ترجمه حسابداری و مدیریت

Journal of Knowledge Management
Impact of IS agility and HR systems on job satisfaction: an organizational information processing theory
perspective
Shivam Gupta, Sameer Kumar, Shampy Kamboj, Bharat Bhushan, Zongwei Luo,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Shivam Gupta, Sameer Kumar, Shampy Kamboj, Bharat Bhushan, Zongwei Luo, (2019) "Impact of IS agility and
HR systems on job satisfaction: an organizational information processing theory perspective", Journal of Knowledge
Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2018-0466
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-07-2018-0466
Downloaded on: 04 February 2019, At: 02:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 116 other documents.
To copy this document: [e-mail]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10 times since 2019*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:402646 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Impact of IS agility and HR systems on job
satisfaction: an organizational information
processing theory perspective
Shivam Gupta, Sameer Kumar, Shampy Kamboj, Bharat Bhushan and Zongwei Luo
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine the link between information systems (IS) agility, HR performance
management systems and job satisfaction using organizational information processing theory. The
objective of this study answers the following questions: How does use of different IS agility impact HR
systems and job satisfaction? What are the connecting pathways by which IS agility affects HR systems
and job satisfaction?
Design/methodology/approach – The authors developed a theoretical framework based on the
organizational information processing theory and collected primary data through an online-based
questionnaire. Following these procedures, the authors analyzed the data using structural equation
modeling (SEM).
Findings – SEM analysis of the data from 150 respondents supports the organizational information
processing theory. The authors proposed eight hypotheses, and only one was rejected.
Research limitations/implications – The data were collected from South Africa only, which is an
emerging economy, and these cross-sectional data were gathered from the perspectives of the
respondents.
Originality/value – The present paper empirically tests the conceptual model through the lens of
organizational information processing theory.
Keywords Organizational information processing theory
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
During the past few decades, various companies have used agile software-development
techniques (West et al., 2010; Tripp et al., 2016) despite whether they extend their support
for agile techniques or not. For instance, crystal clear, scrum, extreme programming,
Kanban or feature-driven development, agile technique supporters have two overarching
arguments. These supporters argue that agile techniques generate superior software,
which investigates the accomplishment of a project and excellence of the software (Nevo
and Chengalur-Smith, 2011). The use of agile techniques facilitates a great deal of
satisfaction among employees, and Tripp et al. (2016) argue that such studies have rarely
been empirically examined.
Very few studies relate agile development, specifically with agile techniques and their
related practices, to the satisfaction among the members of a software development team.
Research on software developers established that developers’ team satisfaction was higher
through pair programming (i.e. a practice of agile development) as compared to
conventional programming (Balijepally et al., 2009). Thus, the supporters of these traditional
programming techniques considered “higher satisfaction of programming pairs has
Shivam Gupta is based at
Montpellier Research in
Management, Montpellier
Business School,
Montpellier, LanguedocRoussillon, France.
Sameer Kumar is based at
the University of Saint
Thomas Opus College of
Business, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA.
Shampy Kamboj is based
at the Amity School of
Business – Amity
University, Noida, Uttar
Pradesh, India.
Bharat Bhushan is based at
Montpellier Research in
Management, Montpellier
Business School,
Montpellier, LanguedocRoussillon, France.
Zongwei Luo is based at
the Department of
Computer Science and
Engineering, Southern
University of Science and
Technology, Shenzhen,
China.
Received 31 July 2018
Revised 8 November 2018
Accepted 2 December 2018
DOI 10.1108/JKM-07-2018-0466 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
implications for reducing employee turnover” (Balijepally et al., 2009, p. 111). In this
domain, another study examined the association between software team motivation and
their use of agile practices (McHugh et al., 2012). There are a number of agile practices (i.e.
routine meetings, iteration planning and retrospectives) that are found to be linked with
various characteristics of a job. Some of these traits include skill diversity, job
independence and feedback (Balijepally et al., 2009). In addition, a few members in an
agile team may have more perceptions than others regarding their job satisfaction based on
job characteristics (Tessem and Maurer, 2007; Mainert et al., 2018). A number of
researchers have suggested that although agile development techniques give confirmation
of their influence on employee perception with respect to their works, they have some
considerable academic and practical limitations as well (Mannaro et al., 2004; McHugh
et al., 2010).
Considering any survey on project management, most of them confirm that projects
specifically in the domain of information technology (IT) are often not successful (DruryGrogan, 2014). Although projects in the area of IT are larger, these large projects have a
tendency to run 45 per cent more than budget, 7 per cent beyond time and approximately
56 per cent less value than the expected one. Accordingly, the software projects may
generate a high level of risk with more cost and time (Bloch et al., 2012). Sometimes,
regardless of project size, 50 per cent of all projects do not succeed because of some
functionality issues and other delays (Mieritz, 2012). In addition, some other statistics are
shocking as we believe that the Institute related with Project Management has set up
worldwide standards for the guidelines of project management and follow “PMBOK Guide”
regulations. Rose (2013) in the “PMBOK Guide” defines a project, “as a temporary group
activity that produces a unique product, service or result with PM being: the application of
knowledge, skills and techniques to execute projects effectively and efficiently. It’s a
strategic competency for organizations, enabling them to tie project results to business
objectives –and thus, better compete in their markets” (Mieritz, 2012, p. 507). Thus, it is
crucial to define the project management success for information systems (IS) and IT
projects. Firms nowadays are constantly raising investment in information systems (IS) to
increase performance via quick decision-making and planned agility (Kwahk et al., 2018).
In the IS literature, one of the mainly famous dual-procedure assumption is ELM that put
forwards a person’s “information processing approach” is condition-particular and entails
numerous processing ways, which are concurrently lively (Davis and Agrawal, 2018).
Besides project management standards and techniques, project teams need to have more
insights about how project objectives match the standards of the golden triangle (period,
funds and excellence) of project management achievement factors (Westerveld, 2003). This
mapping will be more required for agile software development groups as these groups
effort for iterative process, define the objectives, and also assess it after every iteration
(Schwaber and Beedle, 2002). Thus, agile software development teams continuously
design processes and products and various companies have shifted to the use of agile
software development techniques on project teams to facilitate an iterative development,
which:
includes irregular events that take place during a project (Hass, 2007);
provides user-friendly and cost-efficient software to their customers (Lyytinen, 1987);
and
offers quality products that facilitate more satisfaction (Ceschi et al., 2005).
A few studies provide evidence that firm’s customer integration positively influence agility
performance (Jajja et al., 2018; Kwahk et al., 2018). Some scholars argue that knowledge
management and sharing practices are the key enablers of uninterrupted software business
acceptance and success (Colomo-Palacios et al., 2018). Some scholars attempt to
identifying the useful steps required to turn into an agile firm via a blend of the constraints
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
theory and resource based approaches (Ifandoudas and Chapman, 2009). Firms are
adopting latest development initiatives such as agile built-up to continue competitiveness in
the active setting (Iqbal et al., 2018). Firm resources are mainly associated with strategic
flexibility and knowledge management process ability indirectly influences these
associations (Bamel and Bamel, 2018). The proposal and rules for Agile Software
Development were issued in 2001, and after that, these rules were used for Business
Intelligence (Larson and Chang, 2016). Agile business model approach is important for joint
systems rapid response and superior acceptance to market dynamics (Loss and Crave,
2011).
Thus, this paper aims to provide valuable insights on the association between agile
development techniques and employee job satisfaction as a part of the HR system,
because studies in IT, Management, HR and Information Systems (IS) always advocate that
job design is directly associated to the satisfaction of employees that further leads to
favorable consequences for companies such as in increased work performance (Harrison
et al., 2006). Agile techniques and their related practices alter the structure of software
development teams (Tessem and Maurer, 2007), such as in-pair programming method
(Cockburn and Williams, 2000) aids in developing tests and deliver repeatedly (Beck, 2003;
Moe et al., 2010). The present study intends to prove that the use of these techniques by
agile teams may have an impact on employees’ performance measurement systems and
their job satisfaction.
This paper investigates the relationship between IS agility, HR performance management
systems and job satisfaction using the theory of organizational information processing. The
purpose of this study is further sub divide into two relevant research questions:
RQ1. How does the use of different IS agility impact HR systems and job satisfaction?
RQ2. What are the connecting pathways by which IS agility affect HR systems and job
satisfaction?
The extant literature on agile practices is abundant, however, the research in IS agility and
its connection to HR systems and job satisfaction context is limited (Tripp et al., 2016).
Information systems agility enables the project and software teams to interact and work
together and thus are important techniques for IT and HR companies. Therefore, more
studies concerning the relationship between IS agility and HR systems is required, and this
paper is designed to fill this research gap. Accordingly, this is one of the pioneering studies
to empirically investigate whether and how agility, in terms of agile project management IS
and agile software development, leads to HR performance management systems. We hope
that this paper will address the research gaps in the domain of IS, IT, and HR, which so far
has a dearth of studies on IS agility factors affecting HR performance management system,
which further results in job satisfaction.
The remainder of the study is arranged as follows: In Section 2, a background of existing
literature is presented. A conceptual model is developed based on the organizational
information processing theory and hypotheses are formulated in Section 3. The
methodology is discussed followed by data analysis and relevant findings in Section 4.
Finally, we discuss the results along-with its implications in Section 5 and then the
conclusions in Section 6.
2. Background of literature
2.1 Information systems agility: (agile project management, agile software
development)
An agile development team comprises people who can work collectively to develop new
software methods and also to amend them. Agile teams mainly consist of members with
extensive skill sets, for instance, skills in design, analysis, administration, database building,
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
project management, programming and systems engineering. Indeed, agile development
teams share the objectives and rotate their roles essential to complete the undertaken
project with their active participation as a member of the project team (Pe´rez-Bustamante,
1999; Highsmith, 2002). Thus, agile developer’s state of affairs varies from the conventional
settings, in which project teams mainly concentrate as per the specified job (e.g.
development, analysis, design, testing and programming) (Nerur et al., 2005).
Members of agile development teams always have diverse tasks and roles in the organizations.
For example, system analysts are required to perform system design and programming (Harris
et al., 2009). Similarly, system developers need to perform testing and design management
jobs along with programming (Boehm and Turner, 2003). Based on extant literature, this paper
uses the term “agile development teams” to signify multi-tasks of team members’ performed
continuously to deliver a high-quality software product (Highsmith, 2002).
Agile development teams make use of different agile techniques, including XP, kanban,
scrum or a blend of all practices as of numerous agile techniques (VersionOne, 2011;
Eppler and Pfister, 2014). These teams mainly work on small duration projects and for
iterative process based projects, where the team members may deliver operating software
and concentrate on immediate knowledge regarding the problem throughout the
development phase (Boehm, 1984; Cockburn, 2001; Schwaber and Beedle, 2002). Thus,
an agile development team is:
cross-functional team that builds and updates software;
predominantly uses agile management and development practices, such as iterative
delivery or pair programming; and
comprising members whose responsibilities focus on delivering software rather than
externally managing the team or business (Tripp et al., 2016, p. 270).
Several agile techniques require high involvement of customers with agile development teams
(such as XP on-site client practice). In this study, customers are not considered during the
conceptualization phase of agile development teams because of two main grounds. First, not
every agile development team considers the customer as the main element of their team. Even
though each agile technique requires an agile developer’s regular availability in support of
rational decision-making, it is odd for most of agile development customers to become
permanent team members (Beck, 2000; Cockburn, 2001). Second, agile supporters argue
about the satisfaction of jobs, and the argument may rotate around the core members of an
agile team, which may contribute to deliver quality software (Highsmith, 2002). Thus,
conceptualization on agile development teams emphasizes the roles and responsibilities that
are a general part of IT task in an organization: software developments, project managers,
quality assertion, team leaders, business analysts, testing teams and software architects.
Thus, agile project-management and agile software-development are two important parts of
agile development teams (Drury-Grogan, 2014; Tripp et al., 2016). Agile project-management
is defined as “the extent to which the respondent’s team uses the agile project-management
practices defined in this study; namely, burndown, daily stand-ups, retrospective meetings,
and iterative delivery” (Tripp et al., 2016, p. 271). The agile software development alliance was
formed by a casual assembly of a number of experts in the domain of IT (Beck et al., 2001).
Agile software-development is described as, “The level to which the respondent’s team uses
the agile software-development approach practices defined in this study; namely, pair
programming, automated builds, continuous integration, unit testing, refactoring, code
standards” (Tripp et al., 2016, p. 271).
2.2 HR performance management systems: (diagnostic use, interactive use)
2.2.1 Diagnostic use of performance management systems. Henri (2006, p. 533) defined,
“[. . .] the diagnostic use of performance management systems may represent a
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
mechanistic control tool used to track, review, draw attention, and support the achievement
of predictable goals via the provision of information”. Thus, diagnostic use may be
described as formal processes sets that make use of information to keep or revise outlines
in an organizational movement (Henri, 2006). Accordingly, these processes may consist of
methods of monitoring, performance outcomes, and reporting systems that are
communicated to employees. In addition, these processes may explain a theoretical model
to know antecedent factors of organization success or assess key success factors to
examine performance and particular goals. Widener (2007, p. 762) affirms that, “diagnostic
use motivates employees not only to perform but also to align their behavior with
organizational goals, diagnostic use comes in many flavors however”.
The present study concentrates on a number of diagnostic uses that are assigned to
provide information and to measure performance aligned with planning. The study may
recognize the question “what if anything is going wrong?” and may require revision (Henri,
2006). The monitor aspect of the diagnostic use facilitates the executives to standardize
against the goals (Widener, 2007). Simons (1995) found that emphasis on sets boundaries
are restraints on the behavior of employees, similar to the border lines suggested by
Widener (2007).
Performance management system validation has expressive intentions and quality deeds.
Accordingly, the validation procedure may produce information that improves the
correctness and reliability of decisions taken (Henri, 2006). The managers can make use of
the performance management system to acquire data about the service delivered to the
customers and gain employee commitment and support. Thus, in this sense, three
particular purposes may reveal the diagnostic element of a performance management
system. Here, diagnostic use can be considered as a higher-order measure which
included: emphasizing, concentration, monitoring and validation. The monitoring part
confirms that managers are acquainted with the matching of set targets and can take
corrective actions.
Diagnostic use may be used as a method to compute tasks (Neely et al., 1995) among the
diversity of quantitative metrics. Franco-Santos et al. (2012) argue that these metrics
imagine various points of references for instance, these metrics may be financial or nonfinancial, intrinsic or extrinsic, and small or lengthy (Henri, 2006). Thus, the diagnostic use of
the performance management system also assists in resource co-ordination: “monitoring”,
“focusing attention”, and “legitimization”. Accordingly, monitoring facilitates managers; “to
reflects two important features associated with mechanistic controls:
tight control of operations and strategies; and
highly structured channels of communication and restricted flows of information”
(Henri, 2006, p. 7).
Therefore, the performance management system offers a sequential process to make
decisions that provides an indication at the time of reductions in output and effectiveness
(Henri, 2006). Conversely, Henri (2006) suggests diagnostic use as a control system, “has
been associated with several dysfunctional behaviors in terms of smoothing, biasing,
focusing, filtering, and illegal acts. These distortions constitute defensive routines that aim
to reduce potential embarrassment or threat, or to improve personal interest” (Henri, 2006,
p. 7).
2.2.2 Interactive use of performance management systems. The interactive use can be
viewed as a control scheme sustaining the appearance of contact making and joint tuning
of firm factors that are used to decrease equivocality and encourage amendments (Henri,
2006, p. 533). The performance management system’s diagnostic use may be treated as a
measurement mechanism, whereas interactive performance management method
utilization may lift up its position to a strategic management instrument.
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Thus interactive use of performance management system facilitates regular flow of
information generation and essential agenda points for executives; recurrent and standard
interest is encouraged all over the business; relevant data are conferred and evaluated
immediate implementations of action plans (Henri, 2006).
Bisbe and Otley (2004) suggest that administrators, during their individual involvement and
dedication, may make use of interactive systems to organize feedbacks to environmental
hassles. Thus, making utilization of performance management scheme from the viewpoint of
interactive use may create hassle across a business and further stimulate the collection of
necessary information. Interactive use holds business discussions and encourages the
exchange of information and communication in the organization (Henri, 2006).
Additionally, the interactive performance measurement system employs the resources in an
organization with two aspects. First, it enlarges the information processing system and
creates interaction between essentials (Henri, 2006) and leads to a more articulate
arrangement of resources. For instance, managers can use the project management
system to critically evaluate discrepancies between targeted and actual customer service
levels. Managers get intimately involved with the use of the project management system to
analyze root causes and arrange required resources to realize targets. Second, interactive
use can be labeled, “as a positive force suggesting that interactive use promotes
opportunity seeking behavior and learning across organizational levels” (Henri, 2006,
p. 531).
2.3 Job satisfaction
Job satisfaction is described as, “The extent of positive emotional response to the job
resulting from an employee’s appraisal of the job as fulfilling or congruent with the
individual’s values” (Morris and Venkatesh, 2010, p. 145). Making use of the practices
described in agile techniques, businesses alter the devise of agile development team
members’ work. Additionally, the IT, IS and management literature has argued that via
altering characteristics of a job, agile techniques might affect level of motivation, job
satisfaction and job routine of agile development team members (Pedrycz et al., 2011).
A number of studies have used job characteristics to define job satisfaction of IT experts
(Morris and Venkatesh, 2010) along with other effects. Job satisfaction is described as
“affective response” ensuing from job experiences of IT professionals (Weiss and
Cropanzano, 1996). The earlier work on performance measurement described that it is
related to the level of job satisfaction (Bontis and Serenko, 2007; Rutner et al., 2008; Naim
and Lenka, 2017). Characteristics of a job are strongly associated to job satisfaction
(Thatcher et al., 2002; Kianto et al., 2016). Although research on job satisfaction among IT
professionals (Dinger et al., 2015; Rutner et al., 2008) and IT persons as software
developers (Ply et al., 2012) have suggested that the job characteristics that apply to
explicate job satisfaction, there is deficiency throughout these studies on how agile
techniques affect job satisfaction.
2.4 Organizational information processing theory
It is required for a firm to use and manage information efficiently, particularly in the situation
of uncertainty in performing actions and equivocality (Galbraith, 1973, 1974). A lack of
information leads to uncertainty and ambiguity, multiple interpretations resulted into
equivocality (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Greiner et al., 2007). As per Galbraith, firms need to
facilitate ease with respect to their information related needs via “mechanistic organizational
means”, or enhance their information processing abilities (Bensaou and Venkatraman,
1995). In the routine tasks, firms usually synchronize inter-reliant activities via using the
concept of centralization and division of work. The entire task is divided into different teams,
and members of teams consult the managers for the solutions of their problems related to
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
the tasks (i.e. “exception scenarios”). Thus, agile development teams also follow this
approach and synchronize the team members’ activities via rules, regulations, iterative
processes and iterative goals for an exception situation (e.g. to develop a new software,
work on a new project). Agile development teams comprise of a group of people, which
may work collectively on a given project to develop new software methods. Managers (HR,
IT and IS area) though can promptly become overpowered by frequent appeals to resolve
problems in extremely uncertain circumstances because of the occurrence of exceptional
situations.
Firms may compete with a high rate of occurrence of exceptional situations via dropping their
needs for information processing needs with diagnostic use of performance management.
They may also grow their abilities for information processing with interactive use of
performance management (Peng et al., 2014). Whereas an IS organization may decrease its
needs for information processing via making drooping resources or through building selfcontained activities. Otherwise, an IS organization may enhance its ability for information
processing via advancing in both agile members and perpendicular information systems
(Srinivasan and Swink, 2015). External agile associates consist of organizational practices,
which facilitate firms to obtain recent and important information from both clients and IT service
providers. Thus, by means of escalating information accessibility (visibility), these agile
members probably enhance decision-making efficiency. Perpendicular information systems
facilitate HR firms to process information throughout job performance in a manner.
Alternatively, such information systems enable firms to process data proficiently and
intelligently, thus allowing the firms to amend or create fresh plans quickly and cost effectively.
3. Hypotheses development
3.1 Agile project management and diagnostic, interactive use of the performance
measurement system
For the intrinsic organizational tension management between original innovation and
expected target accomplishment, the diagnostic use of agile project management system
facilitates the realization of well-defined goals. In reality, diagnostic use is defined as, “a
negative force that creates constraints and ensures compliance with orders: “[Diagnostic
systems] constrain innovation and opportunity-seeking to ensure predictable goal
achievement needed for intended strategies” (Simons, 1995, p. 91). Conventional project
management systems support conservatism and a “playing it safe attitude”. Managers
supposed to assist others to recognize the defined spots in which a level of trialing and risk
bearing could be helpful (Otley, 1994, p. 297). Thus, diagnostic use of agile project
management is used as an indication when efficiency and effectiveness have decreased,
and the innovations need to be restrained (Miller and Friesen, 1982). Therefore, agile
project management is used diagnostically to bind the additional use via making limits and
reducing risk taking.
Thus, the management of inborn organizational pressure between innovation and expected
goal attainment, interactive use of agile project management supports the novel ideas
generation and creativity. The interactive use has ability to show a start, which further
encourages inspiring and innovative forces. The top managers make use of interactive
control systems to put together internal force to escaping of constricted search schedules,
inspire opportunity-seeking, and support the appearance of novel strategic ideas (Simons,
1995). According to Dent (1990), in a project, testing and interest can be cultivated through
control systems. Consequently, planning and control systems may create a distinctive
organizational image to employees as the organization usually interacts through its
environment. Accordingly, outdated patterns and organizational endeavors can be
detached (unlearning) and recoupled in dissimilar manners (learning). Based on the above
discussions, we hypothesize:
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
H1a. Agile project management is positively related to the diagnostic use of the
performance measurement system.
H1b. Agile project management is positively related to the interactive use of the
performance measurement system.
3.2 Agile software development and diagnostic, interactive use of the performance
measurement system
Nowadays organizations trust in team work for IT- and IS-related project development. A
team is defined as, “a group of individuals working together who are dependent upon one
another and have one or more tasks to perform collectively that results in a specific
outcome” (Hackman and Oldham, 1980, p. 18). To have more insights about how project
