whx自我介绍傅振瑞.ppt

1、傅振瑞,1,自我介紹 - 傅振瑞,中央大學資訊管理所博士班 中央大學資訊管理所碩士班 台灣大學造船工程學系 萬能科技大學資訊管理系講師,傅振瑞,投稿狀況,Determinants of Taxpayers Adoption of Electronic Filing Methods in Taiwan An Exploratory Study, with C. K. Farn, Journal of Government Information, conditional accepted. (SSCI) Toward an Understanding of Knowledge Sharing -

2、 The Effect of Fairness Perception, with C. K. Farn, Journal of Management Information Systems, under first revision. (SSCI) A Comparative Investigation of Taxpayers Intention towards Using Electronic Tax-Filing System, with C. K. Farn, Information & Management, under first review. (SSCI) 網路公民權之探討“,

3、 萬能學報，民國八十九年六月。,傅振瑞,研討會,傅振瑞、范錚強、趙文彬, Differences between Users and Non-Users of Electronic Tax Filing Method-An Exploratory Study, 第十五屆國際資訊管理學術研討會(ICIM)論文集,台灣台北，民國九十年五月 Cheng-Kiang Farn, Jen-Ruei Fu, Toward an Understanding of Knowledge Sharing -The Effects of Fairness Perception, International Asso

4、ciation for Development of the Information Society (IADIS), 2004, Avila, Spain, July 2004 傅振瑞,群組合作學習與學習成效的關係探討,第十四屆國際資訊管理學術研討會論文集，台灣嘉義，民國九十二年六月 趙文彬、傅振瑞、范錚強, 影響納稅人對綜合所得稅申報方式之使用意向研究,第十四屆國際資訊管理學術研討會(ICIM)論文集，台灣嘉義，民國九十二年六月 彭國芳、傅振瑞、范錚強、許通安,策略實驗理論在電子商務環境下之修正-行動娛樂內容商務公司之個案研究,第六屆企業經營管理個案研討會,民國九十二年4月22日 Jen-

5、Ruei Fu, Factors Influence Information and Knowledge Sharing in Organization, The Second International Conference on Electronic Business, December 10, 2002. Jen-Ruei Fu, Cautions on the use of SERVQUAL Measure: an Examination of theoretical assumptions, Eight ISSAT International Conference on Reliab

6、ility and Quality in Design, August 2002. 傅振瑞，資訊安全的內部威脅與控制機制-代理理論的觀點 ，第六屆資訊管理學術暨警政資訊實務研討會，台灣桃園，民國九十一年五月，P312。 傅振瑞，群體間的知識分享與信任-社會網路理論的觀點 ，第七屆資訊管理研究暨實務研討會，台灣台北，民國九十年十二月，P20。 傅振瑞，電子商務環境中的資訊隱私權 消費者行為觀點，第一屆網站經營學術暨實務研討會，台灣台北，民國八十九年五月。 傅振瑞, 范錚強，林建煌，資訊負荷與情緒對消費者決策效果之實驗室研究，第九屆國際資訊管理學術研討會(ICIM)論文集，台灣台北，民國八十七年五

7、月 陳振明、傅振瑞、胡光輝、戴基峰 (1997)，中衛體系下軟體產業分工模式，第八屆國際資訊管理學術研討會(ICIM)論文集，台灣台北，民國八十六年五月，783-790。,傅振瑞,Toward an Understanding of Knowledge Sharing -The Effects of Fairness Perception,Jen-Ruei Fu,傅振瑞,Introduction(1),Employees frequently resist sharing their knowledge with the rest of the organization (Ciborra an

8、d Patriota, 1998) Knowledge sharing is a “voluntary act of making information available to others sharer could pass information on, but doesnt have to” (Davenport, 1997).,傅振瑞,Introduction(2),Reasons for not sharing knowledge: Motivation epistemological impossibility of articulating knowledge The int

9、eraction between the two remains a less explored and complex issue,傅振瑞,Introduction(3),There have been relatively few studies that examined the influence of fairness perception on employees propensity to share knowledge. Extant empirical studies on motivation of knowledge workers are not abundantly

10、available,傅振瑞,Research Objective,Build on the equity theory (Adam, 1965) and the information sharing theory (Constant et al, 1994), this study seeks to enhance understanding of the perceptual determinants of peoples propensity to share knowledge. examined how the nature of knowledge moderates the re

