Factors Influencing the Behavioral Intention of using Enterprise 2.0

Tools as a Knowledge Management Platform

An Analysis of the UTAUT Model in an Large Real Estate Company

Benoit Marsan

, Luc Cassivi

and Elie Elia

Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM), Montreal, Québec, Canada

Université du Québec à Montréal (UQÀM), School of Management (ESG), Department of Management and Technology,

Research Laboratory for I.T. Advancements (R.I.T.A.), Montreal, Québec, Canada

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, UTAUT Model, Social Software Platforms.

Abstract: This study aims at identifying the factors that predict the intention of employees of a large Canadian real

estate firm to use an Enterprise 2.0 knowledge management oriented enterprise portal platform. Based on

the UTAUT model, the data collected from 122 respondents using a Web questionnaire was analyzed to test

five hypotheses that relate to the intention to use the Enterprise 2.0 platform. Results indicate that

performance expectancy, effort expectancy and social influence have a significant influence on the

behavioral intention to use. Contrary to recent UTAUT studies, facilitating conditions, self-efficacy, anxiety

and attitude toward using technology all have a significant influence on the behavioral intention to use.

1 INTRODUCTION

Organisations are aware of the importance of

managing knowledge detained by their employees.

Knowledge management (KM) is a process that aims

at capturing the knowledge of the members of an

organization and transferring it to the right

individuals, which helps the organization innovate

and reach its objectives (Argote and Kozlowski,

2011).

Knowledge management systems, specifically

developed to support this process, have been

developed to improve the know-how of individuals,

to increase innovation and improve decision making

(Alavi and Leidner, 2001). However, traditional KM

systems have rarely reached these objectives, as

several failures are documented (Kautz and Mahnke,

2003). Essentially, the literature shows that many

systems are not used to their full potential, and that

this is mainly due to the lack of user participation

(Knaw and Balasubramanian, 2003). In 2005,

Davenport revealed that the acquisition, diffusion

and exploitation of knowledge were not fully

realized and also mentioned the fact that knowledge

sharing was not instinctive for individuals in a

group.

As experts were debating on the benefits of KM,

the Web 2.0 emerged. The Web 2.0 is a cluster of

technologies, strategies and social tendencies

(Murugesan, 2007), which comprises several types

of tools such as Blogs, Wikis or RSS feeds. These

tools allow users to participate actively to

information sharing and knowledge generation

(Yates et al., 2010). The term Enterprise 2.0, which

is the use of Web 2.0 tools in organisations, was

introduced by McAfee (2006). Although the

potential of these tools appear interesting, it is

important to question whether they could have

success where traditional KM systems have failed.

As previously stated, the less optimal results of KM

systems are attributable to its low level of use. Why

should it be different for Enterprise 2.0 tools? How

would these tools change this situation? The

implementation of such a system does not guaranty

an efficient use. For a number of organizations,

understanding the factors that facilitate the

acceptation of a system is a key element for success.

This study addresses the following research

question: What factors influence the intention to use

Web 2.0 tools as a KM platform? To answer this

question, a quantitative study was conducted in an

organisation that recently decided to pursue a project

with the intent of implementing a KM oriented

enterprise portal.

281

Marsan B., Cassivi L. and Elia E..

Factors Inﬂuencing the Behavioral Intention of using Enterprise 2.0 Tools as a Knowledge Management Platform - An Analysis of the UTAUT Model in

an Large Real Estate Company.

DOI: 10.5220/0004142502810284

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2012), pages 281-284

ISBN: 978-989-8565-31-0

 2012 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

2 METHODOLOGY

In an attempt to answer the research question, a

survey based empirical study was conducted in a

large Canadian real estate firm that has the intention

of implementing a KM oriented enterprise portal.

The organization is one of the top 10 real estate

firms in the world. It owns, manages and invests in

commercial centres in 24 countries. Its assets are in

North America, Europe, Asia and Latin America.

An email explaining the main purpose of the

study and the objective of the Web questionnaire

was sent to 980 employees that are associated to the

potential use of the Enterprise 2.0 tools. 171

respondent of the 980 employees solicited answered

the electronic questionnaire, but only 122

respondents had fully and adequately completed the

questionnaire. The final response rate is 12.4%.

Amongst the respondents, the proportion of men and

women is of 43.5% and 56.5% respectively. The

average age of the respondents is 40.1 years, and

more than half of the respondents (57.3%) have a

university degree. Finally, 73% of the respondents

have used Web 2.0 tools previously in a work

related context.

Table 1: Research hypotheses.

No Description

Performance expectancy will have a significant influence

on behavioral intention

Effort expectancy will have a significant influence on

behavioral intention

Social influence will have a significant influence on

behavioral intention

Facilitating conditions will not have a significant

influence on behavioral intention

Self-efficacy will not have a significant influence on

behavioral intention

Anxiety will not have a significant influence on

behavioral intention

Attitude toward using technology will not have a

significant influence on behavioral intention

The UTAUT model, as defined by Venkatesh et

al. (2003), was adapted, thus enabling the evaluation

of the potential KM platform in the organization.

