![](bg8.png)
tendency to share knowledge decreases when it is per-
ceived that they are receiving irrelevant or not so use-
ful information from other members.
The application of TPB also led to some impor-
tant observation in this study. The probability of the
participation in eCoP is significantly increased if the
organization encourages the employee to participate
in the knowledge sharing activities. Typically, eCoP
needs information technology capabilities to establish
knowledge sharing process. The presence of the nec-
essary resources (in the form of platform, and service)
also enables the ISPs to participate in eCoP.
7 RESEARCH LIMITATION AND
FUTURE WORK
The response that we received from 48 participants
provides an initial insight into understanding the cur-
rent status of participation in electronic communities
of practice by ISPs in Norway. However, the findings
cannot be generalized to a large population because
of the small sample size of the respondents. Hence,
more studies are needed to generalize present study
findings. Furthermore, we collected the data from the
participants who volunteered for it. It signifies that
the response is collected from the people who had
enough time and interest to complete the survey. The
result might have differed if we had selected the par-
ticipants randomly. The future research will address
this issue by targeting large respondents and selecting
a random sample from it.
In our study, we mainly tried to understand the
preference of the members who are going to share
their knowledge. The receiver’s perspective is also
important in the context of knowledge sharing task.
Future research will aim to address this issue by col-
lecting the perspective of both the parties. It will help
to compare their preference and design the incentive
scheme along with the sharing model. The use of cat-
egorical variables in the logistic regression model can
also cause some issues. Therefore, we are investigat-
ing the possibility of adopting a linear scale in the fu-
ture data collection events.
REFERENCES
Agrawal, V. (2017). A survey on information sharing prac-
tices. www.unrizk.org/survey/index.php/766876. On-
line; accessed 06 September 2017.
Agrawal, V. and Snekkenes, E. A. (2017). An investiga-
tion of knowledge sharing behaviors of students on an
online community of practice. In Proceedings of the
5th International Conference on Information and Ed-
ucation Technology, ICIET ’17, pages 106–111, New
York, NY, USA. ACM.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Or-
ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-
cesses, 50(2):179 – 211. Theories of Cognitive Self-
Regulation.
Ardichvili, A., Page, V., and Wentling, T. (2002). Virtual
knowledge-sharing communities of practice at cater-
pillar: Success factors and barriers. Performance Im-
provement Quarterly, 15(3):94–113.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning
and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view
of working, learning, and innovation. Organization
science, 2(1):40–57.
Brownstone, D., Bunch, D. S., and Train, K. (2000). Joint
mixed logit models of stated and revealed preferences
for alternative-fuel vehicles. Transportation Research
Part B: Methodological, 34(5):315 – 338.
Christensen, P. H. (2007). Knowledge sharing: moving
away from the obsession with best practices. Journal
of Knowledge Management, 11(1):36–47.
Fenz, S., Parkin, S., and v. Moorsel, A. (2011). A commu-
nity knowledge base for it security. IT Professional,
13(3):24–30.
Frey, B. S. and Osterloh, M. (2001). Successful manage-
ment by motivation: Balancing intrinsic and extrinsic
incentives. Springer Science & Business Media.
Gagn, M. (2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motiva-
tion. Human Resource Management, 48(4):571–589.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., and Straub, D. (2003). Trust
and tam in online shopping: An integrated model.
MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems,
27(1):51–90. cited By 2452.
Ho, K., Jarvis-Selinger, S., Norman, C. D., Li, L. C.,
Olatunbosun, T., Cressman, C., and Nguyen, A.
(2010). Electronic communities of practice: guide-
lines from a project. Journal of Continuing Education
in the Health Professions, 30(2):139–143.
Iversen, E. (2013). Norwegian small and medium-sized en-
terprises and the intellectual property rights system:
exploration and analysis.
Jeon, S., Kim, Y.-G., and Koh, J. (2011). An integrative
model for knowledge sharing in communitiesofprac-
tice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2):251–
269.
Johnson, C. M. (2001). A survey of current research on on-
line communities of practice. The Internet and Higher
Education, 4(1):45 – 60.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legiti-
mate peripheral participation. Cambridge university
press.
Liedtka, J. (1999). Linking competitive advantage with
communities of practice. Journal of Management In-
quiry, 8(1):5–16.
Little, R. J. (1978). Generalized Linear Models for Cross-
classified Data from the WFS. World Fertility Survey,
International Statistical Institute.
Locke, E. A. and Latham, G. P. (2004). What should we
do about motivation theory? six recommendations for