This document discusses a study that explores the key factors for successful knowledge transfer. The study examines how different types of organizational climate can affect knowledge transfer through different types of trust and commitment. It develops a research model and hypotheses about the relationships between organizational climate, trust, commitment, knowledge transfer, knowledge quality, and user satisfaction. The study uses a questionnaire to collect data from 147 employees at knowledge management implementing companies in Taiwan. It then uses structural equation modeling to analyze the data and test the research model and hypotheses. The goal is to identify the most suitable match of organizational climate, trust, and commitment for knowledge transfer in the Taiwanese context.

1. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Download by: [RMIT University] Date: 10 September 2015, At: 02:12
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence
ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20
Exploring the key factors to successful knowledge
transfer
Shih-Hsiung Luo & Gwo-Guang Lee
To cite this article: Shih-Hsiung Luo & Gwo-Guang Lee (2015) Exploring the key factors to
successful knowledge transfer, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26:3-4,
445-464, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2013.856548
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.856548
Published online: 07 Jan 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 175
View related articles
View Crossmark data

2. Exploring the key factors to successful knowledge transfer
Shih-Hsiung Luo
∗
and Gwo-Guang Lee
Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University of Science and
Technology, Taipei City, Taiwan
While scholars have explored the relationship between the organisational climate and
knowledge management, the matches for studying how different types of
organisational climate affect knowledge transfer through varied types of trust and
commitment are varied and complex, and are thus still rare. Structural equation
modelling (SEM) has become a useful technique and is increasingly a ‘must’ for
researchers in the social sciences. By using SEM, this paper has mapped the main
effects and interaction effects of the key factors to successful knowledge transfer.
The suitable match for organisational climate, trust and commitment for knowledge
transfer in Taiwan is also revealed.
Keywords: organisational climate; knowledge transfer; trust; commitment
Introduction
Key knowledge is the leading strategic resource for enhancing the competitive strength of
organisations (Stewart, 1998; Howell & Annansingh, 2013). In facing critical challenges,
knowledge management (KM) is effective to boosting an organisation’s power and
helping organisations survive by becoming more robust (Lee, 2006; Aksoy & Dincmen,
2011). Studies have explored KM from a technological standpoint, arguing the need for
enhancing competence via storage, retrieval, and application of knowledge from a KM
system (KMS). KMS is regarded highly because of its ability to enhance KM performance
through KMS even with IT’s vulnerability to technological determinism (Tseng & Fan,
2011).
Knowledge transfer is a key activity of KM. In stage-based knowledge transfer, acqui-
sition, communication, application, acceptance, and assimilation are involved. Knowledge
transfer is usually implemented when an organisation recognises a lack of knowledge in
KM progress (Gilbert & Gordey-Hayes, 1996). Since key knowledge exists as a
dynamic, personal commodity (Lee, 2006), subject to the fear of exploitation between
employees since ‘knowledge is power’ (Glasser, 1999), insufficient trust and commitment
between employees lead to a lack in altruism in sharing knowledge. Fear of technological
knowledge leakage also prevents many executives from being willing to upload important
core knowledge into KMS (Luo & Lee, 2012). Thus, social factors (e.g. organisational
climate, trust and commitment) are important for KM activities (Verkasalo & Lappalai-
nen, 1998; Luo & Lee, 2013). When organisations have a trust-and-cooperation-empha-
sised culture, employees will be more willing to share their knowledge (McDermott &
O’Dell, 2001). Organisational climate reflects employees’ perception that their organis-
ation values and enforces ethically correct behaviour (Robert, Sabrina, Derek, &
Patrick, 2011). While scholars have explored the relationship between organisational
# 2014 Taylor & Francis
∗
Corresponding author. Email: victor.luo@msa.hinet.net
Total Quality Management, 2015
Vol. 26, No. 4, 445–464, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.856548
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

3. climate and KM, the matches for studying how different types of organisational climate
affect knowledge transfer through different types of trust and commitment are varied
and complex, and thus still rare. This paper aims to bridge the research gap by using struc-
tural equation modelling (SEM). SEM is a useful technique and a ‘must’ for researchers in
the social sciences (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). The purposes of this study to be
observed are:
(1) Verifying how different types of organisational climate affect knowledge transfer
through types of trust and commitment.
(2) Researching what match of organisational climate, trust and commitment is suit-
able for knowledge transfer in Taiwan.
The research model appears in Figure 1. Support for the model appears in the literature
review below.
Literature review
Knowledge transfer and organisational climate
Knowledge is a conception that is directly and indirectly created by mental activities
(Housel & Bell, 2001), which could be a true faith with sufficient evidence (Nonaka,
1994). Knowledge can also be complex, floating, and ubiquitous, often hidden in
regular works and norms, stored in organisations via documentation and systematic mech-
anism (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Knowledge can be categorised into two forms – expli-
cit or tacit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be expressed in terms of words and
numbers, while tacit knowledge is highly personal, hard to formalise and difficult to com-
municate (Kumar & Gupta, 2011). Key knowledge is valued as an essential resource
(Stewart, 1998), obtained through innovation and management. There are five types of
KM activities: knowledge transfer, creation, storage and accumulation, and distribution.
Knowledge transfer is a key activity of KM. In an organisation, knowledge transfer is
implemented when a lack of knowledge is recognised. Knowledge can be transferred
intra- and/or inter-organisation. Knowledge transfer involves stages of knowledge acqui-
sition, communication, application, acceptance, and assimilation (Gilbert & Gordey-
Hayes, 1996), as a weapon to duplicate competence (Kogut & Zander, 1993). Knowledge
transfer involves conveyed and diffusing activity; explicit knowledge is transferred by
Figure 1. Research model.
446 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