The data collection was realized through a Web

questionnaire based on the elements defined by

Venkatesh et al. (2003), using a 7 point Likert scale

that inquires on the level of agreement for a number

of different affirmation. The hypotheses, presented

in Table 1, were adapted from Venkatesh et al.’s

(2003) UTAUT model. The focus of this study being

the intention to use the technology, only the

hypothesis related to the behavioral intention of

using were kept and adapted. The constructs of the

model are reliable as the majority of the Cronbach

alphas are superior to 0.640.

3 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

This study aimed at identifying the factors that

predict the intention of employees of a large real

estate firm to use an Enterprise 2.0 platform using

the UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Figure

1 presents the results.

The first hypothesis (presented in table 1)

concerns the performance expectancy. Our results

show that hypothesis 1 is supported: performance

expectancy (β=0,560****) has a significant

influence on behavioral intention. Performance

expectancy explains 30.7% (coefficient of

determination or adjusted R

) of the variance of the

behavioral intention to use the technology.

The results for the second hypothesis indicate

that effort expectancy (β=0,663****) has a

significant influence on behavioral intention with an

adjusted R

of 43.4%.

The third hypothesis is also confirmed. Social

influence (β=0,437****) has a significant influence

on behavioral intention as it explains 18.4% of the

variance of the behavioral intention to use.

According to the recent literature on UTAUT,

Facilitating conditions should not influence the

user’s behavioral intention. However, in our study,

this hypothesis is not supported as the facilitating

conditions (β=0,688****) have a significant

influence on behavioral intention it explains 46.8%

(adjusted R

) of the variance of behavioral intention.

Finally, the fifth and final hypothesis is also not

supported as self-efficacy (β=0,215**), anxiety (β=-

0,286****) and attitude toward using technology

(β=0,406****) have a significant influence on the

behavioral intention to use. The results shown in

Table 2 also demonstrate that these three variables

explain 51.6% of the variance of the behavioral

intention to use the Enterprise 2.0 platform.

Table 2: Results of hypothesis no.5.

Dependent variable : Behavioral intention

Beta t p Ajusted R

(Constant) 5,098

****

Self-efficacy 0,215 2,728

Anxiety -0,286 -3,914

****

Attitude 0,406 5,336

****

0,516

*Note: p<0,0001 ****, p< 0,001 ***, p<0,01 **, p<0,1 *

KMIS2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

282

Figure 1: Results.

As discussed earlier, our results indicate that the

behavioral intention to use an Enterprise 2.0

platform is explained by 3 factors: performance

expectancy, effort expectancy and social influence.

This result is conform to Venkatesh et al.’s (2003)

UTAUT model and confirmed by others studies such

as Dulle and Minishi-Majanja (2011).

Effort expectancy, with a coefficient of

determination (R2) of 43.4%, indicates that the

employees are aware of the efforts required to use a

2.0 platform. The organisation should implement a

convivial and user-friendly solution that will

necessitate some training. As for the result for

performance expectancy, it is consistent with the

results obtained by Venkatesh et al. (2003) and

Dulle and Minishi-Majanja (2011). In order to have

as many employees use the platform, the

organisation will have to clearly reveal the benefits

of using such a platform to it employees, and

demonstrate how it will improve the performance.

Venkatesh et al.’s (2003), Marchewka, Liu and

Kostiwa’s, (2007) and Dulle and Minishi-Majanja’s

(2011) results are also in line with our results

regarding the role of social influence, but is contrary

to Anderson, Swagger and Kerns (2006).

In the literature on the UTAUT model, the

facilitating conditions do not influence the

behavioral intention to use, but directly the usage

(Schaper and Pervan 2007; Garfield, 2005). In our

analysis, this hypothesis is not supported as

facilitating conditions explain 46.8 % of the variance

towards behavioral intention to use. Hence, in order

to have employees use the 2.0 platform, the

organisation must ensure that the Web 2.0 tools are

compatible with the employee tasks and that they are

well supported.

The results of hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c indicate

that self-efficacy, anxiety and attitude toward using

technology are responsible for 51.6% of the variance

towards behavioral intention. This outcome is

contrary to Venkatesh et al.’s (2003) results, as

according to these variables should not have a direct

impact on the behavioral intention to use a

technology, as their effect is captured by effort

expectancy. In our study, these three factors have a

significative influence on the intention to use.

Hence, in the context of our study, the following

affirmations are made:

 The more the employees are efficient in using a

2.0 platform, the more they will use it.

 The less the employees are anxious to use a 2.0

platform, the more they will use it.

 The better the attitude of the employees is in

regards to a 2.0 platform, the more they will use it.