objectives are linked with the “golden triangle” of project management and its success
factors, the investigation of agile software development teams is required. Particularly
because these team features facilitates them to such a type of development as agile teams
which may apply a human-centric approach while developing softwares (Fowler and
Highsmith, 2001) that further provides quality products. Therefore, this will result in higher
satisfaction among customers (Ceschi et al., 2005).
Agile software development teams do not always identify the type of requirements released
in the project (Hass, 2007). These agile teams work on the basis of planning, use some
iteration processes, and revise the outcomes as per iteration objectives during the
controlling phase (Drury et al., 2012). A presentation is the meeting that takes place at
iteration ending, which offers an opportunity to the agile team to reveal how their team work
generates final results and actively try to find areas for further advancement (Derby and
Larsen, 2006). Therefore, in agile software development teams, the development phase is
not a chronological process where the developing part is passed on from one person to
another. Rather, it is a team based process which is executed in an interactive environment,
where a multidisciplinary team of software developers are functioning collectively (Drury
et al., 2012).
Thus, the agile software development team is based on joint efforts (Nerur et al., 2005) and
is more flexible where a member of a specific team may exchange his/her roles to gain new
experiences (Nerur et al., 2005; Dehghani and Ramsin, 2015; Cockburn, 2001).
Consequently, the teams may rotate roles within the team to diagnose the software
development (Alleman, 2002; Augustine, 2005).
Agile software developments teams rely on group efforts to solve, identify problems and
facilitate interactivity among team members (Wang et al., 2015). Based on iterative
objective achievements, agile software development teams’ performance is measured.
Based on the above discussion, we posit:
H2a. Agile software development is positively related to the diagnostic use of the
performance measurement system.
H2b. Agile software development is positively related to the interactive use of the
performance measurement system.
3.3 Diagnostic, interactive use of the performance measurement system and job
satisfaction
In contrast to the views of Henri (2006), we believe that diagnostic use may significantly add
along with the interactive use of performance management systems. Diagnostic use is more
important as it provides information with regards to the variations aligned with expectations.
Although organizations have a tendency to focus more on negative variations, the
performance management system itself is proficient and provides important information.
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
This may decrease ambiguity and, as a result, may advance overall performance
measurement.
Through diagnostic use, performance management systems may also provide information,
which can be used to enhance stakeholders’ connections. Thus, information produced via
performance management systems could be relevant to the clients who assess project
service providers for further business opportunities. Accordingly, diagnostic use to some
extent can bind the task of performance management systems to a measurement
instrument (Henri, 2006), but as an instrument, it is still vital because it contributes
considerably in coordinating the resources, particularly when arranged along with
interactive use.
The interactive use of performance management systems are inclined to have
developmental function and signify positive energy (Henri, 2006), used to enlarge
opportunities and knowledge within the organization. Use of performance management
systems interactively compel discussion and encourage the generation of new ideas (Henri,
2006; Widener, 2007):
H3. Diagnostic use of the performance measurement system is positively related to job
satisfaction.
H4. Interactive use of the performance measurement system is positively related to job
satisfaction.
3.4 Information system agility and job satisfaction
In addition, our study asserts that agile practices (agile project management and agile
software development) directly affect job satisfaction. Supporters of agile practices and
several researches have argued that agile developers have more engagement with the
customer and have high level of motivation related to their jobs (McHugh et al., 2010). A few
studies have also reported that agile developers deliver high-quality softwares when they
work in a team (Maruping et al., 2009). The completion of these projects is quick and with
high success rates of projects than conventional project tools (West et al., 2010). Agile
development teams’ efforts are based on the iterative process, have interim goals to realize
with joint team work and provide softwares in lesser time (Highsmith, 2002).
Various authors have advocated that tangible and intangible rewards and better
performance lead to job satisfaction (Naylor et al., 1980; Tripp et al., 2016; Vroom, 1964;
Massingham, 2018). Accordingly, the members of an agile development team can measure
their performance on a daily basis by using feedback practices. For example, team may
use unit testing, burndown and constant integration (Schwaber and Beedle, 2002; Tripp
et al., 2016). Additionally, agile development teams determine their performance with the
completion of every work cycle and collect feedback from their clients regarding the
accuracy and quality of the work they have performed (McHugh et al., 2010). The reduction
of sequence in between performance-assessment makes possible a higher perception of
their satisfaction as it gives chances for identifying more success factors and increasing
constantly (Burke et al., 2006).
Agile values and standards, as explained by Agile Manifesto, recommend the overarching
ideas and principles underlying agile software development. These agile software
development techniques are a collection of different agile software development practices.
For example, XP is contained of such agile software development practices as refactoring,
joint rights, and uninterrupted incorporation (Beck, 1999). As diverse agile techniques were
intended out of particular conditions with diverse and occasionally conflicting practices
(Tripp and Armstrong, 2014), most groups take on a blend of agile software development
practices based on two or more agile software development methodologies (Stavru, 2014;
VersionOne, 2011). This study emphasizes agile software development practices that
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
mention particular methods or acts taken by information technology section in their
practices of software development (Hummel and Epp, 2015).
During past few years, numerous researchers have advocated categorizing agile
software development practices into technological and societal types. Chow and Cao
(2008) put together software engineering-adjusted practices, such as well defined
system standards, straight and thorough refactoring actions. These latest technologies,
practices cultivate consumer involvement and facilitate team insight as a group. A few
put forward that, as numerous agile software development practices are used through
software development, several are emphasized on symbols source code and
assessment situations, while another assist contact and sharing of knowledge among
persons (McHugh et al., 2011). Similarly, Robinson and Sharp (2005) declare that
various agile software development practices have a tendency to be more collectively
than technologically oriented.
Likewise, Mnkandla and Dwolatzky (2007) assert that agile software development practices
that communicate to software coding are technological, whereas those share about public
matters are more societal. Jyothi and Rao (2011) advocate categorize the 11 agile rules of
agile program with respect to technological and societal aspects. Vavpotic and Bajec
(2009) advocate that to know the advantages of making use of a software development
method, it is essential to seek software development via the lens of technologically and
societal-oriented agile software development practices as emphasizing on either one will
answer in a deficient assessment of software development methods. Whereas some
scholars have also used the tag of project management practices in lieu societal processes
(Tripp and Armstrong, 2014), the brand project management, usually, known as
hierarchical scheduling, observing and manage of actions and assets in the scholarly
literature (Hallinger and Snidvongs, 2008).
To sum up, there is a high amount of conformity between the researchers concerning to the
classification of agile software development practices into societal and technological types
(Diegmann and Rosenkranz, 2016; Ozcan-Top and Demiro¨rs, 2013). With this flow of
literature as an academic base, Hummel and Epp (2015), “recognizing the importance of
social interactions, social behavior, and communication in the ISD [information systems
development] process,” suggested the creation of agile development practices to explain a
division of agile software development practices that promote interfaces, association, and
straight contact between persons (p. 280). By contrast, the division of agile software
development practices, which focuses the software business-oriented features of software
development, is described by the technological agile practices put up.
This study makes use of the similar definitions of agile practices put ups in the present
paper at technology department-level, and particularly emphases on six XP practices
(component test, uninterrupted mixing, refactoring, combined possession, coding sets, and
pair-programming) and other usually accepted Scrum processes (result possessor, each
day standups and presentations). This paper selected these different practices as they are
not only broadly used in business but also in scholarly literature (McHugh et al., 2011; So
and Scholl, 2009). Pursuing various work conferred formerly, and categorizing
uninterrupted incorporation, shared possession, item testing, refactoring and system
standards as technological agile practices (Maruping et al., 2009), whereas each daystand-ups, presentations and pair-programing were categorized as collective agile
practices (Hummel and Epp, 2015).
Information technology may be competent to improve capabilities; however, IT itself
may not openly inducing competitive advantage in market (Carr, 2003). In its place, IT
should be used to harmonize presented procedures to advance capabilities, for
instance, association or agility (Fawcett et al., 2011). Thus, this study suggests that
increases in job performance, which can be acquired through enterprise architecture
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
are a task of the improved abilities. For instance, firm agility that is stimulated by
enterprise architecture strategic orientation. In reality, agility has earlier been
connected to enhanced job performance through firms’ capacity to sense and react
promptly and properly to alter in their inside and outside environment (Tallon and
Pinsonneault, 2011). A number of studies offer two enterprise-based abilities (strategic
direction and integration) and observe how these abilities might inducing firm agility
and ultimately job, firm performance (Hazen et al., 2017). Job satisfaction concerns an
enjoyable or activist emotional status occurs from individual’s job or their personal
experiences (Locke, 1976; Yee et al., 2015).
Thus, we put forward:
H5. Agile project management is positively related to the job satisfaction.
H6. Agile software development is positively related to the job satisfaction.
4. Research design
In our study, we have developed a theoretical framework and have collected primary data
through an online-based questionnaire. Thereafter, we have analyzed the data using
structural equation modeling (SEM).
4.1 Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework shown in Figure 1 has been developed by using the
organizational information processing theory. In conjunction, agile project management and
agile software development form the information system agility. The effect of these two
variables can be seen in relation to the other variables in Figure 1. The performance
measurement system consists of two variables, namely, diagnostic use and interactive use.
The dependent variable in our study is job satisfaction.
Figure 1 Theoretical model after SEM
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
4.2 Survey technique
Primary data were collected through an online-based questionnaire in 2018 in South Africa.
The questionnaire was pre-tested to check the validity, readability and usefulness of the
questions by sending the same form to 15 respondents. Based on their suggestions, minor
changes were made. The constructs of the questionnaire used for data collection can be
seen in Appendix 1. A total of 150 fully filled questionnaires were considered for data
analysis. The data were standardized, and there was no case of missing data, no zero
variance and no rank related problems were found. The Likert scale of 1 to 5 was used in
this study where 1 was strongly disagree, 2 was disagree, 3 was neutral, 4 was agree and 5
was strongly agree. Tables I, II and III showcase the respondent’s profile. In Table I, it is
evident that the majority (88.6 per cent) of the respondents were from the age group of 41 to
50 (45.3 per cent) and 51 to 60 (43.3 per cent) years. Also, it is observed that 72 per cent of
the respondents were graduates, and 22.7 per cent were post-graduates out of the 150
respondents considered for this study.
In Table II, we can see that the majority of the respondents (83.3 per cent) were from the
manufacturing or manufacturing-related services, and 74.6 per cent of the 150 respondents
had more than 10 years of work experience.
In Table III, the respondents are evenly distributed in companies or institutions which fall
under the spectrum of SMEs and large companies (IFC, 2012). Nearly 81 per cent of the
respondents stated that they were director/CEO/founder of their company, or manager/
senior manager in their company/institution.
4.3 Data analysis
A factor-based SEM with common factor model assumptions has been used for this theory
backed empirical study (Kock, 2017). To gauge the model fit, Table IV depicts the quality
indices that can be used to ascertain the same. Average path coefficient (APC) and
Table II Domain of work of the employees and their work experience
Years of work experience
Domain of work 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-10 years More than 10 years Total