11、lationship between employees fairness perception and knowledge sharing propensity.,傅振瑞,Theoretical Background,Does people share knowledge based on pro-social attitude? More on altruism, trust, and self-control rather than on reasons of rational self-interest (Kim et al. 1998). pro-social behavior mu

12、st be performed both spontaneously and voluntarily (Kelloway and Barling, 1999),傅振瑞,Exchange Theory,Individuals evaluate alternative courses of action in order to maximize the payoff at lowest cost from any transaction completed. Blau (1964) differentiates social exchange from economic exchange. Kno

13、wledge exchanges Economic exchange: an expectation of some future return from sharing (Jarvenpaa and Staples, 2001). Social exchange: no understanding of the value of what has been shared and no clear expectation of exact future return,傅振瑞,Equity theory,The ratio of outcomes (e.g., pay or promotions

14、) to inputs (e.g., effort or contribution) determines the values attributed to the exchange. A perceived unfair situation will create tension and distress, the individual will be motivated to reduce the tension (e.g. change input).,傅振瑞,Distributive and Procedural Justice,Distributive justice relates

15、 to individuals perception of how resources and rewards are distributed. people care not only about the outcome of decisions, but also about the procedures used to make decisions procedural justice is concerned with the impact of the fairness of decision making procedures on the attitudes and behavi

16、or of the people involved,傅振瑞,Information Sharing Theory,Information sharing is affected by rational self-interest as well as the social and organizational context. The context is important because it differentiates information sharing from those simple exchanges where individuals act simply from ra

17、tional self-interest.,傅振瑞,Expertise v.s. Information Product,Attitudes towards information sharing depend on the nature of the information being shared. Sharing tangible information work may depend on pro-social attitudes and norms of organizational ownership information as expertise is a special ki

18、nd of information that is part of an individuals identity and is self-expressive,傅振瑞,Information as product,傅振瑞,Information as Expertise,傅振瑞,Research Model,傅振瑞,Belief of Organizational Ownership of Knowledge (1),Whether information and knowledge created by an individual knowledge worker are believed

19、 to be owned by the organization A common organizational norm : “an information outcome of work such as an idea, process, invention, document, or computer program that an employee creates or acquires at work or using organizational resources actually belongs to the employer rather than to the employ

20、ee.” Those who control the asset also tend to assume (or are credited by others with) ownership (Heider, 1958), control and ownership are intertwined,傅振瑞,Belief of Organizational Ownership of Knowledge (2),According to the information sharing theory, employees are more likely to share information if

21、 they assign organizational ownership rights to their work. Hypothesis 1: Beliefs about organizational ownership of knowledge positively affect ones propensity to share.,傅振瑞,Fairness Perception and Knowledge Sharing,When employees are treated unfairly, they may attach less organizational property ri

22、ghts of their own knowledge as a balancing act. if knowledge sharing is considered a work input, then an employees response to underpayment, perceived as an inequity, could lead to the unwillingness to share knowledge.,傅振瑞,Distributive Justice,When employees cannot get commensurate benefits from the

23、ir organization, a decrease in beliefs of organizational ownership of knowledge and knowledge sharing would reflect a change to their reward-to-input ratio. Hypothesis 2: Distributive justice positively affects the belief of organizational ownership of knowledge. Hypothesis 3: Distributive justice p

24、ositively affects the propensity toward knowledge sharing.,傅振瑞,Procedural justice,Fair procedures may also have symbolic meaning insofar as individuals are treated as ends rather than means (Folger & Konovsky, 1989).,傅振瑞,self-interest perceptive (Thibaut & Walker, 1975),People as being motivated pri

25、marily by a desire to maximize their material gains. Employees do not expect every decision outcome that affects them to be favorable because they recognize that decision makers must take into account many competing interests and issues. Instead, they seek assurance that decision makers will provide

26、 them with reasonably favorable decision outcomes in the long-run.,傅振瑞,group value perceptive (Lind & Tyler, 1988),Individuals generally have a strong sense of affiliation with groups (e.g., organizations) of which they are a member, and garner psychological gains such as self-esteem and self-identi

27、ty from this affiliation.,傅振瑞,Hypothesis 4: Procedural justice positively affects the belief of organizational ownership of knowledge. Hypothesis 5: Procedural justice positively affects the propensity of knowledge sharing.,傅振瑞,Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge(1),level of codification (Zander and Kog

28、ut, 1995) Tangible information product and intangible expertise are treated differently (Constant et al., 1994), and the two types of information have different meanings to people and different social implications as well.,傅振瑞,Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge(2),Explicit knowledge is discernible. It