4. database, file systems or books, and tacit knowledge can be transferred by interpersonal
collaboration only (Lahti & Beyerlein, 2000). Social factors (e.g. trust and commitment)
are important for knowledge transfer activity (Verkasalo & Lappalainen, 1998).
Organisational culture affects KM (Arthur Andersen Business Consulting, 1999) since
it is based on internal shared beliefs and values, which can shape employees’ behaviour.
Culture covers ethics and is based on shared knowledge, experience, and value in an
organisation (Solomon, 2004) so knowledge sharing is highly relevant to organisational
culture (Ruppel & Harrington, 2001). Organisational climate is a part of organisational
culture, as it reflects employees’ perception that their organisation values and enforces
ethically correct behaviour (Robert et al., 2011). By ethical perspective, Victor and
Cullen (1988) argue that organisational climate can be categorised into ethical criteria
and locus of analysis. Ethical criteria are the theories or guidelines for ethical decision-
making in an organisation, separated egoism, benevolence, and principle. The locus of
analysis refers to the three groups that policy-makers consider when facing ethical diffi-
culties: individual, local, and cosmopolitan. The organisational climate based on those
dimensions are divided into nine types of climate (Table 1). A suitable organisational
climate can encourage knowledge sharing or knowledge creation (Zarraga & Bonache,
2003; Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005). A higher organisational climate would show
more KM engagement and attitude, KM satisfaction, and job performance than one of a
low organisational climate (Tseng & Fan, 2011).
Trust and commitment
Trust is an important element for quality management (Lagrosen & Lagrosen, 2012). In
almost any type of social interaction, trust is also a crucial enabling factor (He, Fang, &
Wei, 2009). Trust has positive effects on team performance, especially for virtual
teams (Chang, Chuang, & Chao, 2012). In an organisation, trust is a key element of
organisational core values and a prerequisite for building personal relationships (Dahl-
gaard-Park, 2012). Trust is a common integrated concept – there is a degree of impact
for a personal psychological history and even an institutional structure for entire groups
(Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Trust is an essential element in relationship
initiation and maintenance. In a social media site, trust will positively affect intentions
to continue using a site and to recommend it to others. (Pentina & Zhang, 2013). Trust can
be measured by affective and cognitivetrust (McAllister,1995) and leadershiptrust (Schoor-
man, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Affective trust affects the interaction between managers and
colleagues, and higher cognitive trust will bring higher affective trust that reduces defensive
behaviour and control monitoring from managers (McAllister, 1995). Whether employees
Table 1. Typology of organisational climates by ethical viewpoint (Victor & Cullen, 1988).
Ethical criteria
Locus of analysis
Individual Local Cosmopolitan
Egoism Self-interest Company profit Efficiency
(Instrumental)
Benevolence Friendship TI Social responsibility
(Caring)
Principle Personal morality CRP LPC
(Independence) (Rules) (Law and Code)
Total Quality Management 447
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

5. trust in leadership or not affects business performance (turnover, profit, and staff turnover)
and further affections organisational competence (Schoorman et al., 2007).
The commitment that individuals have to organisations is a willingness to pay energy
and loyalty, the attitude for the organisation, which can integrate groups with the individ-
ual. Commitment, an affective belonging for organisational goals, values, related individ-
ual roles, and group factions, has three characteristics: recognition (acceptance of
organisational goals and values), engagement (participation and concern for job role),
and loyalty (favouritism and belonging to the organisation). Personal commitment to
the organisation includes (1) willingness to pay a high degree of effort for the organisation,
(2) strong willingness to remain in the organisation, (3) the loyalty to the organisation, (4)
acceptance of the major goals and values of the organisation, and (5) positive assessment
of the organisation. Commitment can be measured by affective commitment and norma-
tive commitment (Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993). When members have a strong bond with
the organisation, they will have a strong belief in the organisation’s goals and values, a
willingness to contribute effort, and a desire to continue to be part of the organisation
(Dahlgaard-Park, 2012). A proper organisational climate is essential to commitment (Fu
& Deshpande, 2011). Nonaka (1991) argues that personal commitment is a key factor
in the process of knowledge creation. Commitment constitutes the staff’s KM activities
as the most important element for constructing new knowledge. A lack of commitment
or personal significance would bring only a superficial interpretation of existing knowl-
edge (Nonaka, 1994). An organisation’s ethical climate is a significant predictor of trust
in a supervisor. Organisational commitment (Mulki, Jaramillo, & Locander, 2006) and
trust act as a critical role in knowledge diffusion and building knowledge sharing
(Nonaka, 1994; Chai & Kim, 2010). Furthermore, trust also affects employees’ organis-
ational commitment (Whitener, 2001; Dahlgaard-Park, 2012). Based on the literature
review, this study will test the following hypotheses.
H1: Organisational climates will positively affect trust.
H2: Organisational climates will positively affect commitment.
H3: Organisational climates will positively affect knowledge transfer.
H4: Organisational climates will positively affect knowledge quality.
H5: Organisational climates will positively affect user satisfaction.
H6: Trust will positively affect commitment.
H7: Trust will positively affect knowledge transfer.
H8: Trust will positively affect knowledge quality.
H9: Trust will positively affect user satisfaction.
H10: Commitment will positively affect knowledge transfer.
H11: Commitment will positively affect knowledge quality.
H12: Commitment will positively affect user satisfaction.
H13: Knowledge transfer will positively affect knowledge quality.
H14: Knowledge transfer will positively affect user satisfaction.
H15: Knowledge quality will positively affect user satisfaction.
Methodology
Measures
For clarifying the influence of organisational climate on knowledge transfer, organis-
ational climate becomes the independent variable with trust and commitment as mediators.
Furthermore, KM activity (knowledge transfer) and KM performance (knowledge quality
448 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

6. and user satisfaction) become the dependent variables in this study. This study chooses and
modifies questions from available questionnaires and adopts a five-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha for the
questionnaire (see appendix) of this study is 0.908. For variables of the questionnaire,
all values of average variance extracted (AVE) are above 0.5 and all composite reliability
(CR) values are above 0.6. In addition, each AVE is larger than the squared correlation for
every possible pairing constructs. The reliability, convergent validity, and the discriminant
validity are all acceptable. The ethical climate questionnaire (ECQ) proposed by Victor
and Cullen (1988) is widely used as a study on organisational climate (Shacklock,
Manning, & Hort, 2011). This study adopts the ECQ to measure organisational climate.
The Cronbach’s alpha for organisational climate is 0.735. For trust, this study choses
questions from McAllister’s (1995) questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alpha for trust is
0.809. For commitment, this study modifies items from the Meyer et al.’s (1993)
questionnaire for survey. The Cronbach’s alpha for commitment is 0.848. For knowledge
transfer, the questionnaire is selected from work by Park, Im, and Kim (2011). The Cron-
bach’s alpha for knowledge transfer is 0.744. For knowledge quality, this study selects/
modifies items from questionnaire purposed by Hung, Wu, and Huang (2011). The
Cronbach’s alpha for knowledge quality is 0.911. For user satisfaction, the questionnaire
proposed by Tseng and Fan (2011) is employed. The Cronbach’s alpha for user satisfaction
is 0.872.
Sampling
This paper employs an online survey methodology to collect and analyse empirical data
using the enterprises that implemented KM in Taiwan. This study selects the top 1000
companies in Taiwan for the total population, and the KM implementation condition of
the companies is previously investigated by telephone. For the enterprises that
implemented KM in Taiwan, this study invites them to join in the survey on the phone
call, and 425 survey invitations are sent out with specific invitation numbers. The
survey invitations have requested the responders to confirm that:
(1) The responder should be employed in an enterprise that implemented KM; and
(2) The responder should be chief/staff of KM dominant department or an experi-
enced KM user.
The invitation numbers are checked by online survey methodology before starting each
survey. A total of 154 surveys are returned (36.24%) and 147 are valid for analysis.
The responders belonged to a variety of industries: manufacturing (24.79%), service
(33.06%), finance (12.40%), and others (29.75%). Most of the responders are managers
or executives (69.39%) and hold positions in KM dominant chief/staff or KM users,
meaning that they all have a qualified understanding on KM implementation.
Data analysis
SEM is a general and convenient framework for statistical analysis, including traditional
multivariate procedures such as factor analysis or multiple regression modelling (Ciavolino
& Dahlgaard, 2007). For data analysis, descriptive statistics and SEM by SPSS and analysis
of moment structures (AMOS) are used. The fit for the research model is evaluated by using
traditional goodness of fit measures: goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative fit index
(CFI), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), and root mean square error of
Total Quality Management 449
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

7. approximation (RMSEA). In this study, only three models of organisational climate are
identified – Company Rules and Procedures (CRP), Laws and Professional Codes (LPC),
and Team Interest (TI). These organisational climates are then selected for data analysis.
This study applies SEM to analyse how different types of organisation climate affect
knowledge transfer through trust and commitment. Eighteen matches for the research
model are arranged (Table 2), organisational climate (three types) becomes the indepen-
dent variable with commitment (two types) and trust (three types) as mediators in this
study. This study arranges specific type of factors into the research model for each
match of factors. For example, the types of factors are A1 (CRP), B1 (Normative Commit-
ment) and C1 (Cognitive Trust), and the research model of Match no. 1 is arranged as
Figure 2. By using SEM, this study attempts to explore standardised total effects of all
paths in the research model for each match. The Taguchi method, developed by
Genichi Taguchi, originally applied statistical methods to improve product design and
manufacturing process. Recently, the Taguchi method has been also applied to engineer-
ing (Rosaa, Robina, Silvab, Baldana, & Peres, 2009), biotechnology (Rao, Kumar, Praka-
sham, & Hobbs, 2008), marketing and advertising (Selden, 1997). Taguchi’s method is
competent for three types of characters: (1) the-larger-the-better, (2) the-nominal-the-
better, and (3) the-smaller-the-better. By the statistical type of Taguchi method, this
study transfers the standardised total effects (yi) to signal-to-noise (SN) ratios (h), and
the SN ratios follow the-larger-the-better function:
h = −10 log
n
1
1
y2
i
n
.
Table 2. Matches of factors for data analysis.
Match
no.
1 2 3
1 2 3
Organisational
climates Commitment Trust A B C
1 CRP NC (normative
commitment)
CT (cognitive trust) 1 1 1
2 CRP NC AT (affective trust) 1 1 2
3 CRP NC LT (leadership
trust)
1 1 3
4 CRP AC (affective
commitment)
CT 1 2 1
5 CRP AC AT 1 2 2
6 CRP AC LT 1 2 3
7 LPC NC CT 2 1 1
8 LPC NC AT 2 1 2
9 LPC NC LT 2 1 3
10 LPC AC CT 2 2 1
11 LPC AC AT 2 2 2
12 LPC AC LT 2 2 3
13 TI NC CT 3 1 1
14 TI NC AT 3 1 2
15 TI NC LT 3 1 3
16 TI AC CT 3 2 1
17 TI AC AT 3 2 2
18 TI AC LT 3 2 3
450 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

