Unit V Case StudyFor this assignment, you will use the following.docx

Unit V Case Study
For this assignment, you will use the following case study.
Vandaveer, V. V. (2012). Dyadic team development across
cultures: A case study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 64(4), 279–294. Retrieved from
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://s
earch.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=8530
1202&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Given this scenario, include the following topics:
· Explain how culture can affect perceptions of team members
in a group.
· Discuss strategies for working with leaders or team members
who originate from a different culture than you.
· Expound on the significance of using the best type of verbiage
to communicate with other members of a team in order to prove
successful in task completion.
· Share the benefits of connecting with humor to build team
camaraderie.
· Explain how personality traits, social factors, and styles of
leadership can affect the competence and loyalty of a team
member.
· Determine the different career options an employee might
consider when having trouble working with a cohort or leader of
a department.
Formulate your response to these questions using APA format in
a minimum of a two-page paper that includes at least two
outside sources. Therefore, two additional sources, in addition
to the case study, are required. Please use the CSU Online
Library databases to find academic journals as sources.

INFORMATYKA EKONOMICZNA BUSINESS
INFORMATICS 3(37) • 2015
ISSN 1507-3858
e-ISSN 2450-0003
Radosław Wójtowicz
Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny we Wrocławiu
e-mail: [email protected]
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENTERPRISE
CONTENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IN A COMPANY
WDRAŻANIE SYSTEMÓW ZARZĄDZANIA TREŚCIĄ
W PRZEDSIĘBIORSTWIE
DOI: 10.15611/ie.2015.3.08
JEL Classification: M150
Summary: Modern technological possibilities referring to
business intelligence and
knowledge management support in an organization comprise
mainly software which supports
groupware, software used for workflow management, intranets
and corporal portals, tools
for remote learning, data warehouse and Enterprise Content
Management systems. The
latter of the mentioned information technologies currently
seems to be one of the most
crucial structural foundations of business intelligence and
knowledge management systems
which have been developing rapidly over recent years. The main
objective of this paper is
to present the author’s general methodology of the
implementation of the ECM systems in
the organization resulting from the preliminary literature review
and the extensive practical
experience. The first part of the study concentrates on the main
definitions. The next and the

most important part presents the details of the proposed
methodology.
Keywords: Enterprise Content Management, IT-projects,
document management.
Streszczenie: Nowoczesne technologie informatyczne, służące
wspieraniu rozwiązań klasy
business intelligence i zarządzania wiedzą, obejmują głównie
technologie związane z opro-
gramowaniem do pracy grupowej, zarządzaniem przepływami
pracy, intranetami i portalami
korporacyjnymi, narzędziami do nauczania zdalnego, hurtownie
danych oraz systemy zarzą-
dzania treścią. Ostatnia z wymienionych technologii wydaje się
aktualnie jednym z najistot-
niejszych strukturalnych fundamentów, pozwalających stworzyć
w przedsiębiorstwie rozwią-
zania klasy business intelligence i zarządzania wiedzą. Celem
artykułu jest przedstawienie
autorskiej propozycji koncepcji wdrażania systemu zarządzania
treścią w przedsiębiorstwie
będącej rezultatem wstępnych badań literaturowych i szerszych
doświadczeń praktycznych.
Pierwsza część artykułu koncentruje się na najważniejszych
definicjach, następna i najważ-
niejsza część zawiera zaś opis zaproponowanej metodyki
wdrożeniowej.
Słowa kluczowe: zarządzanie treścią, projekty informatyczne,
zarządzanie dokumentami.
Informatyka_Ekonomiczna_nr3.indb 114 2016-06-13
10:12:49

The implementation of the Enterprise Content Management
systems in a company 115
1. Introduction
The employees in the organizations take a lot of time to search
for needed information
or documents that are “hidden” in the resources of a company or
an institution.
Thanks to modern IT solutions the time required to find
information can be significant
reduced. Organizations that have implemented such systems are
undoubtedly more
efficient and more competitive. To discount advantages of such
systems which are
the subject of the further consideration it is necessary to use a
proper implementation
methodology that takes into account their specific features and
allow for “safe”
realization of the entire project.
The main goal of this article is to present the general concept of
the implementation
methodology of the Enterprise Content Management (ECM)
systems. The proposition
of the methodology results mainly from the practical
experiences and the literature
study of the author. The elements of the methodology were
positively verified in
practice in several medium-sized industrial and commercial
enterprises. It should
also be noted that in Polish literature regarding the IT systems a
systemic approach
to implementing ECM systems is still missing. Therefore, this
article is an attempt,

at least in part, to complement of this lack.
2. Basic definitions
Enterprise Content Management systems are used to build,
organize, manage and
store digital information on any medium and in any format.
Content management is
the basis for knowledge management and business intelligent
technologies in any
organisation [Kleu et al. 2013].
The Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM)
International,
the worldwide association for Enterprise Content Management,
defined the term
ECM as follows:
“Enterprise Content Management is the systematic collection
and organization
of information that is to be used by a designated audience –
business executives,
customers, etc. It is a dynamic combination of strategies,
methods, and tools used to
capture, manage, store, preserve, and deliver information
supporting key organizational
processes through its entire lifecycle” [AIIM 2015].
The five ECM components and technologies were also first
defined by AIIM:
• Capture,
• Manage,
• Store,
• Preserve,
• Deliver.

Capture involves converting information from paper documents
into an electronic
format through scanning. Capture is also used to collect
electronic files and information
into a consistent structure for management. Capture
technologies also encompass the
10:12:49
116 Radosław Wójtowicz
creation of metadata (index values) that describe characteristics
of a document for
easy location through search technology.
Manage category connects the other components, which can be
used in combina-
tion or separately. Document management, Web content
management, collaboration,
workflow and business process management address the
dynamic part of the infor-
mation’s lifecycle. Records management focuses on managing
finalized documents
in accordance with the organization’s document retention
policy, which in turn must
comply with government mandates and industry practices.
Store components temporarily store information that is not
required, desired, or
ready for long-term storage or preservation.
Preserve involves the long-term, safe storage and backup of
static, unchanging in-

formation. Preservation is typically accomplished by the records
management features
of an ECM system and many are designed to help companies
comply with government
and industry regulations.
Deliver components of ECM present information from the
Manage, Store, and
Preserve components. The AIIM component model for ECM is
function-based, and
does not impose a strict hierarchy; the Deliver components may
contain functions used
to enter information into other systems (such as transferring
information to portable
media, or generating formatted output files); or for readying
information, such as by
converting its format or compressing it, for the “Store” and
“Preserve” components.
The Deliver category’s functionality is also known as “output”;
technologies in this
category are often termed output management [Enterprise 2015].
At the end of this part of the article it is worth mentioning a
relatively new no-
tion, namely Enterprise Information Management (EIM).
Enterprise Information
Management combines Enterprise Content Management (ECM),
Business Process
Management (BPM), Customer Experience Management (CEM)
and Business Intel-
ligence (BI). EIM takes these approaches to managing
information one step further.
It is not only the software, it is first of all an attitude which
assumes an active man-
agement of all information in a company [Bischoff 2015].
However, in this article we

concentrate on the ECM because EIM requires further and
extended study.
3. The general conception of the implementation
of the ECM system
We will begin our analysis with the presentation of the general
model of the ECM
system in an organisation and then we will go to the description
of the proposed
implementation methodology. The general model of the ECM
system in an
organisation (from a small and medium-sized company
perspective) is presented in
Figure 1.
The presented model of the system is composed of several main
elements which
are strictly connected. The organisation (as the contractor or
service provider)
establishes a framework for four kinds of objects identified
from the viewpoint of
10:12:49
the generated documentation: organisational resources,
processes and procedures,
electronic documents and projects.
Fig. 1. The general model of the ECM system in an organisation

Source: own study based on [Wójtowicz 2011].
The organisational resources contain the descriptions of the
positions and roles
of the staff. These descriptions should characterise in a formal
way all abilities of the
members of the project teams.
The processes and procedures describe all methods of the
activities during the
project. They can refer not only to the management area of the
project, but also to
the implementation area.
In the presented model electronic documents create a
centralised database which
contains formal records of all information that is transferred
between the members of
the project teams and between a company and the clients.
Owing to the maintaining
the actual database of electronic documents, “a record” of the
whole undertaking
comes into being.
The projects are some kind of products offered to the clients.
Every project should be
described with essential parameters like: budget, plan of work,
schedule, resources, etc.
The above-mentioned objects are dynamically interconnected
through the internal
documents, which means sets of the documents that are
restricted (temporarily and

10:12:49
geographically) to the structures of the company. Among the
internal documents we
can indicate all documents which are important in the project
(e.g. descriptions of the
implementational procedures, rules, instructions), but are not
received and delivered
directly from and to the clients.
Often the success of the project depends on the quality of the
contacts between
employees and clients. Formal and well-structured
exemplification of these contacts
comprises the external documents. Among the external
documents we can indicate
the outgoing correspondence and incoming correspondence.
The way of the implementation of the system that supports
content management
depends mainly on the complexity of the project and the size of
the company. Big
companies have their own software solutions which are often
parts of the complex
application supporting the management. In the article we
propose the solution primarily
for small and medium-sized organisations.
Fig. 2. The general concept of the proposed methodology
Source: own study.