Construction/ Real Estate/ Infrastructure	–	–	2	4	6
Consulting Education/ Research Food & Beverage IT Services/ Software	– – – –	– – – –	1 – – 5	2 1 2 4	3 1 2 9
Manufacturing/ Manufacturing related services Retail	1 –	5 –	22 2	97 2	125 4
Total	1	5	32	112	150

Table I Age group of employees and their educational qualifications
Age group (in years) Diploma Graduate Post Graduate PhD Total
20-30 – 1 1 – 2
31-40 3 9 1 2 15
41-50 2 51 15 – 68
51-60 1 47 17 – 65
Total 6 108 34 2 150
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
average R-squared (ARS) are significant, as the p-value is less than 0.05 and average
block VIF (AVIF) value is less than 5 (Kock, 2015).
The causality assessment indicates whether the directions of the hypothesis made are
correct or it can be bi-directional. In Table V, four indices suggest that the theoretical model
considered in this study is appropriate. The maximum value of each of the indices here is 1,
and it appears that the value of all four of these indices is more than the threshold value.
Confirmatory factor analysis has been employed to determine the reliability and validity of
the theoretical model (Table VI). In the Appendix 2, we can consider the loadings and
cross-loadings of all the factors used in this study. It can be seen that the loading of all the
factors is more than 0.50, and thus it can be considered a significant factor (Hair et al.,
2006).
Table III Role of employee in the company/institution and the number of employees
No. of employees
Role in Company/ Institution Less than 10 10-50 50-300 300-500 500-1000 More than 1000 Total

AVP/ VP/ EVP Board Member Consultant Corporate Finance Executive/ Analyst Director/ CEO/ Founder Engineer	– 1 – – 1 –	1 – – – 12 –	5 – 1 1 22 5	– – – – 26 1	3 – – – – 2	– – – – – 1	9 1 1 1 61 9
Manager/ Sr. Manager Sales/ Marketing Executive	– –	5 2	14 5	5 –	36 –	– 1	60 8
Total	2	20	53	32	41	2	150

Table IV Model fit and quality indices
Average path coefficient (APC) 0.293, p < 0.001
Average R-squared (ARS) 0.549, p < 0.001
Average block VIF (AVIF) 4.929, acceptable if <= 5
Table V Causality assessment indices

Sympson’s paradox ratio (SPR) R-squared contribution ratio (RSCR) Statistical suppression ratio (SSR) Nonlinear bivariate causality direction ratio (NLBCDR)

1.000, acceptable if >= 0.7, ideally = 1 1.000, acceptable if >= 0.9, ideally = 1 1.000, acceptable if >= 0.7 1.000, acceptable if >= 0.7

