論文摘要
本研究探討知識創造理論，認為不同的階段有不同的主體，如果一昧忽略執行知識管理的主體，只聚焦於研究知識活動的情形與變化，將失去知識管理的主導性與重要性，更遑論推論到實務上的應用。因此，本研究對於知識管理的探討重點在於組織與個人知識管理的關係驗證，為了避免探討「知識流」落入侷限在「資訊流」的誤導，本研究依主客體觀念分成個人與組織兩個構面，探討於組織與個人之知識管理為主題，研究在兩者的知識活動間，內隱與外顯知識轉換過程之移動脈絡，此一脈絡如何形成「知識流」循環，知識如何於知識流中產生、轉換或移動，據以確認知識流中組織與個人的主要知識管理活動。因此，本研究提出三個主要的研究問題，第一、假設知識管理活動內容包括「個人面」之『創造知識、運用知識及分享知識』，與「組織面」之『取得知識、融合知識及擴散知識』，研究組織知識管理是否與個人知識管理有正向關聯。第二、研究個人知識管理與工作績效的關聯，個人創造、應用與分享知識是否提高其工作績效表現，此「工作績效」內容包含『任務績效與脈絡績效』等次構面。最後，為使本研究更具完整性，能更具體地相關實務應用及理論發展，加入「組織文化知覺」（內容包含『創新型與支持型文化』等次構面）與「成長需求強度」作為重要情境變項效果，研究其與個人知識管理次構面之交互作用是否具有干擾效果。
本研究採用結構性問卷調查為研究工具，主要包含「組織知識管理」、「個人知識管理」、「工作績效」、「組織文化」與「個人成長需求強度」四個主題及「個人與企業基本資料」等部份。由於本研究重新以組織與個人兩構面將知識管理活動分類，並用知識流的方式討論知識型態轉變，目前相關的研究並無現成量表可用，因此本研究必須先行發展知識管理活動量表。本研究之知識管理量表目的旨在於瞭解組織內組織與個人知識管理活動之關係，是否符合文獻探討中動態知識流的推論，以及個人知識管理好壞影響工作績效的表現，推論組織與個人彼此為知識管理的一體兩面，假設彼此動態關聯，再分別對各個變項之次構面進行操作性定義，自行設計問卷題目之依據。為求自行研發量表測量效度良好，以專家效度進行控制，問卷草稿設計完成後尋求在產業界中公司有施行知識管理的三位實務專家，以及二位研究知識管理的學術專家，邀請其針對問卷題目提供寶貴實務經驗與學術論點，對於問卷做過數次修正與確認後終於完成問卷設計，計共發展出「組織知識管理」34題與「個人知識管理」29題，兩個構面各三個次構面，合計六個自變數共有63題。
研究結果得知，在個人知識管理活動中，對工作績效表現最直接的影響還是以分享知識為主，雖然學者專家與學術理論均一再強調創造知識與應用知識的重要性，但就本研究樣本解釋，實務上，組織之績效評核制度並未與知識管理最適當的連結，由此反證，實務上知識管理失敗的原因在於過於偏重知識管理輸出面的知識分享，忽略創造知識與應用知識的重要性，由於知識本身的特殊性，需透過在內隱與外顯知識知識的轉換過程，達到擴大化知識的目的，而且決不能忽視組織知識管理與個人知識管理的重點，應以改善工作為前提，知識管理才有效益可言。就情境效果影響的結果顯示員工組織文化知覺在知識管理相對工作績效上扮演重要的干擾效果，組織在推行知識管理的過程中，組織文化知覺的影響反應在員工的內在心理感受與外在行為表現之上，即為脈絡績效與任務績效的表現，從驗證研究假設得知「創新型文化知覺」程度越高，干擾「個人創造及分享知識」與「任務及脈絡績效」關聯效果越明顯，「支持型文化知覺」程度越高，干擾「個人應用及分享知識」與「任務及脈絡績效」關聯效果越明顯；另一方面，雖然「成長需求強度」對於「工作績效」的直接效果獲得支持，但顯示其與「個人創造及應用知識」的交互作用並沒有影響「任務或脈絡績效」表現。
本研究結果推論，組織知識管理與個人知識管理有正向關聯，惟兩者所應用的知識型態與知識管理的重點並不相同，因此，轉換知識的成功關鍵，在於個人與組織追求的目標是否一致，既使個人分享了無助於達成組織目標的知識，或組織整理了個人不感興趣的知識，都會造成知識流後段的運作窒礙難行，這其中需要以工作來連結。由驗證組織知識管理與個人知識管理之間的關聯，顯示組織在推行知識管理的過程中，應同時重視組織與個人的知識管理活動。知識由於本身的特殊性，需透過在內隱與外顯知識知識的轉換過程，達到擴大化知識的目的，而組織知識管理與個人知識管理的重點，應考量全面性知識管理，其中包含知識輸入、轉換與產出等過程，而不單純只在於「創造新知」。探討知識管理的推論至此應回歸管理的理論邏輯，公司是否進行創造知識或轉換知識，取決於該公司的策略定位與知識的型態。如果公司所處的環境並非錯綜複雜難以弄清的，不必然要花太多的資源在所謂的創造知識之上，或是說，組織如不涉及太多的不確定性或已有明確的know-how，嚐試創造新知不但無法提供競爭優勢，甚至可能消耗原本可利用來達到經濟規模的資源。因此，研究與組織競爭優勢的關聯，不單只是創造知識，應該考量整體的知識管理層面。
根據本研究結果，企業推行知識管理，需要同時重視組織與個人面的活動，從動態觀點著手，企業必須瞭解轉換知識能否產生效益的成功關鍵，在於個人知識管理與組織知識管理是否以工作與流程改善為共同標的，所以，既使個人分享了無助於達成組織目標的知識，或是組織彙整了無數個人不感興趣的知識，都將造成知識流的後段運作窒礙難行。此外，企業應創造鼓勵創新與支持改變的企業文化環境才能落實員工將知識管理當成一種習慣，企業也應主動將內部的核心員工培育為知識工作者。企業不能光是靠建立昂貴的知識平台就期望回收龐大的知識資產效益，或是光思索著如何激勵員工分享知識就能將知識資源擴大化，企業推行知識管理應經由對各部門與各工作流程進行持續改善，與工作績效連結，才能與組織目標連結，才能累積成組織競爭優勢。

Abstract
Intangible resources are the sources of competitive advantage in the knowledge economy. Knowledge management (KM) is popular within the businesses. With increasing investment in KM projects, companies are looking forward to find better ways to obtain the competitive advantage. KM literature also highlights the fact that the achievement of sustained competitive advantage depends on its knowledge-based resources. Even though many people believe that technology is the main driving force of transformation. In fact, technology merely brings superficial change or allows people to perform routine jobs fasters. In this sense, the objective of research on knowledge management should not overlook the fact that an enterprise is operated by many official and unofficial units, which are formed by people. The discussion on knowledge management should be focused on people as the subject.
This thesis restudy Nonaka’s SECI model of knowledge creation and its constraints, we revisit the fundamental points of tacit knowledge in the model and provide a critical review on the role for business organization. First, in the discussion of knowledge creation, this study argues that the capabilitie of knowledge creating is the most important source for firms to get competitive advantage. Based on the literature on KM, we thought the competitive advantages come from continue improvement in business, and the ideas of improve are from Km of both organization and individual. So, the total KM is complete explain for getting competitive advantage than only knowledge creation. Secondly, we review the situation of the SECI model fit the business current KM project, and develop a framework to assess the relationship of KM activities between organization and individual. