Pourquoi contribuer à des bases de connaissances ? Une exploration des facteurs explicatifs à la lumière du modèle UTAUT

Auteurs

  • Isabelle BOURDON Université de Montpellier 2, Laboratoire CREGOR
  • Sandrine HOLLET-HAUDEBERT Université de Paris Est, IAE Gustave Eiffel

Mots-clés :

Systèmes de gestion des connaissances, acceptation, contribution, UTAUT, gestion des connaissances

Résumé

Les initiatives de systèmes de gestion des connaissances (SGC) de type intégratifs se sont très largement développées dans les organisations afin de favoriser le stockage et la réutilisation des connaissances intra organisationnelles (Alavi & Leidner, 1999; Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999). Nous proposons ici une étude empirique qui explore les comportements de contributions à des bases de connaissances fondée sur la théorie unifiée de l'acceptation et de l'usage des technologies de l'information (UTAUT). A l'aide d'un questionnaire en ligne sur un échantillon de 200 contributeurs potentiels à un SGC, nos résultats montrent que la performance organisationnelle escomptée et les influences sociales ont un impact positif significatif sur les intentions de contribution à des bases de connaissances et que certaines conditions facilitatrices, telles la structure organisationnelle, le temps disponible et alloué et les systèmes de récompenses affectent les comportements de contribution. Nous ne notons pas d'effet significatif des variables socio démographiques.

Bibliographies de l'auteur

Isabelle BOURDON, Université de Montpellier 2, Laboratoire CREGOR

Isabelle Bourdon est docteur en Sciences de Gestion et ancienne élève de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan. Maître de Conférences à l’Ecole Polytechnique Universitaire de l’Université Montpellier 2, elle travaille sur les problématiques de gestion des connaissances et d’évaluation des SI.

Sandrine HOLLET-HAUDEBERT, Université de Paris Est, IAE Gustave Eiffel

Sandrine Hollet-Haudebert est docteur en Sciences de Gestion. Maître de Conférences à l’IAE Gustave Eiffel, Université Paris 12, elle est chercheur membre de l’IRG (Institut de Recherche en Gestion) et associée au Laboratoire INSEEC. Ses travaux, en marketing et gestion des res-sources humaines, portent sur les comportements organisationnels de retrait et notamment sur l’épuisement professionnel des commerciaux.

Références

Adams, D., Nelson, R., &amp; Todd, P. (1992). Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication. MIS Quarterly, 16(2), 227-247.<br />Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human De-cision Processes, 50, 179-211.<br />Ajzen, I., &amp; Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior: Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.<br />Alavi, M. (2000). Managing organizational knowledge. In R. Zmud, W (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management research: projecting the future from the past. Cincin-nati: Pinnaflex educational resources.<br />Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., &amp; Leidner, D. E. (2005). An Empirical Examination of the In-fluence of Organizational Culture on Knowledge Management Practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191 - 224.<br />Alavi, M., &amp; Leidner, D. E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the Association for Information systems, 1(7).<br />Alavi, M., &amp; Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.<br />Anderson, J. E., Schwager, P. H., &amp; Kerns, R. L. (2006). The drivers for acceptance of tab-let PCs by faculty in a college of business. Journal of Information Systems Educa-tion, 17(4), 429&ndash;440.<br />Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos user&rsquo;s guide version 3.6, . Chicago IL: Small Walters Corpo-ration.<br />Argyris, C., &amp; Schon, D. (1978). Organisational learning: A theory of action perspective: Addison Wesley.<br />Ba, S., Stallaert, J., &amp; Whinston, A. (2001). Research commentary: introducing a third di-mension in information systems design - The case for incentive alignment. Informa-tion Systems research, 12(3), 225-239.<br />Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., &amp; Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organiza-tional research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3).<br />Barillot, P. (1998). Facteurs explicatifs de l'utilisation de la messagerie &eacute;lectronique textuel-le : r&eacute;sultats d'une enqu&ecirc;te r&eacute;alis&eacute;e au sein d'organisations municipales. Strategic In-formation Management, 3(1), 41-68.<br />Benbasat, I., &amp; Barki, H. (2007). Quo Vadis, TAM? Journal of AIS, 8(4 ), 211-218.<br />Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246.<br />Bentler, P. M., &amp; Bonnett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analy-sis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.<br />Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and in-terpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6).<br />Bock, G.-W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.-G., &amp; Lee, J.-N. (2005). Behavioral intention forma-tion in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87.<br />Bock, G. W., &amp; Kim, Y.-G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge management sharing. Information Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 14-21.<br />Bounfour, A. (2000). Gestion de la connaissance et syst&egrave;me d'incitation : entre th&eacute;orie du "Hau" et th&eacute;orie du "Ba. Syst&egrave;me d'information et management, 5(2), 7-40.<br />Bourdon, I. (2004). Th&egrave;se de doctorat : Les facteurs cl&eacute;s de succ&egrave;s des syst&egrave;mes int&eacute;gratifs d'aide &agrave; la gestion des connaissances. Unpublished Th&egrave;se de doctorat, Universit&eacute; Monptellier 2, Sciences et techniques du Languedoc, Montpellier.<br />Bourdon, I., Ravinari, A., Vitari, C., &amp; Moro, J. (2007). improving KMS effectiveness : the role of organizational and individual's influence. International Journal of knowledge management, 3(2).<br />Chen, C., Czerwinski, M., &amp; Macredie, R. (2000). Individual differences in virtual envi-ronments - Introduction and overview. Journal of the American Society for Informa-tion Science, 51(6).<br />Compeau, D., &amp; Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer Self-Efficacy: Development of a Meas-ure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 6(2), 189-211.<br />Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A., &amp; Huff, S. (1999). Social Cognitive Theory and Individual Reactions to Computing Technology: A Longitudinal Study. MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 145-158.<br />Constant, D., Kiesler, S., &amp; Sproull, L. (1994). What's mine is ours, or is it? a study of atti-tudes about information sharing. Information Systems Research, 5(4), 400-421.<br />Cooper, R. B., &amp; Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approch. Management&nbsp; Science, 36(2), 123-139.<br />Davenport, T., &amp; Prusack, L. (Eds.). (1997). Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School.<br />Davenport, T. H. (1997a). Known evils:common pitfalls of knowledge management. Chief Information Officer, 34-35.<br />Davenport, T. H. (1997b). Ten principles of knowledge management and four case studies. Knowledge and Process management, 4(3).<br />Davenport, T. H., De long, D. W., &amp; Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge manage-ment projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43.<br />Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.<br />Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., &amp; Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer tech-nology: a comparison of two theorical models. Management&nbsp; Science, 35(8).<br />DeLong, D. W., &amp; Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge manage-ment. Academy of management Executive, 14(4).<br />Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (Eds. 2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. .<br />Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. Oxford.<br />Fichman, R. G. (2000). The diffusion and assimilation of IT innovations. In E. Z. R.W. (Ed.), Framing the Domain of IT Management (pp. 105-127). Cincinnati, Ohio: Pinnaflex Educational Re-sources.<br />Fishbein, M., &amp; Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. An Introduction to Theory and Research. MA: Addison-Wesley.<br />Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., &amp; Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: an organiza-tional capabilities perspective. Journal of Management&nbsp; Information Systems, 18(1), 185-214.<br />Goodhue, D. L. (2007). Comment on Benbasat and Barki&rsquo;s &lsquo;Quo Vadis TAM&rsquo; article. Jour-nal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4).<br />Goodman, P. S., &amp; Darr, E. D. (1996). Exchanging best practices through computer aided systems. Academy of Management Executive, 10(2).<br />Goodman, P. S., &amp; Darr, E. D. (1998). Computer-aided systems and communities: mecha-nisms for organizational learning in distributed environnements. MIS Quarterly, 22(4), 417- 441.<br />Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17.<br />Grawitz. (1996). M&eacute;thodes des Sciences sociales (Vol. 10&egrave;me). Paris: Dalloz.<br />Gross, A. E. (2001). Knowledge Sharing: the Crux of Quality. Paper presented at the An-nual Quality Congress, Charlotte.<br />Grover, V., &amp; Davenport, T. H. (2001). General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management&nbsp; Information Systems, 18(1).<br />Hall, H. (2001). Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets. Journal of Information Science, 27(3), 139-146.<br />Hall, H., &amp; Graham, D. (2004). Creation and recreation: motivating collaboration to gener-ate knowledge capital in online communities. International Journal of Information Management, 24(3), 235-246.<br />Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., &amp; Tierney, T. (1999). What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106-116.<br />Igalens, I., &amp; Roussel, P. (1998). M&eacute;thodes de recherche en gestion des ressources humai-nes. Paris: Economica.<br />James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., &amp; Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis : assumptions, models and data. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.<br />Jasperson, J. S., Carter, P. E., &amp; Zmud, R. W. (2005). A Comprehensive Conceptualization of Post-Adoptive Behaviors Associated with Information Technology Enabled Work Systems. MIS Quarterly, 2(3), 525-557.<br />Knaw, M. M., &amp; Balasubramanian, P. (2003). KnowledgeScope: managing kowledge in context. Decision Support Systems, 35, 467-486.<br />Kogut, B., &amp; Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.<br />Legris, P., Ingham, J., &amp; Collerette, P. (2003). Why people use information technology ? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information &amp; management, 40, 191-204.<br />Levitt, B., &amp; March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14.<br />Li, J. P., &amp; Kishore, R. (2006). How robust is the UTAUT instrument? A multigroup invari-ance analysis in the context of acceptance and use of online community weblog sys-tems. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGMIS CPR Confer-ence on Computer Personnel Research, Claremont,&nbsp; CA, USA.<br />Limayem, M., Bergeron, F., &amp; Richard, A. (1997). Utilisation des messageries &eacute;lectroni-ques : mesures objectives versus mesures subjectives. Syst&egrave;mes d'Information et Management, 2(1), 51-69.<br />Markus, M. L. (2001). Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management&nbsp; Information Sys-tems, 18(1), 57-93.<br />Miles, M. B., &amp; Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.<br />Money, W., &amp; Turner, A. (2005). Assessing Knowledge Management System User Accep-tance with the Technology Acceptance Model. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(1), 8-26.<br />Moore, G. C., &amp; Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Percep-tions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Re-search, 2(3), 192-222.<br />Nonaka, I., &amp; Konno, N. (1998). The concept of "ba": Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-55.<br />O'Dell, C., &amp; Grayson, C. J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, 40(3), 154-174.<br />Organ, D. W., &amp; Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organ-izational citizenship behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 74(1), 157-164.<br />Orlikowski, W., J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428.<br />Porter, S. (2004). Raising response rates: what works? . New Directions for Institutional Research, 121, 5-21.<br />Rogelberg, S., Spitzm&uuml;eller, C., Little, I., &amp; Reeve, S. (2006). Understanding response be-havior to an online special survey topics organizational satisfaction survey. Person-nel Psychology, 59, 903-923.<br />Rogers, E. M. (1995). The diffusion of innovations (4th ed. ed.). New York: Free Press.<br />Rubenstein-Montano, B., Liebowitz, J., &amp; Buchwalter, J. (2001). A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems, 31, 5-16.<br />Sheehan, K. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 6(2).<br />Shih, T., &amp; Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249-271.<br />Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strate-gic Management Journal, 17.<br />Spender, J. C., &amp; Grant, R. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 5.<br />Steiger, J. H., &amp; Lind, J. C. (1980, mai). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Congr&egrave;s annuel de la Psychometric Society, Iowa City (IO).<br />Straub, D., Limayem, M., &amp; Karahanna-Evaristo, E. (1995). Measuring System Usage: Im-plications for IS Theory Testing. Management Science, 41(8), 1328-1343.<br />Straub, D. W., &amp; Burton-Jones, A. (2007). Veni, Vidi, Vici: Breaking the TAM Logjam. Journal of the Association of Information Systems 8(4), 223-229.<br />Taylor, S., &amp; Todd, P. (1995a). Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience. Man-agement of Information Systems Quarterly, 19(4), 561-570.<br />Taylor, S., &amp; Todd, P. (1995b). Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144-173.<br />Teece, D. (2001). Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context. In I. Nonaka &amp; D. J. Teece (Eds.), Managing Industrial Knowl-edge: creation, transfer and utilization, (pp. 145-169.). London: Sage Publications.<br />Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., &amp; Howell, J. M. (1991). Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 125-143.<br />Tucker, L. R., &amp; Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood fac-tor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.<br />Venkatesh, V., &amp; Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273-315.<br />Venkatesh, V., &amp; Davis, F. D. (1996). A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test. Decision Sciences, 27(3), 451-481.<br />Venkatesh, V., &amp; Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Accep-tance Model: Four Longitudinal Fields Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.<br />Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., &amp; Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of In-formation Technology: Toward A Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478.<br />Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wisley/Sons.<br />Wang, H.-I., &amp; Yang, H.-L. (2005). The role of personality traits in UTAUT model under online stocking. Contemporary Management Research Policy, 1(1), 69&ndash;82.<br />Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing codified knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45-58.