In order to locate the proposed methodology within the software
development
and implementing methodologies, we can say that its
assumptions are next to the
methodologies called prototyping and incremental developing.
The first is the relatively
rapid creation of a prototype application that is tested and
verified by the client,
and then a system is built from the ground up. The second of
them is based on
10:12:50
selecting a subset of system functions and iterative process of
their implementation.
The proposed methodology is built on partial application
prototype, which is then
expanded and modified to achieve full functionality. It should
be noted that, in practice,
often a document management system will be prototyped, which
is the basis for the
creation and expansion of the ECM system.
An important feature of the presented methodology is structural
and iterative
prototyping of applications that is based on well-defined stages
(phases) of development
and implementation of the system ECM. After completion of the
stage achieved
objectives and benefits are compared to incurred costs. To

determine successive
iterations, we have to indicate the appropriate criteria which
allow to measure and
estimate the value of each iteration. This approach also allows
to use of the EVA/
EVM (Earned Value Analysis/Earned Value Management)
method, which is based,
among others, on the measuring and tracking of the work
progress related to costs,
time and achieved results, and then comparing the obtained
values with a scope of
the project [Dudycz, Dyczkowski 2006].
In practice, the application of the described methodology is
based on the division
of the project into three phases, allowing to develop the pilot
application, then the
extended pilot application and lastly the final (production)
application. The main
emphasis in the implementation and development activities is on
the development of
the working prototype of the application that is tested to detect
the potential problems.
The general concept of the proposed methodology is shown in
Figure 2.
The Phase I − pilot application provides: the management of the
access rights to
the documents, grouping documents by the rules and creating a
hierarchy of documents,
automatically annotate documents and giving them unique
identifiers, create new
documents using forms, search and view documents, archive
important documents.

The Phase II – extended pilot application includes the
functional scope of
the pilot application and the features for: the efficient
distribution of documents
and information to the individual recipients, tracking of any
document within the
organization (who and when received a document, when read it,
what did with it, etc.)
immediate check, who is working on a document and what is
happening with this
document, receiving reports (eg. cases that were not dealt with
within the required
deadline), or time for common tasks.
The final application phase (III) − includes the features of the
expanded pilot
application accompanied by: defining the workflow of the
documents in accordance
with the procedures, automatic recording information regarding
the routes of the
documents, providing the information, what actions are to be
performed by the
employee to complete the stage of the business process, quick
finding (locating) of
the document and checking the status of a document in any
phase of the procedure.
For each of these phases we can distinguish five essential steps,
namely:
1. innovation,
2. creating solutions,
3. implementing solutions,
10:12:50

4. transformation of management,
5. management and maintenance.
Innovation is a redesigning of the relevant processes and
activities in the company
on the basis of the analysis of the existing structure and the
firm’s goals.
The analysis of the current situation consists first of all of:
1. determination of the environment in which the company
operates,
2. description of the company’s objectives and strategies,
3. presentation of the technical infrastructure,
4. developing the competence matrix,
5. creating a the map of the processes (operations, flows,
requirements, metrics),
6. identification of the technology which is used and required
by the teamwork.
Based on these data the innovation report (proposed changes)
can be created
containing a new concept of the processes and solutions. The
innovation process may
involve the entire organization, selected departments or working
teams.
Creating solutions means the transformation of the changes
described in the
innovations report into the prototype of the application, which
is a result of joint
teamwork of the analysts, IT-company (supplier) and future
users (client).

Implementing solutions ‒ this step includes activities and tasks
related to the
implementation of the developed applications:
1. defining the scheme to create applications in iterative process
of change of
the components using the method of the “increase value”,
2. developing the standards for application (interface,
communication),
3. defining the system architecture,
4. elaborating the strategy of the further development of the
applications and
system’s environment.
Transformation of the management is a step in which we can
formulate the
strategies and take actions to support the necessary changes in
the behaviour and
technical culture of employees affected by the implementation
of the new processes.
The trainings and workshops carried out at this stage allow to
moderate the natural,
negative reaction to the changes in the style and manner of work
which are necessary
for the redesign of the business processes and the introduction
of the new technologies.
Management and maintenance ensures the final success of the
all endeavours
undertaken during the implementation of the system. This step
defines and imposes
the steps and methods of the review of the success factors, but
also sets out the
principles of the communication with the client both during the

project and also when
the project is completed.
The general implementation concept that was previously
presented in outline,
needs to be complemented by a list of the implementation tasks,
containing the most
important works carried out during the implementation process.
These works may be
performed both during the development of the pilot application,
the extended pilot
application as well as the final (production) application. That
list includes Table 1.
10:12:50
Table 1. A sample excerpt of the list of the implementation
tasks for the ECM system
Number The description of the task
1 PRE-IMPLEMENTATION ANALYSIS
1.1 Gathering of the materials necessary for the preparation of
the pre-implementation analysis
1.2 Pre-implementation analysis and the development of
conception of the implementation
in the following areas:
• workflows of the invoices,
• workflows of the internal and external documents,
• schemes of the workflows,

• roles in the process of the workflows,
• defining the reports,
• integration with external systems, such as ERP,
• integration with external devices, e.g. scanners.
2 INSTALLATION AND CONFIGURATION
2.1 Installation and configuration of the system on a server
2.2 Adapting of the system to the customer’s IT infrastructure
Installation of the system on a workstation(s) of the end user(s)
2.3 Entering the user accounts and organizational structure
3 TRAININGS
3.1 System administrator’s training for the basic configuration
3.2 Training for the secretary to use the function of the
incoming and outgoing
correspondence
3.3 Training for the departments’ representatives for the use of
the modelled processes.
4 (RELEVANT) IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Import of the contractor’s database
4.2 Realization of the procedure of the workflow of the
invoices.
4.3 Realization of the other workflows (e.g. inquiries, order
processing, holidays, business trips)
4.4 Execution of the automated import of data from the ERP
system (e.g. the download of the
sales invoices).
4.5 Integration with the ERP system, including:
– download of the contractors data from the ERP system,
– export of the documents from the ECM system to the ERP
system.
4.6 Preparation of the reports.

5 DOCUMENTATION
5.1 Development of the documentation corresponding to the
workflows of the documents
5.2 Development of the technical documentation relating to the
integration with external systems
6 OTHER TASKS
6.1 Project management
6.2 Remote consultation
6.3 Technical support
Source: own study.
10:12:50
It is worth paying attention to the tasks 4.4 and 4.5 related to
the integration with
the ERP system. It is one of the critical points of the
implementation project, because
it requires close cooperation between the suppliers of IT
solutions [Marciniak 2010].
As described, the implementation of an Enterprise Content
Management system,
requires a staged approach1, gradually increasing the functional
range of the system
operating in a given enterprise [Kowalczyk 2015]. In practice,
in most cases, initially
the range of system operation covers only selected documents.
In many enterprises most often filled in documents are holiday
requests and

business trips settlements. It is useful to implement, in the first
place, a circulation
system for this kind of documents, which can be integrated with
other systems
functioning in the enterprise.
Introducing a holiday request in the system will require its
confirmation by
a supervisor, and afterwards it can result in an automatic
creation of suitable records
in the personnel module. If the enterprise calculates work time,
the system can also be
integrated with the ERP system, thanks to which work time
calculation can be linked
to the information about absences.
Filling in a business trip form in the system will require its
confirmation by
a supervisor, including the information about means of
transport, and then inserting
the information concerning an employee’s absence in the
personnel module of the
ERP system. This application could also automatically settle
allowances on the basis
of inserted information about dates and times of the trip, and
accept kilometrage
settlement of a trip made with a private car. After inserting all
data, it will be accepted
as far as the merits and accounts of the case are concerned, and
then the system will
generate a document which will be the basis of realising the
money due transfer.
Examples of other often automated processes, with which
documents such as
personnel forms are linked, are the following:

• registration and acceptance process of a pay raise request,
workplace change and
employment form change,
• employing new employees and workplace organisation,
• employee’s dismissals and handling a new employee
orientation checklist,
• accounting of company cars.
Other documents subjected to workflow are most often
documents including
inward and outward correspondence. Inward correspondence
function is linked
to the following operations (actions): receiving and describing
of correspondence
(describing the attributes of correspondence, number of
attachments, etc.), scanning
of paper correspondence, attaching a picture of scanned
correspondence (or e-mail
attached file) to the description of correspondence, automatic
registration in the
correspondence register (number, date and hour of registration),
decreeing (forwarding)
of correspondence, correspondence return, setting a reply date.
1 In the “world” of the ERP systems known as phased rollout
approach.
10:12:50

Function of outward correspondence handling covers such
operations as: preparing
an electronic document (in a suitable programme), describing
correspondence in the
system, attaching an electronic document to the description in
the system, linking
outward correspondence with appropriate enterprises, verifying
and signing outward
correspondence by people in charge, automatically registrating
in the correspondence
register, printing the contents of letters sent by traditional mail
(fax) or sending by e-mail.
A very important question during the implementation of the
ECM systems is an
appropriate classification of documents. It is most often realised
by granting metadata to
documents, which means additional attributes constituting so
called document metrics.
In this case it is possible to use two basic methods, which are
taxonomy (categorising
with the use of specified classification trees) and folksonomy
(categorising with
the use of any chosen key words). The application of the second
method involves
a few problems, for example, the user tagging a document
follows his/her subjective
impressions and needs, because there are no formal rules of
description. However,
a skilful combination of taxonomy and folksonomy can lead to
receiving a more
flexible tool to facilitate document classifying and tagging.
4. Conclusions
To sum up the described considerations it should be highlighted

that the ECM
solutions are specific because they support the “core” flow of
the information in
any organization. Therefore it is necessary to work out of the
detailed methods and
procedures during the implementation project which can be used
for the entire period
of “life” of the system in the organization.
During the implementation of the ECM system it is often
necessary to create
new and/or change the existing procedures within the
organization. It means that
this process cannot be seen only as an installation of software,
but as a change in
the business model of the company. To achieve this it is
necessary to integrate and
control business processes with resources of the company,
forcing compliance with
laws, regulations, rules, standards, etc. The ECM system cannot
be implemented on
the principle called “implement and forget”. This class of the IT
system must be under
constant supervision and requires continuous update,
customization, modification and
expansion [Implementing 2015].
References
AIIM, 2015, What is Enterprise Content Management (ECM)?,
http://www.aiim.org/What-is-ECM-
-Enterprise-Content-Management.aspx (20.07.2015).
Bischoff E., 2015, Erfolgsmodell Digitalisierung powered by
Enterprise Information Management,
DOK.magazin 03-04, Marketing Projekt 2000 GmbH, Dasing.

