“KMS-Fit”: A case-based exploration of task/technology fit in an applied knowledge management context

Jason M Turner ,David P Biros ,Michael E Moseley

doi:10.34105/j.kmel.2009.01.010

Abstract

The notion of Task/Technology Fit (TTF) posits that as the degree of overlap increases between the task domain, and the ways in which the capabilities of an information system (IS) are suited to activities within that domain, performance gains experienced via use of the IS should also increase. This research proposes an expanded TTF model that is applicable to the context of Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge Management Systems (KMS). In particular, additional individual, technological, and social factors and interrelationships between these factors could provide greater explanatory power of IS user behaviors, perceptions, and outcomes within the realm of knowledge work. A mixed-method field study approach was employed at a large government organization, currently in the process of developing and fielding a new KMS to support knowledge-intensive work, to investigate the underlying factors and relationships described within an expanded “KMS Fit” model. Results suggest that the foundational mechanisms described by the TTF model may in fact change within KM contexts. In particular, the inherently social characteristics of knowledge-based work were found to play a very important role in determining the degree of fit relative to a KMS. Moreover, the social ecology within the organization was found to have significant impact on KMS Fit. Results of this research further reinforce the notion that KMS may be a unique subset of IS and that traditional IS models (such as TTF) should be updated or tailored to reflect the social nature of knowledge-based work and knowledge management.

Highlights

1.1 BackgroundContemporary definitions of knowledge tend to center on the mind of the knower: justified, personal beliefs that increase one‘s ability to take decisive action (Alavi & Leidner, 1999; Nonaka, 1994)—often a complex amalgam of ―framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information‖ (Davenport & Prusak, 2000, p. 5)
When comparing the Proposed Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) Fit model to the baseline perceptual model derived from the Defense Ammunition Center (DAC) personnel interviews, all but one (Figure 5; circled in both systems) of the Task/Technology Fit (TTF) and proposed social ecology-based relationships were supported by the perceptions and experiences of the DAC employees
The topography of the perceptual system and the disparity of the relationship between performance and intentions tell a much more complex story. These findings are perhaps unsurprising; it is widely maintained that knowledge and knowledge management in particular should enable some sort of action (Alavi & Leidner, 1999; Jennex, 2008; Jennex et al, 2007; Nonaka, 1994)

Summary

Introduction

1.1 BackgroundContemporary definitions of knowledge tend to center on the mind of the knower: justified, personal beliefs that increase one‘s ability to take decisive action (Alavi & Leidner, 1999; Nonaka, 1994)—often a complex amalgam of ―framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information‖ (Davenport & Prusak, 2000, p. 5). KM has been rooted in action, requiring knowledge be used and applied before it can impact an organization (Jennex, 2008) Such impact can be profound and knowledge management is regarded as one of the cornerstones of business success—according to a report by INPUT, the US Government spending on knowledge management solutions is projected to reach $1.3 billion by fiscal year 2010; a 35 percent increase over existing KM expenditures (INPUT, 2005). Despite this significant investment, there is no guarantee that knowledge management projects will attain their objectives. There is no guarantee that knowledge management projects will attain their objectives. Storey and Barnett (2000) report that the majority knowledge management projects fail to have any real impact

Methods

Results

Conclusion