Table VI Latent variable coefficients
APM ASD DU IU JS
R-squared coefficients – – 0.461 0.474 0.712
Adjusted R-squared coefficients – – 0.454 0.467 0.704
Composite reliability coefficients 0.974 0.988 0.968 0.959 0.943
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients 0.974 0.988 0.968 0.959 0.941
Average variances extracted (AVE) 0.863 0.909 0.773 0.823 0.624
Variance inflation factors (VIF) 3.283 2.866 4.553 4.381 2.467
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
In Table VII, results of the discriminant validity test are depicted. This test indicates whether
the factors used in the study are aligned with the correct variables. The findings of Table VII
reveal that the square root of the average variance extracted for each variable, which is
shown in the diagonal of the table, is greater than the construct correlations (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981).
Table VIII shows the results of all the hypotheses after SEM analysis. The findings show that
all the hypotheses show significant result with p-value less than 0.05 except H6.
5. Discussions and implications
Software process is described as a sequence of tasks which are applied through the
software life cycle (Long et al., 2016; Nicholls et al., 2015). This can be achieved by
incorporating agile techniques while executing the process. Agile techniques
emphasize teamwork and regular communication amongst teammates (Beck, 2000).
However, there are a limited number of past studies which are based on agile project
management (Hoda and Murugesan, 2016), agile software development (Bass, 2016;
Hoda et al., 2017; Paasivaara and Lassenius, 2014) and aspects of agile teams (Amin
Table VIII Results of hypotheses testing
Hypothesis b and p-value
Supported or
not supported
H1a. Agile project management is positively
related to the diagnostic use of the performance
measurement system
b = 0.43 p < 0.01 Supported
H1b. Agile project management is positively
related to the interactive use of the performance
measurement system
b = 0.42 p < 0.01 Supported
H2a. Agile software development is positively
related to the diagnostic use of the performance
measurement system
b = 0.28 p < 0.01 Supported
H2b. Agile software development is positively
related to the interactive use of the performance
measurement system
b = 0.29 p < 0.01 Supported
H3. Diagnostic use of the performance
measurement system is positively related to the
job satisfaction
b = 0.44 p < 0.01 Supported
H4. Interactive use of the performance
measurement system is positively related to the
job satisfaction
b = 0.23 p < 0.01 Supported
H5. Agile project management is positively
related to the job satisfaction
b = 0.14 p = 0.04 Supported
H6. Agile software development is positively
related to the job satisfaction
b = 0.11 p = 0.09 Not-Supported
Table VII Correlations among latent variables with square root of AVEs
APM ASD DU IU JS
APM 0.929
ASD 0.798 0.953
DU 0.65 0.596 0.879
IU 0.651 0.58 0.943 0.907
JS 0.613 0.565 0.745 0.741 0.79
Note: Square roots of average variances extracted (AVEs) shown on diagonal
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
et al., 2015; Inayat and Salim, 2015). There is a dearth of empirical studies that
consider the integrated perspective of all these aspects (Tripp et al., 2016).
The present paper has explained the integrated effect of IS agility (agile project
management and agile software development) on an HR system (diagnostic and interactive
use of performance management system), which further affects an employee’s job
satisfaction. A shift from individual consideration to an integrated one (i.e. including both
agile project management and agile software development approach) has enhanced the
efficiency and product quality, and this consequently leads to job satisfaction. This paper
asserts that agile techniques can be used for a number of small teams. The triple control of
resources in terms of cost, time, scope of a project and software development still remain
relevant. Thus, agile teams need to understand that scope should be flexible so as to be
able to react during unstable job times, resources being reallocated to another projects or
unidentified tasks. The current paper is focused on exploring the influence of IS agility on
HR systems while they work together in a multi-project environment. Thus, it is imperative to
focus on value maximization for all IS based agile teams and HR systems in the
organization.
6. Conclusion, limitations and future research directions
Both agile techniques and HR systems have a strong association. However, for agile project
management and agile software development, diagnostic and interactive aspects of HR
performance management systems need to be investigated while coping with the
requirements in agile development teams. Thus, a conceptual framework is proposed in the
present article to examine the association between IS agility (agile project management and
agile software development) and HR systems (diagnostic and interactive performance
management systems) through the lens of the organizational information processing theory.
The proposed conceptual framework is empirically tested to collect responses on its
constructs from the respondents and then analyzed through SEM. The developed
framework assists in building an understanding toward the relationship between IS agility,
HR systems and job satisfaction. The results reveal that agile project management is
positively related to the diagnostic and interactive use of the performance measurement
system. Similarly, agile software development is positively related to the diagnostic and
interactive use of the performance measurement system. Both diagnostic and interactive
use of the performance measurement system is positively related to the job satisfaction.
Moreover, it was found that agile project management is positively related to job
satisfaction. However, the relationship of agile team job satisfaction is negatively affected
by the agile software development.
This article draws a few implications and further research directions for the future
academicians and practitioners in this domain. The proposed framework facilitates
researchers and managers with an equivalent chance to understand the relevance of IS
agility and HR systems association during project management and life cycle of software
development and take corrective measures for deviations so as to increase their job
satisfaction. In addition, the practitioners may use the proposed framework as direction to
have more insights regarding agile project management, agile software development and
diagnostic and/or interactive use of HR management systems in different situations to
generate more empirical outcomes.
The present paper has a number of limitations. First, pertaining to the generalizability of the
research results, we considered the respondents sample from South Africa only. Further
studies might consider different geographical boundaries, culture, emerging economies
and another difference to extend our research across different contexts. Second, for this
study, the data were collected based on the perspective of the respondent, and it was
cross-sectional in nature. Accordingly, further studies might indulge in data analysis with
longitudinal data to thoroughly check our proposed framework. Third, past studies suggest
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
that job satisfaction is affected by workplace characteristics (McKnight et al., 2009),
whereas we emphasize the influence of agile project management and agile software
development methods on job satisfaction perceptions. Therefore, future research can be
undertaken to understand the influence of agile project management and agile software
development practices on workplace characteristics. Some characteristics include sharing
of information, trust among managers etc. (McKnight et al., 2009; Tripp et al., 2016). In
addition, another possible opportunity for potential research is to understand the influence
of agile techniques as an instrument of job redesign. Finally, this research reveals that IS
agility and HR systems constructs can affect perceptions regarding job satisfaction. Further
studies on agile techniques could examine the influences of agile project management and
agile software development constructs on a number of other different consequences,
including performance, level of stress, learning and interdependence.
References
Alleman, G. (2002), “Agile project management methods for it projects”, The Story of Managing Projects:
A Global, Cross–Disciplinary Collection of Perspectives, Greenwood Press, Berkeley, CA.
Amin, R.U., Aijun, L. and Inayat, I. (2015), “Application of agile methods in industrial electronics
education; lessons learned from a case study”, International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education
and Life-Long Learning, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 328-346.
Augustine, S. (2005), Managing Agile Projects, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Balijepally, V., Mahapatra, R.K., Nerur, S.P. and Price, K. (2009), “Are two heads better than one for
software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming”, Management Information
Systems Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 91-118.
Bamel, U.K. and Bamel, N. (2018), “Organizational resources, KM process capability and strategic
flexibility: a dynamic resource-capability perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 7,
pp. 1555-1572.
Bass, J.M. (2016), “Artefacts and agile method tailoring in large-scale offshore software development
programmes”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Beck, S. (1999), “Confucius and Socrates: the teaching of wisdom”, available at: www.san.beck.org
Beck, K. (2000), Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change, Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.
Beck, K. (2003), Test-driven Development: by Example, Wesley Professional, Addison, New York, NY.
Beck, K. Beedle, M. van Bennekum, A. Cockburn, A. Cunningham, W. Fowler, M. Grenning, J. Highsmith,
J. Hunt, A. Jeffries, R. and Kern, J. (2001), “Agile manifesto”, available at: www.agileAlliance.org
Bensaou, M. and Venkatraman, N. (1995), “Configurations of interorganizational relationships: a
comparison between US and Japanese automakers”, Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 9,
pp. 1471-1492.
Bisbe, J. and Otley, D. (2004), “The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on
product innovation”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 709-737.
Bloch, M., Blumberg, S. and Laartz, J. (2012), Delivering Large-scale IT Projects on Time, on Budget, and
on Value, Harvard Business Review, Brighton, MA.
Boehm, B.W. (1984), “Software engineering economics”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Boehm, B. and Turner, R. (2003), Balancing Agility and Discipline: A Guide for the Perplexed, AddisonWesley Professional, New York, NY.
Bontis, N. and Serenko, A. (2007), “The moderating role of human capital management practices on
employee capabilities”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 31-51.
Burke, C., Stagl, K., Salas, E., Pierce, L. and Kendall, D. (2006), “Understanding team adaptation: a
conceptual analysis and model”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1189-1207.
Ceschi, M., Sillitti, A., Succi, G. and De Panfilis, S. (2005), “Project management in plan-based and agile