Dudycz H., Dyczkowski M., 2006, Efektywność przedsięwzięć
informatycznych. Podstawy metodyczne
pomiaru i przykłady zastosowań, Wydawnictwo Akademii
Ekonomicznej, Wrocław.
10:12:50
Enterprise, 2015,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_content_management
(20.07.2015).
Implementing, 2015,
http://pl.scribd.com/doc/6538675/Implementing-an-ECMS
(20.07.2015).
Kleu T., Micheletti G., Roufka M., 2013, Zarządzanie treścią w
przedsiębiorstwie: Od chaosu do pro-
duktywności, IDC White Paper.
Kowalczyk T., 2015, 7 problemów wdrożeń BI, Computerworld,
no. 10-11/1048, pp. 34-35.
Marciniak M., 2010, Zintegrować wszystko ze wszystkimi,
http://www.computerworld.pl/artyku-
ly/363121_2/Zintegrowac.wszystko.ze.wszystkim.html
(20.07.2015).
Wójtowicz R., 2011, Zarys metodyki wdrażania system
zarządzania obiegiem dokumentów w przed-
siębiorstwie, Informatyka Ekonomiczna, no. 22, Korczak J.,
Dudycz H. (eds), Prace Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu no 212, Wrocław,

pp. 346-355.
10:12:50
Copyright of Business Informatics / Informatyka Ekonomiczna
is the property of Uniwersytet
Ekonomiczny we Wroclawiu and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Investigating the role of business processes and knowledge
management systems on
performance: A multi-case study approach
Qing Cao*, Mark A. Thompson and Jason Triche
Texas Tech University, Rawls College of Business, Lubbock,
United States
(Received 5 February 2012; final version received 20 March
2013)
In the ever-changing and competitive market place,
organisations continuously need to improve their competitive
advan-
tage. One method to accomplish this is to form collaborative
networks. Both knowledge management (KM) and KM
systems play a pivotal role in the success of collaborative

networks since information sharing and knowledge assets are
so critical to the network. There has been a vast amount of
research on KM systems but very little is known about how
it affects individual and organisational performance. Drawing
on the task–technology fit theory in this study, we explore
the fit or alignment between business process (task) and KM
systems (technology) and its impact on KM systems utilisa-
tion based on multiple case studies. Subsequently, we
investigate the impacts of both the task–technology fit and KM
systems utilisation on individual and business performance.
This paper contributes to the collaborative network/KM liter-
ature in several ways. First, it extends the task–technology fit
theory to an important context of collaborative network/
KM. Second, it replaces task with business process, which has
the potential to help explain KM systems’ success on
business performance. Third, the paper explores the positive
impact of task–technology fit on KM system utilisation and
business performance. Fourth and finally, the study provides
insight into the future development of KM systems and
how to better align them with managerial purposes.
Keywords: knowledge management; collaborative network;
task–technology fit; knowledge management systems;
business process; business performance
1. Introduction
Complex business activities in organisations may lead to the
formation of a collaborative network to minimise the
impacts of market fluctuation and dynamic operational
behaviour by effective inter-organisational collaboration and
coordination (Jagdev and Thoben 2001). Both knowledge
management (KM) and KM systems play a pivotal role in the
success of a collaborative network since information sharing
and knowledge assets are two main pillars of the network.

Knowledge is a powerful resource in helping organisations as
well as individuals preserve their identity, culture, best
practices, and core competencies. Managing this knowledge has
become an important topic to both industry and aca-
demics. The topic of KM has been around for two decades,
while the practice of KM is still evolving and changing for
both practitioners and researchers alike. The importance and
influence of KM is evident by the plethora of research arti-
cles dedicated to the topic (see Alavi and Leidner 2001;
Schultze and Leidner 2002; Tanriverdi 2005; Gunasekaran and
Ngai 2007; Nachiappan, Gunasekaran, and Jawahar 2007; Wang,
Klein, and Jiang 2007). KM systems, on the other
hand, are the information technology used by an organisation to
capture, represent, and apply knowledge to itself and
its collaborative network (Dhaliwal and Benbasat 1996). In
other words, KM systems are viable tools for achieving
effective knowledge management.
Substantial investments have been made to KM system
technologies and in 2007 KM software was a $73 billion
market (AMR Research 2007). Despite the high expenditures in
KM, some researchers note the failure rate of KM pro-
jects at around 50% (Peyman, Jafari, and Fathian 2005). KM
approaches fail when they do not integrate human
resources, processes, and technology regardless of how much
money companies spend. The most common error in KM
implementation is failing to coordinate efforts between
information technology and human resources (Ambrosio 2000).
The KM effort should not be a technology issue or a people
issue, but instead should be a joint effort.
Although there is a general consensus of the organisational
settings in which KM systems can be applied, very little
is known about how to enhance business processes or how to
measure KM systems’ impacts on business performance
(Kulkarni, Ravindran, and Freeze 2007). Such knowledge is

crucial, however, for a realistic determination of the
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
International Journal of Production Research, 2013
Vol. 51, No. 18, 5565–5575,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.789145
� 2013 Taylor & Francis
opportunities and requirements presented by KM systems. We
endeavour to fill the void from both managerial and
academic perspectives in the KM systems arena.
This paper contributes to the collaborative network/KM
literature in several ways. First, it draws on the task–tech-
nology fit theory (Goodhue and Thompson 1995) to explore the
alignment between business process (task) and KM
systems (technology) and its impact on KM system utilisation.
Subsequently, we investigate the impacts of both the
task–technology fit and KM system utilisation on individual and
business performance via multiple case studies. By
extending the task–technology fit theory to an important context
of collaborative networks/KM, we replace task with
business process to help explain KM systems’ success on
business performance. Thus, the study builds contingency
theory in collaborative networks/KM by moving beyond the
question of mere tool usage (KM systems) to the match
between KM tool and business process. As such it presents a
viable framework for practitioners to effectively implement
KM systems. Finally, the study provides insight into the future
development of KM systems on how to better align them
with managerial purposes. The development of more appropriate
and useful KM tools would seem to be a critical
enabler of improved business performance.

The paper proceeds as follows. In the next section, we review
the literature on collaborative networks, KM, and KM
systems. In the theoretical background section, we propose a
theoretical approach that is appropriate for the study of
KM systems, namely, the task–technology fit framework. Then,
we explain our research model based on this framework,
develop propositions, and describe our case studies and
analytical procedures for the study. Finally, our results section
presents support for each of our propositions. The lessons
learned section highlights the contributions that we make by
providing a framework for research into the collaborative
networks/KM systems arena and discusses possible limitations
to our study along with several avenues for future research.
2. Literature review
In the ever-changing and competitive market place,
organisations continuously need to improve their competitive
advantage. One method to accomplish this is to form
collaborative networks both within the organisation and along
an
organisation’s supply chain. ‘A collaborative network is
constituted by a variety of entities (e.g., organisations and peo-
ple) that are largely autonomous, geographically distributed,
and heterogeneous in terms of their: operating environment,
culture, social capital, and goals.’ (Camarinha-Matos and
Afsarmanesh 2005, 439). The study of collaborative networks
is relatively new and it draws on multiple disciplines covering
computer science, economics, management, operations
management, and information systems. The formation,
operation, and success of collaborative networks depend on a
common base among its members, such as common goals,
common IT infrastructures and supporting services, real-time
information sharing, common standards, and common views of
business processes (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh

2003, 2005). Since real-time information sharing and the needed
baseline of business processes are crucial in collabora-
tive networks, both KM and subsequently KM systems play a
vital role in achieving an effective collaborative network.
Effective KM systems are critical to the success of a
collaborative network.
There are a number of different definitions of KM and KM
systems and these concepts are difficult to define (Earl 2001).
According to Schultze and Leidner (2002, 218) KM is defined
as the ‘generation, representation, storage, transfer, transfor-
mation, application, embedding, and protecting of
organisational knowledge.’ A more concise definition of KM is
to identify
and leverage the collective knowledge in an organisation to help
the organisation compete (Alavi and Leidner 2001).
The practice of KM in itself is broad and covers many topics
including business processes, business practices,
concepts, frameworks, methodologies, tools, and architecture.
For example, the methodologies and frameworks include
knowledge creation (Nonaka and von Krogh 2009), knowledge
assets (Wiig 1997; Wilkins, van Wegen, and De Hoog
1997), intellectual capital (Liebowitz and Wright 1999),
strategy management (Drew 1999; Hendriks and Vriens 1999),
systems thinking (Rubenstein-Montano et al. 2001), artificial
intelligence (Liebowitz 2001), and knowledge inertia (Liao
2002). Likewise, KM is also used across all different industries
including oil and gas (Preece et al. 2001), manufacturing
(Paiva, Roth, and Fensterseifer 2002), government (Liebowitz
1999), agriculture (Kristjanson et al. 2009), high-tech firms
(Collins and Smith 2006), and health care (Bose 2003). In fact,
a recent survey of 342 managers on whether or not they
are knowledgeable about their company’s usage of knowledge
management and collaborative technologies indicated that
47% of companies have formal knowledge management

initiatives or are planning them (Currier 2010). Given the
breadth of different methodologies, frameworks and industries
that utilise KM, research topics are vast and numerous.
However, KM systems, much like KM, are also difficult to
define and there are a number of different definitions.
One definition of KM systems is that it captures, represents, and
applies expert knowledge to an organisation (adopted
from Dhaliwal and Benbasat 1996). Basically KM systems refer
to a class of information systems that manage
organisational knowledge (Alavi and Leidner 2001). As
mentioned before, KM systems are employed across multiple
industries, in multiple ways, by a majority of companies in
today’s ever competitive marketplace.
5566 Q. Cao et al.
The current KM system literature can be grouped into four
knowledge management processes: (1) knowledge
creation, (2) storage/retrieval, (3) transfer, and (4)
application/use (Alavi and Leidner 2001). Our research focus is
to
study and analyse the application and use of KM systems on
utilisation and individual and organisational business per-
formance. We draw on the task–technology fit theory (Goodhue
and Thompson 1995) and extend it to the collaborative
network/KM systems domain. To the best of our knowledge,
this is the first attempt to measure collaborative network/
KM systems using task–technology fit. We employ a multiple-
case study approach using three different organisations in
three different industries.
3. Theoretical background