Téléchargements

Comment citer

BOURDON, I., & HOLLET-HAUDEBERT, S. (2009). Pourquoi contribuer à des bases de connaissances ? Une exploration des facteurs explicatifs à la lumière du modèle UTAUT. Systèmes d’Information Et Management (French Journal of Management Information Systems), 14(1), 9–36. Consulté à l’adresse https://revuesim.org/index.php/sim/article/view/233

Numéro

Vol. 14 No 1 (2009)

Rubrique

Article de recherche

Licence

L'auteur a la responsabilité de vérifier si le matériel soumis est soumis au droit d'auteur ou aux droits de propriété (par exemple, figures, tableaux, photographies, illustrations, documentation commerciale et données). L'auteur devra obtenir l'autorisation de reproduire ces éléments et inclure ces autorisations dans leur soumission finale.

Nous avons pour politique de demander à tous les auteurs de transférer gratuitement à la revue les droits d'auteur. Il y a deux grandes raisons à cela :

  • la propriété du droit d'auteur par le propriétaire du journal facilite la protection internationale contre la violation du droit d'auteur, la diffamation ou le plagiat;
  • il garantit également que les demandes de réimpression ou de reproduction d'une contribution, en totalité ou en partie, sous forme imprimée ou électronique, soient traitées efficacement conformément à notre politique générale qui encourage la diffusion des connaissances dans le cadre du droit d'auteur.

Conformément à la loi française sur la propriété intellectuelle, l'auteur d'un article conserve les droits moraux :

  • Le droit de paternité qui permet à l'auteur de voir son nom associé à chacune des exploitations de son œuvre.
  • Le droit au respect de l’œuvre qui peut être revendiqué par l'auteur s'il constate que lors d'une exploitation, son œuvre a été dénaturée (coupe, remontage…).