companies”, IEEE Software, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 21-27.
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Chow, T. and Cao, D.B. (2008), “A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects”,
Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 81 No. 6, pp. 961-971.
Cockburn, A. (2001), Agile Software Development, Addison-Wesley, Boston.
Cockburn, A. and Williams, L. (2000), “The costs and benefits of pair programming”, Extreme
Programming Examined, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 223-247.
Colomo-Palacios, R., Fernandes, E., Soto-Acosta, P. and Larrucea, X. (2018), “A case analysis of
enabling continuous software deployment through knowledge management”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 40, pp. 186-189.
Daft, R.L. and Lengel, R.H. (1986), “Organizational information requirements, media richness and
structural design”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 554-571.
Davis, J.M. and Agrawal, D. (2018), “Understanding the role of interpersonal identification in online review
evaluation: an information processing perspective”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 140-149.
Dehghani, R. and Ramsin, R. (2015), “Methodologies for developing knowledge management
systems: an evaluation framework”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 682-710.
Dent, J.F. (1990), “Strategy, organization and control: some possibilities for accounting research”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 3-25.
Derby, E. and Larsen, D. (2006), Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great, Pragmatic Bookshelf,
Raleigh, NC.
Diegmann, P. and Rosenkranz, C. (2016), “Improving software development efficiency–how diversity and
collective intelligence shape agile team efficiency”, International Research Workshop on IT Project
Management 2016.
Dinger, M., Thatcher, J.B., Treadway, D., Stepina, L. and Breland, J. (2015), “Does professionalism
matter in the IT workforce? An empirical examination of IT professionals”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 281-313.
Drury, M., Conboy, K. and Power, K. (2012), “Obstacles to decision making in agile software
development teams”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 85 No. 6, pp. 1239-1254.
Drury-Grogan, M.L. (2014), “Performance on agile teams: relating iteration objectives and critical
decisions to project management success factors”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 56 No. 5,
pp. 506-515.
Eppler, M.J. and Pfister, R.A. (2014), “Best of both worlds: hybrid knowledge visualization in police crime
fighting and military operations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 824-840.
Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A.M. and Magnan, G.M. (2011), “Information technology as
an enabler of supply chain collaboration: a dynamic-capabilities perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 38-59.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fowler, M. and Highsmith, J. (2001), “The agile manifesto”, Software Development, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 28-35.
Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L. and Bourne, M. (2012), “Contemporary performance measurement
systems: a review of their consequences and a framework for research”, Management Accounting
Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 79-119.
Galbraith, J.R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Galbraith, J.R. (1974), “Organization design: an information processing view”, Interfaces, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 28-36.
Greiner, M.E., Bo¨hmann, T. and Krcmar, H. (2007), “A strategy for knowledge management”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 3-15.
Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1980), Work Redesign, Schein, E. and Bekhard, R. (Eds), Addison-Wesley,
New York, NY.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed.,
Pearson Prentice Hall, Uppersaddle River, NJ.
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Hallinger, P. and Snidvongs, K. (2008), “Educating leaders: is there anything to learn from business
management?”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 9-31.
Harris, M., Collins, R. and Hevner, A. (2009), “Control of flexible software development under
uncertainty”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 400-419.
Harrison, D.A., Newman, D.A. and Roth, P.L. (2006), “How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic
comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 305-325.
Hass, K.B. (2007), “The blending of traditional and agile project management”, PM World Today, Vol. 9
No. 5, pp. 1-8.
Hazen, B.T., Bradley, R.V., Bell, J.E., In, J. and Byrd, T.A. (2017), “Enterprise architecture: a competencebased approach to achieving agility and firm performance”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 193, pp. 566-577.
Henri, J.F. (2006), “Management control systems and strategy: a resource-based perspective”,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 529-558.
Highsmith, J.A. (2002), Agile Software Development Ecosystems, Vol. 13, Wesley Professional, Addison,
New York, NY.
Hummel, M. and Epp, A. (2015), “Success factors of agile information systems development: a
qualitative study”, 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), IEEE,
pp. 5045-5054.
Hoda, R. and Murugesan, L.K. (2016), “Multi-level agile project management challenges: a selforganizing team perspective”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 245-257.
Hoda, R., Salleh, N., Grundy, J. and Tee, H.M. (2017), “Systematic literature reviews in agile software
development: a tertiary study”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 60-70.
Ifandoudas, P. and Chapman, R. (2009), “A practical approach to achieving agility - a theory of
constraints perspective”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 691-702.
IFC (2012), “Micro, small and medium enterprise finance in India - a research study on needs, gaps and
way forward”, Research Report by International Finance Corporation (IFC).
Inayat, I. and Salim, S.S. (2015), “A framework to study requirements-driven collaboration among agile
teams: findings from two case studies”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 51, pp. 1367-1379.
Iqbal, T., Huq, F. and Bhutta, M.K.S. (2018), “Agile manufacturing relationship building with TQM, JIT,
and firm performance: an exploratory study in apparel export industry of Pakistan”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 203, pp. 24-37.
Jajja, M.S.S., Chatha, K.A. and Farooq, S. (2018), “Impact of supply chain risk on agility performance:
mediating role of supply chain integration”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 205,
pp. 118-138.
Jyothi, V.E. and Rao, K.N. (2011), “Effective implementation of agile practices”, International Journal of
Advanced Computer Science and Applications, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 41-48.
Kianto, A., Vanhala, M. and Heilmann, P. (2016), “The impact of knowledge management on job
satisfaction”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 621-636.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Kock, N. (2017), “Structural equation modeling with factors and composites: a comparison of four
methods”, International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Koufteros, X., Verghese, A. and Lucianetti, L. (2014), “The effect of performance measurement systems
on firm performance: a cross-sectional and a longitudinal study”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 313-336.
Kwahk, K.Y., Ahn, H. and Ryu, Y.U. (2018), “Understanding mandatory IS use behavior: how outcome
expectations affect conative IS use”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 64-76.
Larson, D. and Chang, V. (2016), “A review and future direction of agile, business intelligence, analytics
and data science”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 700-710.
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Locke, E. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, pp. 1297-1349.
Long, F., Yang, C., Rong, H.G. and Li, J.F. (2016), “A user-oriented resource scheduling method for
improving agile software pattern in cloud environment”, Journal of Central South University, Vol. 23
No. 11, pp. 2906-2916.
Loss, L. and Crave, S. (2011), “Agile business models: an approach to support collaborative networks”,
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6, pp. 571-580.
Lyytinen, K. (1987), “A taxonomic perspective of information systems development: theoretical
constructs and recommendations”, Critical Issues in Information Systems Research, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ, pp. 3-41.
McHugh, O., Conboy, K. and Lang, M. (2010), “Motivating agile teams: a case study of teams in Ireland
and Sweden”, Presented at the 5th pre-ICIS International Research Workshop on Information Technology
Project Management.
McHugh, O., Conboy, K. and Lang, M. (2011), “Using agile practices to build trust in an agile team: a
case study”, Information Systems Development, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 503-516.
McHugh, O., Conboy, K. and Lang, M. (2012), “Agile practices: the impact on trust in software project
teams”, IEEE Software, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 71-76.
McKnight, D.H., Phillips, B. and Hardgrave, B.C. (2009), “Which reduces IT turnover intention the
most: workplace characteristics or job characteristics?”, Information & Management, Vol. 46 No. 3,
pp. 167-174.
Mainert, J., Niepel, C., Lans, T. and Greiff, S. (2018), “How employees perceive organizational learning:
construct validation of the 25-item short form of the strategic learning assessment map (SF-SLAM)”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 57-75.
Mannaro, K., Melis, M. and Marchesi, M. (2004), “Empirical analysis on the satisfaction of IT employees
comparing XP practices with other software development methodologies”, Extreme Programming and
Agile Processes in Software Engineering, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 166-174.
Maruping, L., Venkatesh, V. and Agarwal, R. (2009), “A control theory perspective on agile
methodology use and changing user requirements”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 377-399.
Massingham, P.R. (2018), “Measuring the impact of knowledge loss: a longitudinal study”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 721-758.
Mieritz, L. (2012), “Survey shows why projects fail gartner”, available at: www.gartner.com/doc/2034616/
survey-shows-projects-fail (accessed 3 July 2018).
Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1982), “Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: two models of
strategic momentum”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Mnkandla, E. and Dwolatzky, B. (2007), “Agile software methods: state-of-the-art”, Agile Software
Development Quality Assurance, IGI Global, pp. 1-22.
Moe, N., Dingsoyr, T. and Dyba, T. (2010), “A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: a case
study of a scrum project”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 52 No. 5, pp. 480-491.
Morris, M.G. and Venkatesh, V. (2010), “Job characteristics and job satisfaction: understanding