3.1 Task–technology fit
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) propose a model where tasks
(defined as actions carried out by individuals in turning
inputs into outputs) and technology (defined as tools used by
individuals in carrying out these tasks) predict a construct
called the task–technology fit. The task–technology fit is
defined as the degree to which technology assists in performing
the respective tasks. This construct, combined with whether an
individual utilises the technology, determines the impact
on an individual’s performance. Utilisation of the technology
may be either voluntary or mandatory for the individual.
Task–technology fit theories are contingency theories that argue
that the use of technology may result in different
outcomes depending on the task that it is used for (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995). This theory proposes that if a
technology is utilised and it is a good fit with the task it
supports, then the technology will have a positive impact on
individual performance. While this model has been extended by
Zigurs and Buckland (1998) to test the effect of
different types of tasks and technology on group performance,
the theory has also been applied to several other areas of
information system research over the last 15 years. For
example, the theory has been used to study how virtual teams
can match communication technologies to different types of
interpersonal interactions (Maruping and Agarwal 2004) as
well as to study the effects, adoption, and impacts of mobile
commerce (Gebauer and Shaw 2004; Lee, Cheng, and
Cheng 2007). Other ways the theory has been studied is in the
use of simulation training for the military (Cane,
McCarthy, and Halawi 2010), the use of the web as an
information source for international travel (D’Ambra and
Wilson
2004), the ease and use of user interfaces (Mathieson and Keil
1998), and the study of information technology in mana-

gerial decision making (Ferratt and Vlahos 1998).
3.2 Proposition development
We extend the task–technology fit framework by Goodhue and
Thompson (1995), where business process represents
tasks and KM systems represent technology. As such, fit is
defined as the degree to which KM systems assist an indi-
vidual or organisation in performing their business process. The
business process–KM systems fit construct combined
with whether an individual utilises a KM system determines the
impact on an individual or organisation’s performance.
Our research model is described in Figure 1.
KM systems represent the technology aspect for our model. As
defined by Goodhue and Thompson (1995), technol-
ogy comprises tools used by individuals in carrying out their
tasks. We posit that a KM system is a tool that manages
organisational knowledge and is used by individuals and
organisations to perform and facilitate tasks. As such, a KM
system facilitates several elements of a collaborative network,
that is, the ability to integrate data for various users and
to search for content (Camarinha-Matos and Afsarmanesh
2005).
Business process
KM
systems
Business
process-KM
system Fit
Utilisation

Individual and
organisational
performance
Figure 1. Research framework.
International Journal of Production Research 5567
A business process is an activity or set of activities that will
accomplish a specific organisational goal. Business
processes are defined as any activity or group of activities that
takes one or more inputs, transforms them, and provides
one or more outputs for its customers (Krajewski, Ritzman, and
Malahortra 2010). In the task–technology fit model,
Goodhue and Thompson (1995) define tasks as actions carried
out by individuals in turning inputs into outputs. We
claim that a business process contains one or more tasks as
defined by Goodhue and Thompson (1995). As such, in our
research model, we substitute business process in place of task.
In Figure 1, business process consists of three characteristics:
non-routineness, interdependence, and job title. A
business process is non-routine if there are a large number of
exceptions and search is not logical or analytical (Perrow
1967; Thompson 1967; Goodhue 1995; Goodhue and Thompson
1995). Therefore, a non-routine business process is
one where individuals deal with ill-defined business problems
or ad hoc business problems. In most organisations the
knowledge exists, either explicit or tacit, on how to deal with
such non-routine business processes but an individual will
need a way to access that knowledge for it to be beneficial.
Interdependence is defined as dependence with other organi-
sational units (Perrow 1967; Thompson 1967; Goodhue 1995;
Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Some business processes

involve multiple organisational units and knowledge exists
across these different units. In such cases, a KM system can
aid an individual in finding cross-organisational knowledge.
The last characteristic of the business process construct is
job title, which is a pragmatic proxy to capture the differences
of employee levels ranging from clerical users to high-
level managers (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Different levels
of an organisation use a KM system to find content for
different business processes. For example, a clerical employee
may use a KM system to find content for ordering sup-
plies from a specific supplier and a high-level manager may use
a KM system to find content on how to conduct vendor
selections. While both employees are using the KM system in
the same way, they are looking for different answers.
Another construct in Figure 1 is KM systems which consist of
two characteristics: systems used and departments
(Goodhue and Thompson 1995). These characteristics allow us
to analyse the data from the case study by grouping
departments and number of systems used. In order to measure
the effect of a KM system, we need to understand how
many other systems an individual uses. For the department
characteristic, we use it as a proxy measure to capture the
potentially different levels of attention paid by IS departments
(Goodhue and Thompson 1995).
In our research model, we align the business process construct
and the KM system construct to form the business
process–KM system fit. The business process–KM system fit is
defined as the degree to which KM systems assist an
individual or organisation in performing business processes.
The business process–KM system fit construct consists of
eight different factors adopted from Goodhue and Thompson
(1995) with modifications to fit our case: data quality, loc-
atability of data, authorisation, compatibility between systems,
production timeliness, training and ease of use, system

reliability, and relationship with user. The first five factors
focus on using content in facilitating business processes. For
example, data quality is measured by the detail and currency of
the content (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). The con-
tent in a KM system must be kept up to date and old content
must be systemically purged. The content must also be at
the right level of detail as too much detail can complicate an
issue and not enough detail can obscure an issue. Locat-
ability of content refers to the ease of determining what content
is available and the ease of determining what the con-
tent means (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). From a KM system
perspective, locatability is a measurement for how easy
it is to find content in a KM system even on issues that rarely
occur. Authorisation is defined as access to content that
is necessary for a participant to do his or her job (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995). Depending on the employee level,
content may be restricted in a KM system. External customers
may have access to only a small percentage of an organi-
sation’s content, clerical employees may have access to a little
more content, and so forth. This measurement verifies if
restricted content in a KM system is given to individuals or
groups who need it in order for them to carry out their job
responsibilities. Compatibility is defined as the degree to which
content from different IT systems can be consolidated
or compared without inconsistencies (Goodhue and Thompson
1995). Although organisations strive to consolidate con-
tent into one KM system, as seen from our case study, content
exists in multiple systems across an organisation. Com-
patibility verifies if the content in the different systems are
consistent. The fifth factor that focuses on using content in
facilitating business processes, ease of use and proper training,
is defined as the ease of using the KM system and
access to the proper amount of training to use the system
(Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Like any IT system, a KM
system must be easy to use and, if not, adequate training should
be provided to use the KM system.

The next two factors, production timeliness and system
reliability, focus on meeting day-to-day operations and the
last one, relationship, focuses on responding to changing
business needs (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Timeliness is
defined as the degree to which the IT department meets its pre-
defined production turnaround schedules (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995). A KM system is supported by either an
internal IT department or by specialised vendors and these
groups set a maintenance schedule for upgrades and/or updates
to the KM system. Timeliness measures how well these
groups meet their maintenance schedule, while reliability is
defined as the dependability and consistency of access and
uptime of a KM system (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). As is
true with any IT system, in order to use a KM system,
5568 Q. Cao et al.
the system must be up with little downtime, dependable, and
free of major errors and defects. The last factor,
relationship with user, is defined as how well the IT department
understands the business customer’s day-to-day opera-
tions, supports the business customer, and provides adequate
turnaround to the business customer’s needs (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995). This definition also applies to a specialised
vendor if they host the KM system. These eight compo-
nents of the fit construct are used to measure its effectiveness.
Therefore our first proposition is as follows:
Proposition 1: The business process–KM system fit will be
affected by business process characteristics or KM system
characteristics.
The fit construct combined with whether an individual utilises

the KM system determines the impact on an individual
or an organisation’s performance. Utilisation of the technology
may be voluntary or mandatory for the individual or
group. Utilisation is measured by a user’s perceived dependence
on the KM system and finally the (perceived) individ-
ual and organisational performance impact.
Individual and organisational performance impact relates to the
accomplishment of a portfolio of tasks by an individ-
ual or group (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). As demonstrated
in Goodhue and Thompson’s (1995) research,
performance impacts are a function of both task–technology fit
and utilisation and not just utilisation. In the spirit of this
research, we posit the fit of business process and KM systems
will influence the effectiveness of collaborative networks
on individual and organisational performance. Therefore,
adopting the task–technology fit model proposed by Goodhue
and Thompson (1995), our second and third propositions are as
follows:
Proposition 2: User evaluations of business process–KM system
fit will positively influence the utilisation of KM systems by
individuals.
Proposition 3: User evaluations of business process–KM system
fit and utilisation will positively influence perceived individ-
ual and organisational performance impacts respectively.
In the next section, we describe the case study methodology that
we employed.
3.3 Methodology
We pursue an explanatory case study method as opposed to what
is commonly referred to as an exploratory or descrip-
tive study. Since we are investigating causal explanations rather