8. Results
Measurement model
The CR, correlations, means, and standard deviations for the variables appear in Tables 3
and 4. The measurement model as analysed using a confirmatory factor analysis of the
variables indicates a good fit (x2
¼ 193.830, df ¼ 175, x2
/df ¼ 1.108, p ¼ .157, GFI ¼
0.904, CFI ¼ 0.988, SRMR ¼ 0.0423, RMSEA ¼ 0.027). For all variables, all values
of AVE are above 0.5 and all CR values are above 0.6. In addition, each AVE is larger
than the squared correlation for every possible pairing constructs. The reliability, conver-
gent validity, discriminant validity, and goodness-of-fit are all acceptable (Tables 3 and 4).
Figure 2. Research model of Match no. 1.
Table 3. Factor loading, AVE, CR, means and s.d.
Constructs Items Factor loading AVE CR Means s.d.
1. CRP PL1 0.90 0.68 0.81 4.25 0.66
PL2 0.74
2. LPC PC2 0.86 0.52 0.76 3.93 0.61
PC4 0.57
PC5 0.71
3. TI BL1 0.61 0.52 0.68 3.38 0.86
BL2 0.82
4. NC NC1 0.91 0.66 0.79 3.66 0.82
NC2 0.70
5. AC AC2 0.79 0.79 0.88 3.77 0.86
AC3 0.98
6. CT CT1 0.81 0.70 0.83 3.18 0.84
CT2 0.87
7. AT AT1 0.89 0.58 0.72 3.85 0.61
AT2 0.60
8. LT LT1 0.88 0.68 0.81 3.06 0.95
LT2 0.76
9. KT (knowledge transfer) KT2 0.82 0.60 0.75 3.55 0.76
KT3 0.83
10. KQ (knowledge quality) KQ1 0.91 0.84 0.91 3.56 0.81
KQ2 0.92
11. US (user satisfaction) US1 0.91 0.78 0.87 3.57 0.81
US2 0.85
Total Quality Management 451
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

9. Table 4. Analysis of discriminant validity and correlations.
Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. CRP 0.68 0.28∗∗∗
0.08 0.16∗∗
0.12∗∗
0.14∗
0.13∗∗
0.14∗
0.14∗∗
0.29∗∗∗
0.32∗∗∗
2. LPC 0.08∗∗∗
0.52 0.16∗∗
0.19∗∗∗
0.17∗∗∗
0.23∗∗∗
0.20∗∗∗
0.28∗∗∗
0.16∗∗∗
0.24∗∗∗
0.22∗∗∗
3. TI 0.01 0.03∗∗
0.52 0.23∗∗∗
0.20∗∗∗
0.11 0.11∗
0.24∗∗∗
0.24∗∗∗
0.15∗∗
0.13∗
4. NC 0.03∗∗
0.03∗∗∗
0.05∗∗∗
0.66 0.39∗∗∗
0.24∗∗∗
0.17∗∗∗
0.40∗∗∗
0.19∗∗∗
0.31∗∗∗
0.32∗∗∗
5. AC 0.01∗∗
0.03∗∗∗
0.04∗∗∗
0.15∗∗∗
0.79 0.16∗∗
0.19∗∗∗
0.29∗∗∗
0.16∗∗∗
0.20∗∗∗
0.17∗∗
6. CT 0.02∗
0.05∗∗∗
0.01 0.06∗∗∗
0.03∗∗
0.70 0.30∗∗∗
0.41∗∗∗
0.15∗∗
0.22∗∗∗
0.25∗∗∗
7. AT 0.02∗∗
0.04∗∗∗
0.01∗
0.03∗∗∗
0.04∗∗∗
0.09∗∗∗
0.58 0.23∗∗∗
0.19∗∗∗
0.19∗∗∗
0.19∗∗∗
8. LT 0.02∗
0.08∗∗∗
0.06∗∗∗
0.16∗∗∗
0.08∗∗∗
0.17∗∗∗
0.05∗∗∗
0.68 0.21∗∗∗
0.27∗∗∗
0.24∗∗∗
9. KT 0.02∗∗
0.02∗∗∗
0.06∗∗∗
0.04∗∗∗
0.03∗∗∗
0.02∗∗
0.03∗∗∗
0.04∗∗∗
0.60 0.27∗∗∗
0.27∗∗∗
10. KQ 0.09∗∗∗
0.06∗∗∗
0.02∗∗
0.10∗∗∗
0.04∗∗∗
0.05∗∗∗
0.04∗∗∗
0.07∗∗∗
0.07∗∗∗
0.84 0.45∗∗∗
11. US 0.10∗∗∗
0.05∗∗∗
0.02∗
0.10∗∗∗
0.03∗∗
0.06∗∗∗
0.04∗∗∗
0.06∗∗∗
0.07∗∗∗
0.20∗∗∗
0.78
Notes: Squared correlations are below the diagonal, and AVE estimates are presented on the diagonal. Correlations are above the diagonal.
∗
p , .05.
∗∗
p , .01.
∗∗∗
p , .001.
Table 5. GFIs estimated by structural model.
x2
df p x2
/df GFI CFI SRMR RMSEA
Max. 40.32 39 0.90 1.03 0.97 0.97 0.03 0.00
Min. 28.29 39 0.41 0.73 0.96 0.95 0.02 0.00
Limit 2 2 .0.05 ,3 .0.9 .0.9 ,0.05 ,0.05
Acceptable 2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
452S.-H.LuoandG.-G.Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

10. Structural model
The structural model test is used to determine the fitness between the models and the data
and to test the hypotheses in this study. The test result indicates a good fit in the 18 matches
for the research model (Table 5). The results of standardised total effects are shown in
Table 6 and Figure 3.
The first hypothesis examines the correlation between organisational climate and trust.
The path from organisational climate to trust is only unexpected between TI climate to
cognitive trust (Match nos. 13 and 16). H1 is partially supported. Based on the results
of SN ratio, while most climates positively affect trust, the effect levels are distinct for
different matches of organisational climate and trust (Figure 4). For H2, the path from
organisational climate to commitment is only unexpected in Match nos. 5 and 9. In the
situations Match nos. 5 and 9, organisational climate can only affect commitment via
trust. H2 is partially supported. For H3, the path from organisational climate to knowledge
transfer is only unexpected in Match nos. 2, 8 and 11. In the situations Match nos. 2, 8 and
11, organisational climate can only affect knowledge transfer via trust and/or commitment.
H3 is partially supported. For H4, the path from organisational climate to knowledge
quality is only unexpected between TI to knowledge quality. It means TI can only
affect knowledge quality via mediators of trust, commitment and knowledge transfer.
H4 is partially supported. For H5, the path from organisational climate to user satisfaction
is only expected in CRP. For the other climates, organisational climate can only affect user
satisfaction through mediators of trust, commitment, knowledge transfer and knowledge
quality (Figure 5). H5 is partially supported.
Figure 3. Main effects graph – SN ratio.
Total Quality Management 453
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

11. For H6, the path from trust to commitment is only unexpected in the LPC climate
(Match nos. 8 and 10). While trust affects commitment in most of matches, the effect
levels are unlike (Figure 6). H6 is partially supported. For H7, the path from trust to
knowledge transfer is unexpected in Match nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 18,
and the effect levels are distinct for different types of trust (Figure 7). H7 is partially
supported.
Table 6. Main effects – SN ratio (dB).
Match
no.
Organisational climate Commitment Trust
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3
CRP LPC TI Normative Affective Cognitive Affective Leadership
H1 211.71 26.19 211.33 29.63 29.86 210.48 29.54 29.21
H2 210.37 27.65 27.07 28.37 28.35 28.39 28.30 28.39
H3 28.79 27.17 24.13 26.70 26.69 26.70 26.63 26.76
H4 24.94 25.47 210.60 27.00 27.01 27.00 27.01 27.00
H5 24.56 26.81 212.06 27.87 27.74 27.82 27.79 27.81
H6 28.35 210.38 29.28 28.78 29.90 211.65 210.01 26.36
H7 29.42 211.71 211.58 210.85 210.96 213.57 27.91 211.23
H8 211.79 215.34 29.53 212.31 212.12 213.35 212.50 210.80
H9 212.60 214.10 29.63 212.18 212.04 211.20 212.58 212.55
H10 212.13 212.51 221.35 214.34 216.32 213.27 217.80 214.92
H11 212.49 212.42 210.22 28.37 215.05 211.04 211.56 212.53
H12 216.15 214.90 212.32 28.50 220.41 213.98 214.66 214.72
H13 28.55 27.92 24.42 27.40 26.53 27.06 26.53 27.30
H14 28.78 27.45 24.24 27.37 26.28 27.08 26.51 26.88
H15 27.69 25.47 25.85 26.90 25.77 26.45 26.29 26.27
Figure 4. The effect from organisational climate to trust – SN ratio (dB).
454 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

12. For H8, the path from trust to knowledge quality is unexpected. It means that trust can
only affect knowledge quality via commitment and knowledge transfer, and the effect
levels are distinct in different climates (Figure 8). H8 is not supported. For H9, the path
from trust to user satisfaction is unexpected. It means that trust can only affect user
Figure 5. The effect from organisational climate to user satisfaction – SN ratio (dB).
Figure 6. The effect from trust to commitment – SN ratio (dB).
Total Quality Management 455
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

13. satisfaction via commitment, knowledge transfer and knowledge quality, and the effect
levels are distinct in different climates (Figure 9). H9 is not supported. For H10, the
path from commitment to knowledge transfer is only expected in Match nos. 1, 2, 4, 6–
8 and 10 (Figure 10). In most situations, knowledge transfer is affected by organisational
Figure 7. The effect from trust to knowledge transfer – SN ratio (dB).
Figure 8. The effect from trust to knowledge quality – SN ratio (dB).
456 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

14. climate directly. H10 is partially supported. For H11, the path from affective commitment
to knowledge quality is unexpected (Figure 11). H11 is partially supported. For H12, com-
mitment cannot affect user satisfaction directly, H12 is not supported. However, normative
commitment can affect user satisfaction via knowledge quality. The effect levels of
Figure 9. The effect from trust to user satisfaction – SN ratio (dB).
Figure 10. The effect from commitment to knowledge transfer – SN ratio (dB).
Total Quality Management 457
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