the role of enterprise resource planning system implementation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 143-161.
Naim, M.F. and Lenka, U. (2017), “Linking knowledge sharing, competency development, and affective
commitment: evidence from Indian gen Y employees”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 885-906.
Naylor, J.C., Pritchard, R.D. and Ilgen, D.R. (1980), A Theory of Behavior in Organizations, Academic
Press, New York, NY.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: a literature
review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15
No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R.K. and Mangalaraj, G. (2005), “Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 72-78.
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Nevo, S. and Chengalur-Smith, I. (2011), “Enhancing the performance of software development virtual
teams through the use of agile methods: a pilot study”, Proceedings of The HI International Conference
on System Sciences, pp. 1-10.
Nicholls, G.M., Lewis, N.A. and Eschenbach, T. (2015), “Determining when simplified agile project
management is right for small teams”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-10.
Otley, D. (1994), “Management control in contemporary organizations: toward a wider framework”,
Management Accounting Research, Vol. 5 Nos 3/4, pp. 289-299.
Ozcan-Top, O. and Demiro¨rs, O. (2013), “Assessment of agile maturity models: a multiple case study”,
International Conference on Software Process Improvement and Capability Determination, Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 130-141.
Paasivaara, M. and Lassenius, C. (2014), “Communities of practice in a large distributed agile software
development organization - case Ericsson”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 56 No. 12,
pp. 1556-1577.
Pedrycz, W., Russo, B. and Succi, G. (2011), “A model of job satisfaction for collaborative development
processes”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 739-752.
Peng, D.X., Heim, G.R. and Mallick, D.N. (2014), “Collaborative product development: the effect of
project complexity on the use of information technology tools and new product development practices”,
Production and Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 1421-1438.
Pe´rez-Bustamante, G. (1999), “Knowledge management in agile innovative organisations”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 6-17.
Ply, J.K., Moore, J.E., Williams, C.K. and Thatcher, J.B. (2012), “IS employee attitudes and perceptions at
varying levels of software process maturity”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 601-624.
Robinson, H. and Sharp, H. (2005), “Organisational culture and XP: three case studies”, Proceedings of
Agile Conference, IEEE, pp. 49-58.
Rose, K.H. (2013), “A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide)-fifth edition”,
Project Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21345
Rutner, P.S., Hardgrave, B.C. and McKnight, D.H. (2008), “Emotional dissonance and the information
technology professional”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 635-652.
Schwaber, K. and Beedle, M. (2002), Agile Software Development with Scrum, Vol. 1, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Simons, R. (1995), Levers of Control: How Managers Use Innovative Control Systems to Drive Strategic
Renewal, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Srinivasan, R. and Swink, M. (2015), “Leveraging supply chain integration through planning
comprehensiveness: an organizational information processing theory perspective”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 823-861.
Stavru, S. (2014), “A critical examination of recent industrial surveys on agile method usage”, Journal of
Systems and Software, Vol. 94, pp. 87-97.
So, C. and Scholl, W. (2009), “Perceptive agile measurement: new instruments for quantitative studies in
the pursuit of the social-psychological effect of agile practices”, International Conference on Agile
Processes and Extreme Programming in Software Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 83-93.
Tallon, P.P. and Pinsonneault, A. (2011), “Competing perspectives on the link between strategic
information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation model”, MIS
Quarterly, pp. 463-486.
Tessem, B. and Maurer, F. (2007), “Job satisfaction and motivation in a large agile team”, International
Conference on Extreme Programming and Agile Processes in Software Engineering, Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg, pp. 54-61.
Thatcher, J.B., Stepina, L.P. and Boyle, R.J. (2002), “Turnover of information technology workers:
examining empirically the influence of attitudes, job characteristics, and external markets”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 231-261.
Tripp, J.F. and Armstrong, D.J. (2014), “Exploring the relationship between organizational adoption
motives and the tailoring of agile methods”, 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
(HICSS), IEEE, pp. 4799-4806.
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Tripp, J.F., Riemenschneider, C. and Thatcher, J.B. (2016), “Job satisfaction in agile development teams:
agile development as work redesign”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 267-307.
Vavpotic, D. and Bajec, M. (2009), “An approach for concurrent evaluation of technical and social
aspects of software development methodologies”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 528-545.
VersionOne (2011), “6th annual state of agile development survey”, available at: www.versionone.com
(accessed 12 June 2018).
Vroom, V.H. (1964), Work and Motivation, Wiley, Oxford.
Wang, X., Clay, P.F. and Forsgren, N. (2015), “Encouraging knowledge contribution in IT support: social
context and the differential effects of motivation type”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 315-333.
Weiss, H.M. and Cropanzano, R. (1996), “Affective events theory: a theoretical discussion of the
structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work”, Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L.
(Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews,
Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 1-75.
West, D., Grant, T., Gerush, M. and D’Silva, D. (2010), Agile Development: Mainstream Adoption Has
Changed Agility, Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA.
Westerveld, E. (2003), “The project excellence model: linking success criteria and critical success
factors”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 411-418.
Widener, S.K. (2007), “An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 757-788.
Yee, R.W., Guo, Y. and Yeung, A.C. (2015), “Being close or being happy? The relative impact of work
relationship and job satisfaction on service quality”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 169, pp. 391-400.
Further reading
Damiani, M.S. and Succi, G. (Eds) (2007), XP 2007, Vol. 4536, Springer, New York, NY.
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Appendix 1
Table AI Operationalization of constructs
Latent variable Indicator Measurement constructs
Journal paper
considered
Agile project
management (APM)
Burndown Drury-Grogan
(2014), Tripp
et al. (2016)
B1 Our team uses visual indicators (charts, graphs, etc.) of how well
we are progressing during a work cycle
B2 We plot our work completed against work planned on a chart
Iterative delivery
ID1 At the beginning of each work cycle, the team and business
owners agree on what will be delivered during the work cycle
ID2 Our team lets business people make business decisions about
releases, and technical people make technical decisions about
releases
Retrospective
R1 At the end of each work cycle, the team asks itself “what went
well” during the last work cycle
R2 At the end of each work cycle, the team asks itself “what could
be improved” during the next cycle
Agile software
development (ASD)
Functionality Drury-Grogan
(2014), Tripp
et al. (2016)
FU1 Our team develops and documents the functionality of the task
FU2 We test the functionality by undergoing the quality assurance
(QA) tests as soon as it is developed
Schedule
S1 Our team plans the task by keeping all the parameters and
challenges into consideration
S2 We strive to finish the task on time and thereby avoid cases of
delay in implementation of the task
Quality
Q1 Our team always ensures that the product works during the prerelease and thereafter we fix the bugs to ensure smooth
functioning of the project
Q2 We address our client issues immediately and ensure client
satisfaction
Team satisfaction
TSA1 We take full ownership of the implementation and everyone who
worked on it is proud of what they did
TSA2 Our senior management stands behind our agile teams
throughout the journey
Diagnostic use
(DU)
Monitoring Henri (2006),
Widener (2007),
Koufteros et al.
(2014)
M1 Our organization tracks the progress of all the teams to achieve
the desired goal(s)
M2 Our organization monitors the result of all the tasks given to
various teams
M3 Our organization compares the outcomes with regard to the
expectations
Focusing attention
FA1 Our organization enables us to focus on common issues
FA2 In our organization we have developed a common vocabulary
for better understanding of all the processes
FA3 Our organization enables discussion in meetings of superiors,
subordinates and peers
Legitimization
L1 Our organization increases my understanding of the business
(continued)
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Table AI
Latent variable Indicator Measurement constructs
Journal paper
considered
L2 Our organization encourages me to maintain my perspectives
about the various tasks and processes
L3 Our organization lets me validate my point of view
Interactive use (IU) IU1 Our organization reviews organizational performance based on
our performance measurement systems
Henri (2006),
Widener (2007),
Koufteros et al.
(2014)
IU2 Our organization uses performance measures to analysze root
problems
IU3 Our organization uses performance measures to achieve targets
IU4 Our organization uses performance measures to make decisions
IU5 Our organization uses performance measures to get information
to support decision-making
Job satisfaction
(JS)
Feedback Tripp et al.
F1 Just doing the work required by the job provides many chances (2016)
for me to figure out how well I am doing
F2 After I finish a task, I know whether I performed well
Job autonomy
JA1 My job gives me considerable opportunity for independence
and freedom in how you do the work
JA2 My job gives me a chance to use my personal initiative and
judgment in carrying out the work
Skill variety
SV1 The job requires me to use a number of complex or high-level
skills
SV2 There is a great deal of variety in the work I perform
Task identity
TI1 The job is arranged so that I can do an entire piece of work from
beginning to end
TI2 The job provides me the chance to completely finish the pieces
of work I begin
Task significance
TS1 The job itself is very significant and important in the broader
scheme of things
TS2 The results of my work is likely to significantly affect the lives or
well-being of other people
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)
Appendix 2
Corresponding author
Zongwei Luo can be contacted at: [e-mail]
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [e-mail]
Table AII Combined loadings and cross-loadings
APM ASD DU IU JS SE p-value