than initial descriptions of some occurrence or an event,
we developed theoretical propositions before collecting data
(Yin 2009). One advantage to our case study approach is it
allows us to understand a complex organisational phenomenon
or processes within a real-world setting by identifying
how and why particular phenomena or events take place (Yin
2009). Alternatively, other methods such as surveys may
provide greater control but may also be limited in their context
or ability to find alternative explanations (Yin 2009).
We chose to conduct a multiple-site case study with the
organisation as the primary unit of analysis. Since multiple
sites were selected, our findings may be more robust than if we
had chosen just a single case study (Yin 2009). As
such, we collected data from a major business communication
provider, a networking infrastructure solutions provider,
and a GPS technology provider (referred to hereafter as BCP,
NIS, and GPS, respectively).
BCP is a global organisation that has received numerous
leadership, customer service, and communication awards.
They provide products, services, and support to a global market
either directly or through partner channels. Their client
base is vast and ranges across multiple markets. At BCP, we
interviewed two employees, an IT manager/solution archi-
tect and a global business owner of web and knowledge
management. The two interviewees use the KM system but are
from different departments, have different job responsibilities,
and are located in different parts of the country.
NIS is a global organisation that has received numerous awards
including product of the year, best practice, hottest
growth, and fastest growing company, to name a few. They
provide products through resellers, distributors, and original
equipment manufacturer channels. At NIS, we interviewed a
senior manager of technical support in the global services

division. The interviewee uses a KM system to perform some of
his duties.
The third company, GPS, is a global leader in GPS technology,
products, and services. GPS has also won many best
product and innovation awards. Their clients range from
multinational companies to individual consumers. At GPS, we
interviewed one employee, the outbound logistics manager.
We selected these specific organisations for several reasons.
First, these three companies are competing in different
markets, with different products, services, and customers. This
allows us to draw comparisons between different compa-
nies and their KM systems post-adoption and performance.
Second, these three companies use a KM system to support
their business strategy. The KM system is an integral part of
business operations and this allows us to study the KM
system in routine and non-routine business processes. Lastly,
these three organisations were chosen because we had
access to managers within these companies that are actual users
of the KM system. The different managers allowed us
to study the KM system post-adoption across different business
processes. That is, these managers are actual users of
the system as opposed to executives who do not use the system
but are concerned with how the KM systems align with
their strategic goals. In addition, another advantage to using
these managers is that they often represent departments or
areas where there are multiple users or analysts. As such, our
interviews represent problems that are user specific but
also contain elements of multiple users. In particular, we
interviewed one employee each from NIS and GPS and two

employees from BCP, where we asked general questions about
job responsibilities and length of employment at their
respective organisations. We then followed up with more
specific questions about KM system use, finding KM
solutions, relationships with the IT department, and handling
customer problems. Interviews were conducted on a
confidential basis but were recorded with the employee’s
permission. Afterwards, we transcribed the recording and
analysed each of the interviews. Finally, we went through each
transcript and sought to identify the theoretical concepts
from our propositions in the raw data.
Throughout this process, we use the definitions of the
dimensions of business process–KM system fit from prior lit-
erature on task–technology fit (Goodhue and Thompson 1995).
Using similar definitions from prior literature helps
ensure that we will be able to accurately identify the relevant
information from our case studies. One question that often
arises in case studies is whether one’s findings are applicable
outside of the study context. Another question with respect
to case studies has to deal with reliability. Reliability refers to
the stability, accuracy, and precision of measurement. As
such, we have documented our procedures and developed a case
study protocol so that this work can be replicated. To
further increase our study’s reliability, we developed a case
study database that includes interview recordings, transcripts,
and previous literature that was used to develop our constructs
and interview questions.
In the next section, we discuss our case study findings in the
context of the propositions from our business process–KM
system research framework.
4. Results and discussion
In the previous section, we described the methodology

employed to examine our propositions about the business
process–KM system fit. This section explains how we used our
propositions on business process and KM system
characteristics as well as business process–KM system fit to
seek evidence related to these propositions. We identify
direct quotations from our interviews that align with our
propositions. The case studies are presented in line with the
different dimensions of our propositions.
Proposition 1 is related to how business process–KM system fit
is affected by both business process characteristics
and KM system characteristics. Business process characteristics
have been broken down into three dimensions (Goodhue
and Thompson 1995): non-routineness, interdependence, and job
title. For example, our informants from BCP, NIS, and
GPS discussed several issues with respect to non-routineness
within the business process. In the case of BCP, one exam-
ple of a non-routine issue that arose was customer service
having to support a business customer that was on a unique
technology platform that was not supported by BCP. There were
support documents in the KM system for other
technology platforms, but not for this specific business
customer. This caused the customer service agent at BCP to
spend additional time in assisting the business customer. As a
result, the alignment between business process and their
KM system was affected by this business process characteristic.
To no surprise, all three organisations provided examples that
demonstrated non-routineness in their business
processes. With respect to questions on the frequency of dealing
with customer problems that involve more than one
business function (i.e., interdependence dimensions), in most
cases the occurrence of these problems was relatively low.
BCP indicated that were of an interdependent nature occurred
about 20% of the time, whereas the other cases occurred
less than 10% of the time. Along with business process

characteristics, KM system characteristics are expected to affect
the business process–KM system fit. The technology
characteristics can be broken out into two dimensions: system
used
and department. Our informants indicated the types of systems
used and by what departments. For example, BCP
mostly uses email and the web but is involved in KM
implementation. NIS also uses multiple systems including
networking, a knowledge base tool, and call tracking. Likewise,
GPS uses various collaboration tools such as email,
calendaring, and an Oracle CRM system, to name a few. As
such, we conclude that our informants are aware of the
systems used and the respective department(s).
The business process–KM system fit consists of eight
dimensions following previous research on task–technology fit
(Goodhue and Thompson 1995). These dimensions are data
quality, locatability, authorisation, compatibility, ease/train-
ing, timeliness, reliability, and relationship. As previously
mentioned, the first five dimensions focus on using content in
5570 Q. Cao et al.
facilitating business processes, while the next two dimensions
focus on day-to-day operations, and the last one focuses
on responding to changing business needs (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995).
Data quality is measured by the relevancy and currency of the
content. Our informants make a variety of statements
that indicate the importance of data or content quality with
respect to business process–KM system fit and its perceived
performance impact. For example, all three companies
experience data quality issues but for different reasons. BCP

experiences data quality issues due to the KM system tool,
whereas NIS and GPS experience data quality issues because
of business process issues. This is consistent with the task–
technology fit literature with regards to non-routineness and
data quality (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). All three
companies have a relatively high degree of non-routineness and
data quality issues.
While data quality focuses on the relevancy and currency of the
content, locatability of content focuses on the ease
with which content is available and determining what the
content means. Our informants were asked if the content was
easy to find in their respective KM systems.
Both BCP and NIS experience locatability issues with regard to
KM system content, which is also consistent with
the task–technology fit literature (Goodhue and Thompson
1995). Both BCP and NIS have high non-routineness and
low locatability. GPS also experiences locatability issues with
tacit knowledge but not explicit knowledge. An example
of tacit knowledge is the shared impressions of a vendor during
a vendor selection process. The vendor may look
acceptable on paper, but after conference calls and face-to-face
meetings it was determined that the vendor was not
acceptable (e.g., not trustworthy). This type of tacit knowledge
is hard to document but is important for the organisation
to capture. Task–technology fit literature also shows a positive
relationship between the number of systems used (a KM
system dimension) and locatability. Both informants at BCP and
NIS report that they use three different systems to
perform their respective jobs and have low locatability, whereas
GPS uses multiple systems with a higher degree of
locatability.
While the authorisation dimension is defined as access to
content necessary to do a job, our informants at BCP and

NIS responded by saying that they had access to the necessary
content they needed to do their jobs or were not aware
of not having access to the necessary content. However, the
outbound logistics manager at GPS indicated he could
assess the general KM system, but he needed to apply for
clearance to assess specialised KM databases.
Likewise, the compatibility dimension depends of the respective
organisation. For example, we asked each informant
if all the content was in one KM system or in different systems
and, if different systems, whether or not the content
between systems was consistent. For BCP and NIS, there are
different systems and there may not be consistency
between the systems. This is consistent with the task–
technology fit literature with regards to non-routineness and
com-
patibility (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Statements made by
(middle-level management) informants from BCP and
NIS indicate a high degree of non-routineness and low
compatibility. For GPS, there are several different KM systems
in the outbound logistics department but mostly a CRM-based
KM system and a production-based KM system are used.
According to the informant, ‘these two KM systems are very
different…KM systems in my department are not fully
compatible with other KM systems in GPS.’
The next dimension that focuses on using content in facilitating
business processes is ease of use and proper
training. Our informants from BCP, NIS, and GPS all indicated
that the KM system was easy to use and that there was
adequate training. With respect to day-to-day dimensions, we
asked each informant whether they felt that the IT depart-
ment met its service level agreements for the KM system
(timeliness) and whether they could count on the KM system
(reliability). This appears to be consistent with the task–
technology fit literature with regards to systems used and reli-