15. commitment to user satisfaction are distinct for different types of commitment (Figure 12).
For H13, the path from knowledge transfer to knowledge quality is expected; H13 is sup-
ported. For H14, the path from knowledge transfer to user satisfaction is only expected in
Match nos. 3–6, 9–10, 12–13 and 15. In the situations where knowledge transfer can only
Figure 11. The effect from commitment to knowledge quality – SN ratio (dB).
Figure 12. The effect from commitment to user satisfaction – SN ratio (dB).
458 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

16. affect user satisfaction via knowledge quality, H14 is partially supported. For H15, where
the path from knowledge quality to user satisfaction is expected, H15 is supported.
Prediction and confirmation
According to the graphs of SN ratio (Figure 3), when the whole effects on knowledge
transfer, knowledge quality and user satisfaction are considered first and the effects on
trust and commitment are considered second, the optimal type of factors should be A2
(LPC), B1 (normative commitment) and C3 (leadership trust) for the confirmation test.
The result of the confirmation test is similar to the prediction (Table 7).
Conclusions
Implications
According to the aforementioned results, this study has the following implications.
(1) LPC climate has the highest influence on trust, TI climate is conducive to vertical
trust, and CRP is conducive to lateral trust. Based on the study results, LPC climate has the
highest influence on all types of trust. In an LPC climate, enterprises respect cosmopolitan
laws and professional codes, not egoism, and the leaders and colleagues are more reliable
and trustworthy to individuals. In a benevolence-oriented climate (TI), the leaders pay
attention to the company and employees’ interactive process with care and benevolence,
with an emphasis on staff interests. The employees will enhance trust in the leadership
leading to organisational climate being more conducive to vertical (leadership) trust.
However, TI has a lesser effect on lateral (affective and cognitive) trusts. For better knowl-
edge transfer, enterprises should strive to enhance lateral trusts in the TI climate. Compa-
nies with CRP climate execute decision-making to comply with the organisation’s principle
and values; they have clear regulations, regimes and operating procedures for daily oper-
ations, pay and reward system, and human resourcing, colleagues are more reliable and
trustworthy to individuals, and CRP is conducive to lateral (affective and cognitive)
trusts. Nevertheless, CRP has lesser effect on vertical (leadership) trust. For better knowl-
edge transfer, enterprises should strive to enhance vertical trust in the CRP climate.
(2) Organisational climate positively influences commitment and knowledge transfer.
Organisational climate affects commitment and knowledge transfer directly and/or
Table 7. Prediction and confirmation.
Items Confirmation H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8
SN ratio (dB) Prediction 25.54 27.69 27.24 25.46 26.87 26.84 211.99 214.02
Test result 26.06 28.29 27.23 25.53 26.76 25.04 211.37 213.89
Standardised total
effects
Prediction 0.52 0.41 0.43 0.53 0.46 0.48 0.26 0.21
Test result 0.50 0.39 0.44 0.53 0.46 0.56 0.27 0.20
Difference 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.08 20.01 0.01
Items Confirmation H9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15
SN ratio (dB) Prediction 214.61 211.12 29.90 29.21 28.69 28.04 25.97
Test result 215.44 212.11 27.87 27.25 28.75 28.22 26.02
Standardised total
effects
Prediction 0.18 0.24 0.35 0.38 0.36 0.40 0.51
Test result 0.17 0.25 0.40 0.43 0.37 0.39 0.50
Difference 0.01 0.00 20.05 20.05 0.00 0.01 0.01
Total Quality Management 459
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

17. indirectly. Through building a suitable organisational climate, enterprises will garner
employees that have more trust in the company and are more committed to sharing
their personal knowledge and join in knowledge transfer.
(3) In a TI climate, enterprises should strive to enhance trust and commitment for
better KM performance. All types of organisational climate positively influence KM per-
formance (knowledge quality and user satisfaction), but TI has the lowest standardised
total effects. Changing the organisational climate requires a long period, but garnering
trust and commitment from employees can be approached in a shorter period than chan-
ging the organisational climate. In the TI climate, enterprises should strive to enhance
trust and commitment for better KM performance.
(4) Trust is a key factor to commitment, and vertical trust is more conducive to com-
mitment. In most conditions, trust positively affects commitment; trust plays a key role in
commitment. Of the three types of trust, vertical (leadership) trust has highest influence on
commitment; meaning that enterprises should strive to enhance vertical trust for better
commitment from employees.
(5) Affective trust is the key factor to knowledge transfer. Affective trust has the
highest effects on knowledge transfer, meaning that affective trust is the key factor to
knowledge transfer. For better knowledge transfer, enterprises can enhance affective trust.
(6) Enhancing trust can approach better KM performance via normative commitment.
In most conditions, trust affects commitment and affects knowledge quality via normative
commitment. Enterprises can enhance trust and normative commitment to approach better
KM performance.
(7) Knowledge transfer activity positively affects knowledge quality, and knowledge
quality positively affects user satisfaction. Knowledge quality affects the perceived useful-
ness from employees, and is correlative to the continuance intention of using KMS (He
et al., 2009). This study finds that knowledge transfer activity positively affects knowledge
quality, and knowledge quality positively affects user satisfaction. This finding supports
the viewpoints of He et al. (2009).
(8) Organisational climate plays the most important role in KM performance. In most
conditions, organisationalclimate positivelyaffectstrustandcommitmentdirectly, butdiffer-
ent types of organisational climate affect KM performance in different ways. In principle-
oriented climates (CRP & LPC), enterprises will have better KM performance by laws and
professionalcodes,andorganisationalsystem,principle,values,regulations,regimeandoper-
ating procedures. Shaping a proper organisational climate is conducive to KM performance.
(9) Affective commitment will not affect knowledge quality. Affective commitment has
no conspicuous influence on knowledge quality, but normative commitment affects
knowledge quality. For knowledge quality, normative commitment plays a critical role.
Enterprises should enhance normative commitment for better knowledge quality.
(10) The suitable match of organisational climate, trust and commitment in Taiwan
will be LPC, normative commitment and leadership trust. This study has found a suitable
match of organisational climate, trust and commitment in Taiwan. The match will be LPC,
normative commitment and leadership trust. If Taiwanese enterprises build an LPC
climate and strive to enhance normative commitment and leadership trust, a higher KM
performance will be expected.
Limitations
The surveyed enterprises were selected from the top 1000 enterprises in Taiwan. However,
a limitation should be noted. All data were collected from only Taiwanese enterprises, so
460 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