B1 B2 ID1 ID2 R1 R2 FU1 FU2 S1 S2 Q1 Q2 TSA1 TSA2 M1 M2 M3 FA1 FA2 FA3 L1 L2 L3 IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 IU5 F1 F2 JA1 JA2 SV1 SV2 TI1 TI2 TS1 TS2

0.924 0.908 0.95 0.915 0.947 0.93 0.044 0.018 0.046 0.048 0.011 0.077 0.032 0.046 0.01 0.01 0.019 0.102 0.022 0.073 0.032 0.07 0.104 0.078 0.18 0.025 0.14 0.109 0.094 0.154 0.202 0.004 0.1 0.053 0.101 0.067 0.112 0.175

0.038 0.032 0.017 0.019 0.016 0.022 0.927 0.948 0.971 0.974 0.97 0.957 0.959 0.919 0.038 0.004 0.031 0.02 0.046 0.058 0.019 0.053 0.061 0.006 0.172 0.025 0.128 0.151 0.142 0.095 0.107 0.069 0.042 0.154 0.027 0.024 0.163 0.122

0.113 0.108 0.009 0.378 0.062 0.062 0.042 0.031 0.055 0.057 0.019 0.088 0.121 0.026 0.907 0.899 0.89 0.879 0.886 0.806 0.869 0.881 0.895 0.118 0.009 0.022 0.254 0.375 0.326 0.098 0.059 0.195 0.175 0.197 0.276 0.283 0.311 0.258

0.157 0.112 0.081 0.311 0.087 0.015 0.022 0.111 0.085 0.115 0.031 0.202 0.157 0.058 0.499 0.062 0.019 0.403 0.07 0.184 0.405 0.425 0.098 0.915 0.903 0.886 0.912 0.92 0.495 0.134 0.066 0.312 0.257 0.136 0.267 0.086 0.327 0.471

0.027 0.062 0.055 0.046 0.03 0.151 0 0.04 0.048 0.107 0.033 0.078 0.013 0.066 0.034 0.123 0.119 0.142 0.141 0.083 0.002 0.058 0.05 0.014 0.109 0.182 0.05 0.1 0.608 0.772 0.869 0.848 0.862 0.79 0.776 0.829 0.795 0.711

0.067 0.067 0.066 0.067 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.066 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.068 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.071 0.069 0.067 0.068 0.067 0.069 0.069 0.068 0.068 0.07

<0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

Notes: Loadings are unrotated and cross-loadings are oblique-rotated, both after separate Kaiser normalizations; the values in italic
signifies the corresponding value for each construct
j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENTj
Downloaded by Tulane University At 02:59 04 February 2019 (PT)