ability (Goodhue and Thompson 1995). Both BCP and NIS
experience reliability issues with the KM system, while
GPS appears to have reliability issues with the content in the
KM system. The informants from BCP and NIS describe
using three different systems with low reliability, whereas GPS
informants use several systems with high reliability in
terms of the KM system technology but may lack some
consistency in terms of content. The final dimension with
respect to business process–KM system fit is relationship with
user, which focuses on being able to respond to changing
needs. Our informants were asked whether they deal with the IT
group directly, whether they think the IT group under-
stands their specific day-to-day processes, whether they take
problems seriously, and whether problems get addressed in
a timely manner. In all three cases there appear to be some
serious issues or concerns with respect to this dimension.
The business owners from both BCP and NIS indicate that they
deal with the IT group directly, but there are some
issues with resolving problems in a timely manner. GPS
indicates that IT is very responsive to fixing bugs, but they are
not equipped to deal with information in the systems as they are
not the domain experts of KM system content. Accord-
ing to task–technology fit theory, this dimension helps align the
business process with the IT department (i.e., technol-
ogy). Unfortunately, we find marginal support for this
dimension.
There appears to be considerable evidence in support of
proposition 1. Evidence from our case study links the
dimensions of the business process construct such as non-
routineness, interdependence, and job title to the business

process–KM system fit construct. Specifically the dimensions of
the business process demonstrate a relationship with
quality of data, compatibility, and locatability of the business
process–KM system fit. Likewise, the dimension of
systems used, which is a proxy for the KM system construct,
shows a relationship with locatability and reliability in the
business process–KM system fit. Therefore, a relationship exists
between business process and KM system characteris-
tics to business process–KM system fit, which is consistent with
the task–technology fit literature (Goodhue and
Thompson 1995). Table 1 summarises the evidence we found
between business process characteristics and KM system
characteristics to business process–KM system fit among the
three case studies.
Proposition 2 relates to whether business process–KM system fit
can predict utilisation. We measure utilisation by
perceived dependence. Our informants were asked to what
degree they are dependent on the KM system. We show a
mixed reaction to utilisation, which may have more to do with
job title than the business process–KM system fit. The
business managers described scenarios where they (and their
customers) were dependent, whereas the IT manager
showed no dependence but described how customers were
dependent. From a business manager’s standpoint there is
evidence that business process–KM system fit influences
utilisation but not so from the IT manager’s perspective. This
may be due to the IT manager’s job, where he is to maintain the
KM system as opposed to using the systems for day-
to-day activities. Table 2 summarises the evidence we found
between business process–KM system fit and utilisation
among the three case studies.
Proposition 3 is related to business process–KM system fit and
utilisation to perceived individual and organisational
performance. Since we are interested in what influence the

business process–KM system fit has on perceived
performance, we asked our informants whether the KM system
has a positive impact on effectiveness and organisational
productivity and whether it is important and valuable to them in
their job. Our informants indicate that the KM system
does have a positive impact and is important to their
performance as well as to the organisation. That is, along with
our
findings from the case studies and the literature, business
process–KM system fit and utilisation will directly influence
perceived performance and the effectiveness of collaborative
networks. For example, the business owner at NIS indi-
cated that when the KM system is working properly (e.g., in
alignment with business processes), then it is quite helpful.
In addition, the logistics manager at GPS described how the KM
system helps with their business process and increases
Table 1. Evidence of proposition 1 – BP characteristics and
KMS characteristics to BP–KMS fit characteristics.
BP–KMS fit characteristics
Fit
characteristic BCP NIS GPS
Data quality U U U
Locatability U U
Authorisation U
Compatibility U U U
Ease of use/
training
U U U
Timeliness U U U
Reliability U U U

Relationship
with user
U U U
Key quotes: Because of the limitations of the tool,
we are not able to publish as we need
to. I would say a good percentage of
the content is stale or partly outdated. I
would say it could be as high as 20%.If
you ask the business, No. There is a
constant struggle with relevancy and I
would say it is not easy to find [the
content] for the most part. I have
counterparts who deal with the KM
implementation who spend more than
50% of their time on it [ill-defined
customer problems].
Complexity in trying to access
your content – not within the
tool. Business process issues –
not technology issues.
The challenge for us is how to use
KM to catch the illusive tacit
knowledge and how to find them
quickly when we need them. In
general we can easily find basic CRM
content in the KM system, but not all
the tacit content. In a given day, our
department normally spends a bit more
than half of the time to deal with non-
routine issues. KM system in my
department is not fully compatible
with other KM systems in GPS. We

often rely on KM to handle non-
repetitive tasks.
Note: The checkmarks indicate evidence from the interviews of
a fit characteristic that was affected by either a business process
characteristic or a KM
system characteristic.
5572 Q. Cao et al.
productivity. Likewise, at BCP, the business process–KM
system fit and the utilisation of the system together led to
decreased call-handling time for the agents as non-routine
content was easy to find within the KM system. There
appears to be considerable evidence in support of proposition 3.
Table 3 summarises the evidence we found between
business process–KM system fit and utilisation to individual
and organisational performance.
5. Lessons learned
This study identifies the fit between business process and KM
systems amongst five of the eight dimensions. We do find
inconsistent results on whether the fit between business process
and the KM system affects utilisation; however, it
appears the results may be dependent on job title. In addition,
this research explores and discovers that both business
process–KM system fit and the KM system utilisation positively
influence business performance. The ultimate goal of
any organisation is to improve its performance as well as its
employees’ performance. The business process–KM system
fit and KM system usage positively lead to increases in
performance. That is, the knowledge stored and used in the KM
system between individuals, departments, and organisations

within the value chain can play a role in increasing the per-
formance and effectiveness of a collaborative network. This
section discusses the study’s implications and insights for
researchers and managers and then its limitations and future
research.
5.1 Implications
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to apply the
task–technology fit theory exploring the business
process–KM system fit and its impact on business performance
in the KM research domain. From the theoretical per-
spective, this study underscores the importance of the fit
between business process and knowledge management systems
in achieving a successful collaborative network. Without
exploring the impact of business process–KM system fit on
KM system utilisation and impacts of business process–KM
system fit and KM system utilisation on business perfor-
mance, the salient critical success factors of a KM system
would not have been revealed. As a result, this study adds to
the KM system literature by demonstrating the significance of a
conceptual model derived from the task–technology fit
theory.
Table 2. Evidence of proposition 2 – BP–KMS fit to utilisation.
Utilisation
Job title BCP NIS GPS
IT manager No — —
Business
owner
Yes Yes —

Outbound
logistics
manger
— — Yes
Key quote ‘For my job I’m not dependent on it all,
but for my customers they are very
dependent.’
‘My initial reaction is very.
Everything we are doing relies on the
knowledge system.’
‘[The] KM system is a part of
many decision making arsenals we
use every day.’
Table 3. Evidence of proposition 3 – BP–KMS fit and utilisation
to individual and organisational performance impacts.
Individual and organisational performance Impacts
Job title BCP NIS GPS
IT manager Yes — —
Business owner Yes Yes —
Outbound logistics manger — — Yes
Key quote ‘Yes! It is critical to our strategy
and pivotal to our success. All of
strategy is based around
knowledge sharing culture and our
KM tool provides that.’
‘If working properly, yes…

Yes, I believe until we have a
working system we didn’t
realise how much of an aid it
is.’
‘Positive! KM system helps us
improve our business process and
increase productivity. It also helps
creating a knowledge sharing
culture our company is pursuing.’
From a managerial perspective, Chief Information Officers
(CIOs) and other business administrators can use this case
study as a framework to understand elements of the fit between
business process and KM systems, which will lead to
higher perceived individual and organisational performance. For
example, our case study demonstrated that non-routine
business processes have a negative relationship with the data
quality of the content. This is a troubling trend since non-
routine business processes should have higher quality content as
employees may need more assistance in the process. As
such, administrators should spend more time and effort on
increasing the data quality of content for non-routine business
processes. Another finding from our case study is the
relationship between non-routine business processes and
compati-
bility and locatability. This is another example where
administrators can spend more time and effort on increasing the
compatibility of content in different systems and the ability to
locate content for non-routine business processes. These
elements combined with other fit elements such as reliability
and ease of use/training can ultimately lead to higher per-

ceived individual and organisational performance. Increased
business performance using a KM system can lead to a more
effective collaborative network, thus improving an
organisation’s competitive advantage.
5.2 Limitations and future research
There are some limitations of this study that warrant further
discussion and need to be kept in mind when interpreting
the results. First, this study employs a multiple-case study
approach on three high-tech companies in the United States.
While multiple-case studies allow for cross-case analysis
(Benbasat, Goldstein, and Mead 1987), caution needs to be
taken when generalising the results of this research to other
industrial settings or applying the framework generated from
this study to companies in other cultural contexts. As such, one
avenue of future research could increase the number of
cases, along with expanding the case study approach to either
individual categories of industries or to a broader collec-
tion of industries. Second, the KM system application in the
organisations we studied was limited in scope (e.g. specific
functional areas and not enterprise wide). As our participants
highlighted during the interviews, the limited scope of the
KM system project prevented them from seeing the
value/benefits of enterprise-wide KM system applications and
the
impact they have on the effectiveness of collaborative networks.
A follow-up study could examine the differences in
end-users’ reactions to the holistic applications of KM systems.
References
Alavi, M., and D. E. Leidner. 2001. “Review: Knowledge
Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual
Founda-
tions and Research Issues.” MIS Quarterly 25: 107–136.

