knowledge management. Berlin, Heidel-
berg: Springer-Verlag.
Churchman, C.W. (1971). The design of enquiring sys-
tems: Basic concepts of systems and organization. New
York: Basic Books.
Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge:
How organizations manage what they know. Boston:
Harvard Business School.
Davis, F.F., Bagozzi, R.P. & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User
acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two
theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-
1003.
Ericsson, F. & Avdic, A. (2002). Information technology
and knowledge acquisition in manufacturing companies:
A Scandinavian perspective. In E. Coakes, D. Willis & S.
Clarke (Eds.), knowledge management in the socio-tech-
nical world. The grafitti continues. London: Springer-
Verlag.
Ericsson, F. & Avdic, A. (2003). Knowledge management
systems acceptance. In E. Coakes (Ed.), Knowledge man-
agement: Current issues & challenges (pp. 39-51).
Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Goldkuhl, G. & Braf, E. (2002). Organisational ability:
Constituents and congruencies. In E. Coakes, D. Willis &
S. Clarke (Eds.), Knowledge management in the socio-
technical world. The grafitti continues (pp. 30-42). Lon-
don: Springer-Verlag.
Hirschheim, R., Klein, H.K. & Lyytinen, K. (1996). Explor-
ing the intellectual structures of information systems
development: A social action theoretic analysis. Account-
ing, Management & Information Technology, 6(1/2), 1-
64.
Langefors, B. (1966). Theoretical analysis of information
systems. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Meredith, R. & Burstein, F. (2000). Getting the message
across with communicative knowledge management. Pro-
ceedings of the Australian Conference on Knowledge
Management and Intelligent Decision Support
(ACKMID’2000) (pp. 43-55). Melbourne: Australian Schol-
arly Publishers.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating
company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics
of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Prieto, I.M. & Gutiérrez, E.R. (2001). A contingency per-
spective of learning and knowledge management in orga-
nizations. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2nd
European Conference on Knowledge Management (pp.
487-502). Slovenia: Bled School of Management.
Scarbrough, J. & Swan, J. (Eds.). (1999). Case studies in
knowledge management. London: Institute of Personnel
and Development.
Sveiby, K.-E. (2001, April). What is knowledge manage-
ment? Retrieved June 28, 2002, from www.sveiby.com.au.
Swan, J. (1999). Introduction. In J. Scarbrough & J. Swan
(Eds.), Case studies in knowledge management. London:
Institute of Personnel and Development.
Copyright © 2005. IGI Global. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright
law.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/30/2012 4:27 PM via OREBRO UNIV
9781591407942 ; Khosrowpour, Mehdi.; Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Volumes 1-5
Account: s3912154
1782
Knowledge Management Systems Acceptance
Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge management toolkit.
Practical techniques for building a knowledge manage-
ment system. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Venkatesh, V. & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical exten-
sion of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitu-
dinal field studies. Management Science, 46, 86-204.
Yordon, E. (1989). Modern structured analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wickramasinghe, N. (2003). Do we practice what we
preach? Are knowledge management systems in practice
truly reflective of knowledge management systems in
theory? Business Process Management Journal, 9(3),
295-316.
KEY TERMS
Anthropocentric View of Knowledge: Knowledge re-
sides in humans.
Information Systems Development: Constitutes analy-
sis, design, construction, and implementation of informa-
tion systems.
Knowledge: Knowledge is personal and talked about
and may thus be public and shared among a group of
people who have a common frame of reference, providing
means for people to make sense of and apply knowledge
in practice.
Knowledge Management: The name given to the set of
systematic actions that an organization can take to obtain
the greatest value from the knowledge available to it.
Knowledge Management Systems: Typically, direc-
tive systems developed to manage knowledge directly or
indirectly to give support for an improved quality of a
decision made in workers’ daily work, and as an extension,
an increased organizational ability.
Perceived Relevance: Workers who are to use the
system perceive the system as adding value to the work
results and being integrated in running work.
Systems Acceptance: A function of perceived rel-
evance, systems accessibility, and management support.
Systems Accessibility/Development: Knowing who
the user is, systematizing the actions workers perform in
their work practice the system is to support, deciding the
system’s physical location, securing a certain degree of
usage before the system is put into operation, and ensur-
ing the system’s design meets the goals of the system.
Technocratic View of Knowledge: Knowledge is an
organized collection of data and information.
Copyright © 2005. IGI Global. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without permission from the publisher, except fair uses permitted under U.S. or applicable copyright
law.
EBSCO Publishing : eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 1/30/2012 4:27 PM via OREBRO UNIV
9781591407942 ; Khosrowpour, Mehdi.; Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Volumes 1-5
Account: s3912154