29、is easier for organizations to monitor and track workers explicit knowledge through information systems and administrative procedures. An employee would feel more obligated to share and be responsible for hoarding explicit knowledge. Sharing tacit knowledge is more ambiguous than sharing explicit kn

30、owledge. An employee has more control over his tacit work regardless of whomever the knowledge belongs to.,傅振瑞,Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge(3),the employee would share explicit knowledge because he feels that the work organization has a right to it, and they are willing to share tacit knowledge e

31、ven if the company does not own the knowledge. Hypothesis 6: Belief about organizational ownership predicts the propensity to share explicit knowledge more than to share tacit knowledge.,傅振瑞,Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge(4),The motivation to exchange knowledge is affected by whether the decision t

32、o share is viewed as primarily economic and motivated by self-interest, or non-economic and motivated by community interest and moral obligation (Wasko and Faraj, 2000). Distributive justice, or the fairness of decision outcomes, is the typical metric for judging the fairness of transactional contra

33、cts and economic exchange (Konovsky and Push, 1994). Explicit knowledge is tradable (Osterloh and Frey, 2000) . Managers are more able to observe how well workers with individual knowledge have performed in this respect, and can reward them accordingly. Hypothesis 7: Distributive justice is more lik

34、ely than procedural justice to predict the propensity to share explicit knowledge.,傅振瑞,Research Method,a cross-sectional study of on-the-job students : college MIS majors and EMBA students . contrastive vignette technique (Burstin et al, 1980) was used to measure the propensity to share in the tacit

35、 and explicit knowledge sharing situations.,傅振瑞,Measurement of Constructs,Dependent variable: Belief of organizational ownership of knowledge and sharing propensity were measured through vignettes. Background: You and John are employees in the same department. About a month ago, you asked John for s

36、ome help on a report you were preparing since you knew John had done some similar work in the recent part. John refused your request (assume John had time available to help).,傅振瑞,Vignette Description(1)- Explicit knowledge,Current Situation: you have just put 40 hours of work into detailing steps to

37、ward completing a specific job. Now, John would love to have a copy of your presentation slides and background notes for his own use and asks you for a copy.,傅振瑞,Vignette Description (1)- tacit knowledge,Current Situation: you have just spent two week at a workshop learning and practicing a new and

38、complex technique about problem solving and analysis. Now, John has asked you for some advice regarding your new knowledge for his own internal use.,傅振瑞,Pretest,The pretest measure for the degree of tacitness was adapted from Zander and Kogut (1995) and Subramaniam and Venkatraman (2001) complexity,

39、 codifiability, and observability of knowledge. The significant difference were found between the two scenarios(t=3.5, df=35, sig=0.001), which suggests that the degree of tacitness is different for each subject.,傅振瑞,Independent variable:,Distributive Justice: five items assessing the fairness of di

40、fferent work outcomes, including pay level, work schedule, work load, and job responsibilities (Niehoff and Moorman (1993) ) Procedural Justice (Moorman 1991) .,傅振瑞,Data Analysis and Results,Two variations of the questionnaires were administrated randomly to students in the classroom, with 522 stude

41、nts voluntarily completed the survey. 491 usable responses 219 responses for explicit knowledge (44.6%) and 272 responses for tacit knowledge (55.4%). No significant differences were found between the two groups of respondents for any of the variables, at the .05 level.,傅振瑞,Scale validation,two-step

42、 procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on the data. Items that did not load heavily on the primary factor and items that had significant cross-loading(s) were removed. Convergent and discriminant validity of the remaining items and scale

43、s were then tested with confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) using EQS program (Bentler, 1987),傅振瑞,傅振瑞,Results,傅振瑞,傅振瑞,傅振瑞,傅振瑞,Discussion(1),Moderating effects of the explicitness of knowledge Different types of fairness perception are more strongly associated with sharing certain types of knowledge.

44、 the sharing of intangible expertise have different meaning to people from the sharing of tangible information product. The finding of this study seem to imply the proposition that social exchange characterizes the sharing of tacit knowledge, and people are motivated to share explicit knowledge base

45、d more on economic reasons.,傅振瑞,Discussion(2),Beliefs about organizational ownership have stronger effects on individuals propensity to share explicit knowledge than to share tacit knowledge. Employees perceptions of organizational justice are indeed related to their belief about organizational ownership of knowledge and sharing propensity, though they act in different manners according to knowledge type.,傅振瑞,Limitations and Future Research Direction,Subjects mig