Ambrosio, J., 2000. “Knowledge Management Mistakes: Experts
Reveal Five Pitfalls to Avoid When Starting Down the
Knowledge Man-
agement Path.” [Online]. (Accessed 8/29/2011)
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/46693/Knowledge_Ma
nagement_Mistakes.
AMR Research. 2007. “The Knowledge Management Spending
Report, 2007–2008.”
http://www.gartner.com/technology/supply-
chain-professionals.jsp?pmillid=20768.
Benbasat, I., D. K. Goldstein, and M. Mead. 1987. “The Case
Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems.” MIS
Quarterly
11: 369–386.
Bose, R. 2003. “Knowledge Management-Enabled Health Care
Management Systems: Capabilities, Infrastructure, and
Decision-
Support.” Expert Systems with Applications 24: 59–71.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., and H. Afsarmanesh. 2003. “Elements
of a Base VE Infrastructure.” Computers in Industry 51: 139–
163.
Camarinha-Matos, L. M., and H. Afsarmanesh. 2005.
“Collaborative Networks: A New Scientific Discipline.” Journal
of Intelligent
Manufacturing 16: 439–452.
Cane, S., R. McCarthy, and L. Halawi. 2010. “Ready for Battle?
A Phenomenological Study of Military Simulation Systems”
Journal
of Computer Information Systems 50: 33–40.

Collins, C. J., and K. G. Smith. 2006. “Knowledge Exchange
and Combination: The Role Of Human Resource Practices in the
Performance of High Technology Firms.” Academy of
Management Journal 49: 544–560.
Currier, G. 2010. Knowledge Management and Collaboration
Create Knowledge Sharing. Baseline: Ziff Davis Enterprise.
D’Ambra, J., and C. S. Wilson. 2004. “Use of the World Wide
Web for International Travel: Integrating the Construct of
Uncertainty
in Information Seeking and the Task-Technology Fit (TTF)
Model.” Journal of the American Society for Information
Science
and Technology 55: 731–742.
Dhaliwal, J. S., and I. Benbasat. 1996. “The Use and Effects of
Knowledge-Based System Explanations: Theoretical
Foundations and
a Framework for Empirical Evaluation.” Information Systems
Research 7: 342–362.
Drew, S. 1999. “Building Knowledge Management into
Strategy: Making Sense of a New Perspective.” Long Range
Planning 32:
130–136.
Earl, M. 2001. “Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a
Taxonomy.” Journal of Management Information Systems 18:
215–233.
Ferratt, T. W., and G. E. Vlahos. 1998. “An Investigation of
Task-Technology Fit for Managers in Greece and the US.”
European
Journal of Information Systems 7: 123–136.

5574 Q. Cao et al.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/46693/Knowledge_Ma
nagement_Mistakes
http://www.gartner.com/technology/supply-chain-
professionals.jsp?pmillid=20768
http://www.gartner.com/technology/supply-chain-
professionals.jsp?pmillid=20768
Gebauer, J., and M. J. Shaw. 2004. “Success Factors and
Impacts of Mobile Business Applications: Results from a
Mobile E-Procure-
ment Study.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce 8:
19–41.
Goodhue, D. L. 1995. “Understanding User Evaluations of
Information Systems.” Management Science 41: 1827–1844.
Goodhue, D. L., and R. L. Thompson. 1995. “Task-Technology
Fit and Individual Performance.” MIS Quarterly 19: 213–236.
Gunasekaran, A., and E. W. T. Ngai. 2007. “Knowledge
Management in 21st Century Manufacturing.” International
Journal of Pro-
duction Research 45: 2391–2418.
Hendriks, P. H. J., and D. J. Vriens. 1999. “Knowledge-Based
Systems and Knowledge Management: Friends or Foes?”
Information
& Management 35: 113–125.
Jagdev, H. S., and K. D. Thoben. 2001. “Anatomy of Enterprise
Collaborations.” Production Planning & Control 12: 437–451.
Krajewski, L., L. Ritzman, and M. Malahortra. 2010. Operations
Management: Processes & Supply Chains. Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Kristjanson, P., R. S. Reid, N. Dickson, W. C. Clark, D.
Romney, R. Puskur, S. MacMillan, and D. Grace. 2009.
“Linking Interna-
tional Agricultural Research Knowledge with Action for
Sustainable Development.” Proceedings of the National
Academy of
Sciences 106: 5047–5052.
Kulkarni, U. R., S. Ravindran, and R. Freeze. 2007. “A
Knowledge Management Success Model: Theoretical
Development and
Empirical Validation.” Journal of Management Information
Systems 23: 309.
Lee, C.-C., H. K. Cheng, and H.-H. Cheng. 2007. “An Empirical
Study of Mobile Commerce in Insurance Industry: Task–
Technology
Fit and Individual Differences.” Decision Support Systems 43:
95–110.
Liao, S.-H. 2002. “Problem Solving and Knowledge Inertia.”
Expert Systems with Applications 22: 21–31.
Liebowitz, J. 1999. Knowledge Management Handbook. Boca
Raton, CA: CRC Press.
Liebowitz, J. 2001. “Knowledge Management and Its Link to
Artificial Intelligence.” Expert Systems with Applications 20:
1–6.
Liebowitz, J., and K. Wright. 1999. “Does Measuring
Knowledge Make “Cents”?” Expert Systems with Applications
17: 99–103.
Maruping, L. M., and R. Agarwal. 2004. “Managing Team
Interpersonal Processes through Technology: A Task-
Technology Fit Per-
spective.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 975–990.

Mathieson, K., and M. Keil. 1998. “Beyond the Interface: Ease
of Use and Task/Technology Fit.” Information & Management
34:
221–230.
Nachiappan, S. P., A. Gunasekaran, and N. Jawahar. 2007.
“Knowledge Management System for Operating Parameters in
Two-Eche-
lon VMI Supply Chains.” International Journal of Production
Research 45: 2479–2505.
Nonaka, I., and G. Von Krogh. 2009. “Perspective–Tacit
Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and
Advancement in
Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory.” Organization
Science 20: 635–652.
Paiva, E. L., A. V. Roth, and J. E. Fensterseifer. 2002.
“Focusing Information in Manufacturing: A Knowledge
Management Perspec-
tive.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 102: 381–389.
Perrow, C. 1967. “A Framework for the Comparative Analysis
of Organizations.” American Sociological Review 32: 194–208.
Peyman, A., M. Jafari, and M. Fathian. 2005. “Exploring
Failure Factors of Implementing Knowledge Management in
Organizations.”
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. Available online at
http://www.tlainc.com/articl85.htm
Preece, A., A. Flett, D. Sleeman, D. Curry, N. Meany, and P.
Perry. 2001. “Better Knowledge Management through
Knowledge Engi-
neering.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 16: 36–43.
Rubenstein-Montano, B., J. Liebowitz, J. Buchwalter, D.

McCaw, B. Newman, and K. Rebeck. 2001. “A Systems
Thinking Frame-
work for Knowledge Management.” Decision Support Systems
31: 5–16.
Schultze, U., and D. E. Leidner. 2002. “Studying Knowledge
Management in Information Systems Research: Discourses and
Theoret-
ical Assumptions.” MIS Quarterly 26: 213–242.
Tanriverdi, H. 2005. “Information Technology Relatedness,
Knowledge Management Capability, and Performance of
Multibusiness
Firms.” MIS Quarterly 29: 311–334.
Thompson, J. D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Wang, E., G. Klein, and J. J. Jiang. 2007. “IT Support in
Manufacturing Firms for a Knowledge Management Dynamic
Capability
Link to Performance.” International Journal of Production
Research 45: 2419–2434.
Wiig, K. M. 1997. “Knowledge Management: Where Did It
Come from and Where Will It Go?” Expert Systems with
Applications
13: 1–14.
Wilkins, J., B. Van Wegen, and R. De Hoog. 1997.
“Understanding and Valuing Knowledge Assets: Overview and
Method.” Expert
Systems with Applications 13: 55–72.
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zigurs, I., and B. K. Buckland. 1998. “A Theory of

Task/Technology Fit and Group Support Systems
Effectiveness.” MIS Quarterly
22: 313–334.
http://www.tlainc.com/articl85.htm
Copyright of International Journal of Production Research is the
property of Taylor & Francis
Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Unit V Scholarly Activity
Choose one of the scenarios below (A or B) to complete the
assignment.
Scenario A
You are the business owner of a local small engine repair shop,
and you have been thinking about implementing a knowledge
management system for your customer service technicians. You
are thinking about this because there are times when some of
your technicians know how to fix certain engine problems and
others do not. Providing a central knowledge repository could
help share troubleshooting and repair knowledge among your
technicians.
Scenario B
You are the business owner of a local cleaning service, and you
have been thinking about implementing a knowledge
management system for your cleaning technicians, especially
for those who troubleshoot and solve cleaning problems, such as

removing certain carpet and water stains, addressing mold, and
selecting the proper tools and products to use for other types of
cleaning issues. You are thinking about this because there are
times when some of your cleaning technicians know how to
properly clean carpets and others do not. Providing a central
knowledge repository could help share cleaning knowledge
among your cleaning technicians.
After you chose your scenario (A or B), compose a paper that
addresses the elements listed below.
· Explain the role of knowledge management systems.
· Explain what is meant by expert systems.
· Explain what is meant by content management systems.
· Discuss how the business in the selected scenario could
benefit from an expert system and a content management
system, and provide two examples for each type of system.
· Discuss how the business in the selected scenario could
benefit from business intelligence, and provide two examples of
these benefits.
· Discuss how the business in the selected scenario can use
social media to not only obtain information and knowledge but
to share it as well, and provide two examples of how the
business might use social media information systems.
Your paper must be at least two pages in length (not counting
the title and reference pages), and you must also use at least two
scholarly sources, one of which must come from the CSU
Online Library. Any information from a source must be cited
and referenced in APA format, and your paper must be
formatted in accordance to APA guidelines.
LEGACIES IN MOTIVATION SCIENCE
The Development of Goal Setting Theory:
A Half Century Retrospective