Our findings do not follow Venkatesh’ results,

however, other authors have demonstrated the

influence of self-efficacy, anxiety and attitude

toward using technology on behavioral intention to

use a technology (Schaper and Pervan, 2007; Dulle

and Minishi-Majanja, 2011). For example, Dulle and

Minishi-Majanja (2011), in their study on Open

access, position attitude toward using technology as

a key factor to determine the behavioral intention of

a group of university researchers.

An explanation to why our analysis demonstrates

FactorsInfluencingtheBehavioralIntentionofusingEnterprise2.0ToolsasaKnowledgeManagementPlatform-An

AnalysisoftheUTAUTModelinanLargeRealEstateCompany

283

that self-efficacy, anxiety and attitude toward using

technology influence behavioral intention may rest

in the unstable organizational context that prevailed

when the study was carried out. A merger between

two organisations was underway at the time of the

study. The solicited respondents were all employees

from the same organizational. A merger between

two different organisations evidently has an impact

on the resource (job lost, task description analysis

modifications, etc.). Hence, it is not much of a

surprise that new tools such as a 2.0 platform may

raise some uncertainties. As this platform is not

obligatory for future users, if they feel anxious, or

have a negative attitude, or do not perceive the

efficiency of the tools, the level of use will be quite

low. However, considering the important level of

employees with a university degree and that have

used 2.0 tools in the past, our results are surprising

4 CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge management systems (KMS) are a key

element for organisations (Davenport and Prusak,

1997). The success of KMS rests on the contribution

and participation of users, which are on a voluntary

basis. However, the literature comprises several

cases where KMS are not used to their full potential.

The emergence of Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 tools

seems to give a second wind to KMS, but the

concern on the user adoption still remains.

This study validates to a certain extent the

UTAUT model where 2.0 tools are adapted to a KM

context. The statistical analysis demonstrates that

self-efficacy, anxiety and attitude toward using

technology have the most significant influence on

behavioral intention. However, facilitating, effort

expectancy, performance expectancy and social

influence also have an interesting influence on

behavioral intention.

The results were presented to the top

management responsible for the knowledge

management projects in the organization. The

following measures are now being implemented:

1. The creation of a personalized training program

to improve the efficacy of the new platform.

2. The development of a super-user network to

support the users' requirements.

3. The elaboration of an awareness campaign to

inform the employees on the potential benefits of

using a KMS based on Web 2.0 tools.

In sum, the results of this study enabled the project

management team to elaborate and prioritize change

management initiatives in order to improve chances

of success in the implementation of Enterprise 2.0

tools.

REFERENCES

Alavi, M., Leidner, D. E., 2001. Review Knowledge

Management and Knowledge Management Systems:

Conceptual Foundation and Research Issues, MIS

quarterly, 25:1, p.107-136.

Anderson, J. E., Schwager, P. H., Kerns, R. L., 2006. The

Drivers for Acceptance of Tablet PCs by Faculty in a

College of Business, Journal of Information Systems

Education, 17:4, p. 429-440.

Argote, L., Kozlowski, S., 2011. Organizational learning

and knowledge management, chapter 28 in Oxford

Handbook of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, New York, NY Oxford University Press.

Davenport, T., Prusak, L., 1997. Information Ecology:

Mastering the Information and Knowledge

Environment, Oxford University Press, 272 pages.

Davenport, T., 2005, Thinking for a living: How to get

better performance and results from knowledge

workers, Harvard Business School Press.

Dulle, F. W., Minishi-Majanja, M. K., 2011. The

suitability of the unified theory of acceptance and use

of technology (UTAUT) model in open access

adoption studies, Information Development; 27:1,

p.32-45.

Garfield, M. J., 2005. Acceptance of ubiquitous

computing, Information Systems Management, 22:4,

p.24-31.

Kautz, K., Mahnke, V., 2003. Value creation through IT-

supported knowledge management ? The utilization of

a knowledge management system in a global

consulting company, Informing Science, 6, p.75-88.

Knaw, M. M., Balasubramanian, P., 2003.

Knowledgescope: Managing kowledge in context,

Decision Support Systems, 35, p. 467-486.

Marchewka, J. T., Liu, C., Kostiwa, K., 2007. An

Application of the UTAUT Model for Understanding

Student Perceptions Using Course Management

Software, Communications of the IIMA, 7:2, p.93-104.

McAfee, A., 2006. Enterprise 2.0: The dawn of emergent

collaboration, Sloan Management Review, 47:3, 21-28.

Murugesan, S., 2007. Understanding Web 2.0, IT

Professional Magazine, 9:4, p.34

Schaper, L. K., Pervan, G. P., 2007. An investigation of

factors affecting technology acceptance and use

decisions by Australian allied health therapists. 40th

Hawaii International Conference on System Science.

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., Davis, F. D.,

2003. User acceptance of information technology:

Toward a unified view, MIS quarterly, 27:3, p.425-78.

Yates, D., Wagner, C., Majchrzak, A., 2010. Factors

affecting shapers of organizational wikis. Journal of

the American Society for Information Science and

Technology, 61:3, p.543-554.

KMIS2012-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing

284