18. replicating this research in a more diverse population, particularly in a cross-cultural
setting could strengthen the research findings in the future.
References
Aksoy, E., & Dincmen, M. (2011). Knowledge focused Six Sigma (KFSS): A methodology to cal-
culate Six Sigma intellectual capital. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
22(3), 275–288.
Arthur Andersen Business Consulting. (1999). Zukai knowledge management. Tokyo: Toyo Keizai.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G., & Lee, J.N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowl-
edge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.
Chai, S., & Kim, M. (2010). What makes bloggers share knowledge? An investigation on the role of
trust. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 408–415.
Chang, H.H., Chuang, S.S., & Chao, S.H. (2012). Determinants of cultural adaptation, communi-
cation quality, and trust in virtual teams’ performance. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 22(3), 305–329.
Ciavolino, E., & Dahlgaard, J.J. (2007). ECSI – customer satisfaction modelling and analysis: A
case study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(5), 545–554.
Dahlgaard-Park, S.M. (2012). Core values – the entrance to human satisfaction and commitment.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(2), 125–140.
Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they
know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Fu, W.H., & Deshpande, S.P. (2011). Antecedents of organizational commitment in a Chinese con-
struction company. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(3), 301–307.
Gilbert, M., & Gordey-Hayes, M. (1996). Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to
achieve successful technological innovation. Technovation, 16(6), 301–312.
Glasser, P. (1999). The knowledge factor. CIO Magazine. Retrieved August 2, 2011, from http://
www.cio.com.au/article/107326/knowledge_factor
He, W., Fang, Y.L., & Wei, K.K. (2009). The role of trust in promoting organizational knowledge
seeking using knowledge management systems: An empirical investigation. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(3), 526–537.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M.R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for
determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.
Housel, T., & Bell, A.A. (2001). Measuring and managing knowledge. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Howell, K.E., & Annansingh, F. (2013). Knowledge generation and sharing in UK universities: A
tale of two cultures? International Journal of Information Management, 33(1), 32–39.
Hung, S.Y., Wu, H.L., & Huang, Y.C. (2011). The moderating effects of self-efficacy and trust on
knowledge management systems success. International Journal of Commerce and Strategy,
3(2), 101–124.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multina-
tional corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24(4), 625–645.
Kumar, A., & Gupta, P.C. (2011). Implementation of knowledge management to minimize ERP
based system’s failure of an organization: A survey. International Journal of Research in
Finance & Marketing, 1(3), 55–66.
Lagrosen, S., & Lagrosen, Y. (2012). Trust and quality management: Perspectives from marketing
and organisational learning. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 23(1), 13–26.
Lahti, R.K., & Beyerlein, M.M. (2000). Knowledge transfer and management consulting: A look at
the firm. Business Horizon, 43(1), 65–74.
Lee, G.G. (2006). Exploring effects of managerial style and organizational structure toward KS be-
havior and intention: Based on organizational behavior, sci-tech programs funding research
project result (Project No. NSC94-2416-H-011-006). Taiwan: National Science Council.
Luo, S.H., & Lee, G.G. (2012). Applying failure mode and effects analysis for successful knowledge
management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. doi:10.1080/14783363.
2012.733263
Luo, S.H., & Lee, G.G. (2013). Key factors for knowledge management implementation. Social
Behavior and Personality, 41(3), 463–476.
Total Quality Management 461
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

19. McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24–59.
McDermott, R., & O’Dell, C. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 5(1), 76–85.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organization and occupation:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 538–551.
Mulki, J.P., Jaramillo, F., & Locander, W.B. (2006). Effects of ethical climate and supervisory trust
on salesperson’s job attitudes and intentions to quit. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 26(1), 19–26.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69(6), 96–104.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,
5(1), 14–37.
Park, J.Y., Im, K.S., & Kim, J.S. (2011). The role of IT human capability in the knowledge transfer
process in IT outsourcing context. Information & Management, 48(1), 53–61.
Pentina, I., & Zhang, L.X. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of trust in a social media brand: A
cross-cultural study of twitter. Computers In Human Behavior, 29(4), 1546–1555.
Rao, R.S., Kumar, C.G., Prakasham, R.S., & Hobbs, P.J. (2008). The Taguchi methodology as a stat-
istical tool for biotechnological applications: A critical appraisal. Biotechnology Journal,
3(4), 510–523.
Robert, S., Sabrina, D.V., Derek, R.A., & Patrick, M. (2011). You support diversity, but are you
ethical? Examining the interactive effects of diversity and ethical climate perceptions on turn-
over intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(4), 581–593.
Rosaa, J.L., Robina, A., Silvab, M.B., Baldana, C.A., & Peres, M.P. (2009). Electrodeposition of
copper on titanium wires: Taguchi experimental design approach. Journal of Materials
Processing Technology, 209(3), 1181–1188.
Rousseau, S.B., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-
discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404.
Ruppel, C.P., & Harrington, S.J. (2001). Sharing knowledge through intranets: A study of organiz-
ational culture and intranet implementation. IEEE Transactions on Professional
Communication, 44(1), 37–52.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C., & Davis, J.H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust:
Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.
Selden, P.H. (1997). Sales process engineering: A personal workshop. Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality
Press.
Shacklock, A., Manning, M., & Hort, L. (2011). Ethical climate type, self-efficacy, and capacity to
deliver ethical outcomes in public sector human resource management. Journal of New
Business Ideas and Trends, 9(2), 34–49.
Solomon, R.C. (2004). Aristotle, ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies, 25(6),
1021–1043.
Stewart, T.A. (1998). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. Performance
Improvement, 37(7), 56–59.
Tseng, F.C., & Fan, Y.J. (2011). Exploring the influence of organizational ethical climate on knowl-
edge management. Journal of Business Ethics, 101(2), 325–342.
Verkasalo, M., & Lappalainen, P. (1998). A method of measuring the efficiency of the knowledge
utilization process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 45(4), 414–423.
Victor, B., & Cullen, J.B. (1988). The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 33(1), 101–125.
Whitener, E.M. (2001). Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commit-
ment?: A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. Journal of Management,
27(5), 515–535.
Zarraga, C., & Bonache, J. (2003). Assessing the team environment for knowledge sharing: An empiri-
cal analysis. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(7), 1227–1245.
462 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

20. Appendix
Original
item Measurement
Self-interest
EI1 In this company, people protect their own interests above all else
EI2 In this company, people are mostly out for themselves
EI3 There is no room for one’s own personal morals or ethics in this company
Company profit
EL1 People are expected to do anything to further the company’s interests, regardless of
the consequences
EL2 People here are concerned with the company’s interests – to the exclusion of all else
EL3 Work is considered substandard only when it hurts the company’s interests
Efficiency
EC1 The most efficient way is always the right way in this company
EC2 In this company, each person is expected above all to work efficiently
EC3 The major responsibility of people in this company is to control costs
Friendship
BI1 Our major concern is always what is best for the other person
BI2 In this company, people look out for each other’s good
TI
BL1 What is best for everyone in the company is the major consideration here
BL2 The most important concern is the good of all the people in the company as a whole
Social responsibility
BC1 In this company, it is expected that you will always do what is right for the customers
BC2 In this company, it is expected that you will always do what is right for the public
Personal morality
PI1 In this company, people are expected to follow their own personal and moral beliefs
PI2 Each person in this company decides for themselves what is right and wrong
PI3 The most important concern in this company is each person’s own sense of right and
wrong
PI4 In this company, people are guided by their own personal ethics
CRP
PL1 It is very important to follow the company’s rules and procedures here
PL2 Everyone is expected to stick by CRP
PL3 Successful people in this company go by the book
PL4 People in this company strictly obey the company policies
LPC
PC1 People are expected to comply with the law over and above other considerations
PC2 People are expected to comply with the professional standards over and above other
considerations
PC3 In this company, the law is the major consideration
PC4 In this company, the ethical code of the profession is the major consideration
PC5 In this company, people are expected to strictly follow legal or processional
standards
PC6 In this company, the first consideration is whether a decision violates any law
Normative commitment
NC1 I do not believe that a person must always be loyal to his or her organisation
NC2 One of the major reasons I continue to work in this organisation is that I believe
loyalty is important and therefore feel a sense of moral obligation to remain
NC3 I was taught to believe in the value of remaining loyal to one organisation
Affective commitment
AC1 I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this organisation
AC2 I do not feel like ‘part of the family’ at my organisation
AC3 I do not feel a ‘strong’ sense of belonging to my organisation
(Continued)
Total Quality Management 463
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015

21. Appendix. Continued.
Original
item Measurement
Cognitive trust
CT1 I can rely on my colleagues not to make my job more difficult by careless work
CT2 Most people, even those who are not close friends of this individual, trust and respect
him/her as a co-worker
CT3 Given my colleagues’ track records, I see no reason to doubt his/her competence and
preparation for the job
Affective trust
AT1 If I shared my problems with this person, I know she/he would respond
constructively and caringly
AT2 I can talk freely to this individual about difficulties I am having at work and know
that she/he will want to listen
AT3 We would both feel a sense of loss if one of us was transferred and we could no
longer work together
Leadership trust
LT1 My supervisor keeps my interests in mind when making decisions
LT2 I would be willing to let my supervisor have complete control over my future in this
company
LT3 If my supervisor asked why a problem occurred, I would speak freely even if I were
partly to blame
Knowledge transfer
KT1 Your company has learned a great deal about the technology/process know-how held
by your partner
KT2 Your company has greatly reduced its initial technological reliance or dependence
upon the partner since the beginning of the alliance
KT3 The technology/process know-how held by your partner has been assimilated by
your company and has contributed to other projects developed by your company
Knowledge quality
KQ1 The knowledge provided by the KMS is accurate
KQ2 The knowledge provided by the KMS is trustworthy and completed
KQ3 The knowledge provided by the KMS is relevant and consistency
User satisfaction
US1 KMS helps the user create value for the firm’s internal or external customers
US2 The KMS helps to regulate work processes and performance
464 S.-H. Luo and G.-G. Lee
Downloadedby[RMITUniversity]at02:1210September2015