Edwin A. Locke
University of Maryland
Gary P. Latham
University of Toronto
This chapter summarizes the authors’ joint development of the
goal setting theory. The
basic concept was based on more than 50 years of research and
the formal theory has
endured for 28 years (Locke & Latham, 1990). The theory was
not developed through
overgeneralization from only a few studies or by deduction but
rather by induction. The
inductions involved the integration of hundreds of studies
involving thousands of
participants. The theory initially focused solely on consciously
set goals. To date, the
goal setting theory has shown generality across participants,
tasks, nationality, goal
source, settings, experimental designs, outcome variables,
levels of analysis (individ-
ual, group, division, and organizational), and time spans. The
theory identifies both
mediators and moderators of goal effects. Numerous subsequent
studies since 1990
have supported the main tenets of the theory. New findings have
enlarged our knowl-
edge of the relevant mediators and moderators as well as
showing new applications
(Locke & Latham, 2013). Among these discoveries are when to
set learning rather than
performance goals, the effect of goals primed in the
subconscious on job performance,
and that goal effects are enhanced by having people write at

length about them.
Keywords: goal setting, motivation, theory building
The present authors independently discovered
the importance of goal setting for significantly
improving the performance of individuals and
teams. We subsequently formed a research part-
nership in 1974 (Latham & Locke, 1975) that
has continued to the present day (e.g., Latham
& Locke, 2018). In this chapter we describe our
individual discoveries, our joint research that
led to the development of the goal setting theory
in 1990, and new developments to the theory
since that time period.
Locke
I entered graduate school in the Department
of Psychology at Cornell University in 1960.
My first course was Introduction to Industrial-
Organizational (I-O) Psychology taught by Pa-
tricia Cain Smith, who was among the earliest
and most respected female industrial psycholo-
gists. The textbook she assigned to the students
in this course was Principles of Industrial Psy-
chology that she had coauthored with Thomas
A. Ryan (Ryan & Smith, 1954). A figure in a
chapter in this book entitled Industrial Motiva-
tion showed the results of an experiment con-
ducted in England by C. A. Mace (1935). The
figure (p. 397) showed that employees who were
given a specific goal to attain each day on a
computation task showed markedly greater im-
provement than those who had been told to do

their best. However, no statistical tests had been
used to analyze the data. Nevertheless, this ap-
peared to be a promising way to approach the
topic of work motivation.1
To put this in context, I must digress with a
discussion of the field of psychology at that
1 In the late 1960s, Locke met Mace in England. He was
excited by Locke’s findings.
Edwin A. Locke, R. H. Smith School of Business, Uni-
versity of Maryland; Gary P. Latham, Rotman School of
Management and Departments of Psychology, Industrial
Relations, and Nursing, University of Toronto.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Edwin A. Locke, 2451 Norwalk Avenue, Los
Angeles, CA 90041. E-mail: [email protected]
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri

gh
te
d
by
th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n

or
on
e
of
its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd

ed
so
le
ly
fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er

an
d
is
no
t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
Motivation Science
© 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 5, No.
2, 93–105
2333-8113/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127
93
mailto:[email protected]
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127

point in time. The dominant philosophy under-
lying empirical experiments was behaviorism,
the doctrine that human action can be predicted,
explained, and controlled without reference to
consciousness. John B. Watson (1924), the
founder of behaviorism, argued that because
consciousness can be neither weighed nor mea-
sured as with physical entities, it should not be
considered as part of science. Only observable
behavior should be studied. Behaviorists denied
free will and asserted that psychology should
embrace environmental determinism.2
The philosophy of behaviorism was accepted
by most psychologists in Canada and the United
States because it did not encounter much oppo-
sition. For example, instinct theory turned out to
be a dead end because people were not found to
have inborn goals or knowledge. Superficially,
the school of introspectionism seemed better
than the study of instincts because it dealt with
consciousness, but its core was narrowly fo-
cused on reports of physical sensations. The
success psychologists had in influencing animal
behavior at that time through the use of rewards
was considered to provide support for behavior-
ism.
Ryan (1970) rejected behaviorism as inade-
quate and asserted that conscious intentions
should be studied. He was writing his book on
intentions during my time in the Cornell doc-
toral program (1960–1964). Thus, I was able to
read drafts of his chapters.

In this same time period, I was reading the
work of philosopher Ayn Rand (for a summary
see Peikoff, 1991). I learned that consciousness
had the status of an axiom, that is, a concept that
along with other axioms such as existence,
formed the basis for all knowledge and are
self-evident to perception and thus irrefutable.
Consequently, I knew that behaviorism, includ-
ing Skinner’s (1953) operant model and envi-
ronmental determinism, was wrong in principle.
As a result, I wrote a number of critiques of
behaviorism (e.g., Locke, 1971) and its alleged
applicability to management (Locke, 1977). Ul-
timately the behaviorist doctrine failed because
of its inadequacy as an explanation of human
action.
Another aspect of Ryan’s book proved espe-
cially useful to me. He reviewed the most com-
mon, contemporary attempts at dealing with the
issue of motivation, aside from the behaviorist’s
concept of reinforcement. He noted the substan-
tial Freudian influence on some psychologists
such as Henry Murray. Murray (1938) viewed
motivation as stemming from an individual’s
unconscious motives or general needs as mea-
sured by projective tests. These were often poor
predictors of job performance.3 The thrust of
Ryan’s book is an approach to motivation that
includes conscious, task, and situationally spe-
cific intentions on the premise that these are the
most direct regulators of an individual’s actions.
Armed with philosophical confidence, I did

my dissertation on goal setting, under Ryan’s
and Smiths’ supervision. Following in Mace’s
(1935) footsteps, I added task and goal variety
and, most importantly, statistical tests. The lab-
oratory experiments I conducted supported
Mace, and I was able to publish my results. I
was subsequently hired by the American Insti-
tutes for Research where the director of the
Washington office, Ed Fleishman, helped me
get a grant from the Office of Naval Research.
With my research assistant, Judy Bryan, I con-
ducted additional laboratory experiments on the
goal-performance relationship. Two years later
I was hired by the University of Maryland De-
partment of Psychology. There I continued my
research on goal setting.
Here it is worth pointing out why a large
number of researchers proceeded to conduct
goal setting experiments after seeing these re-
sults. Goal setting is a technique that, if properly
implemented, works, and it works reliably to
increase an individual and a team’s perfor-
mance. Researchers like their experiments to
succeed because it is difficult to publish null
findings.
Frederick Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene the-
ory (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959)
was a competing theory to goal setting. Herz-
berg’s theory asserted that extrinsic aspects of
the job, that is, hygiene variables (e.g., an em-
ployee’s pay) cause job dissatisfaction but not
job satisfaction. The theory claimed that intrin-
2 Some psychologists who adhered to this model viewed

the study of consciousness in psychology as a regression to
mysticism.
3 McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell (1953) sub-
conscious need for achievement motive predicts entrepre-
neurship, but it does so no better than self-reports of con-
scious achievement motivation (Collins, Hanges, & Locke,
2004). For recent data on this issue, see Howard (2013) and
Locke (2015).
94 LOCKE AND LATHAM
T
hi
s
do
cu
m
en
t
is
co
py
ri
gh
te
d
by

th
e
A
m
er
ic
an
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
A
ss
oc
ia
tio
n
or
on
e
of

its
al
lie
d
pu
bl
is
he
rs
.
T
hi
s
ar
tic
le
is
in
te
nd
ed
so
le
ly

fo
r
th
e
pe
rs
on
al
us
e
of
th
e
in
di
vi
du
al
us
er
an
d
is
no

t
to
be
di
ss
em
in
at
ed
br
oa
dl
y.
sic aspects of the job, that is motivating vari-
ables (e.g., such as the work itself) influence job
satisfaction but not dissatisfaction. This theory
was based on only two studies and did not focus
directly on performance. The methodology used
in both studies was the critical incident tech-
nique (CIT), a technique originally developed
for conducting a job analysis, not for identifying
sources of job satisfaction (Flanagan, 1954).
Research that used different methodologies did
not replicate Herzberg’s findings (e.g., Locke,
1976).
Another competitor to goal setting in the

1960s–1980s was the expectancy theory
(Vroom, 1964). This theory states that an em-
ployee’s decisions are made by multiplying va-
lence (value) of a Task � Expectancy of per-
forming a Task Effectively � Instrumentality to
the individual for doing so, and the product of
these in turn leads to making choices. This
theory was developed through deduction. How-
ever, it turned out that people do not typically
make choices by performing such multiplica-
tions and Vroom later admitted this fact (Latham,
2012).
Another motivation theory, the prospect the-
ory, is based on Kahneman and Tversky’s re-
search. Heath, Larrick, and Wu (1999) and Wu,
Heath, and Larrick (2008) claimed that the pros-
pect theory parsimoniously explains goal set-
ting results when, in fact, few if any of its
claims about goals and goal setting theory are
correct (Locke & Latham, in press). The claims
of prospect theorists include misstatements
about goal setting such as: (a) the theory does
not take into account reference standards, even
though a goal is a standard for self-evaluation;
(b) it cannot explain the effect on performance
of setting a difficult-to-attain goal; (c) claiming
goal difficulty and specificity are the same; (d)
failing to take into account the theory’s moder-
ators (e.g., goal commitment) and goal determi-
nants (e.g., values, self-efficacy); and (e) an over-
reliance on paper people experiments in which
an individual’s actual performance is not mea-
sured.
Latham

Unit V Case StudyFor this assignment, you will use the following.docx

Unit V Case StudyFor this assignment, you will use the following.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Unit V Case StudyFor this assignment, you will use the following.docx

Similar to Unit V Case StudyFor this assignment, you will use the following.docx (20)

More from ouldparis

More from ouldparis (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Unit V Case StudyFor this assignment, you will use the following.docx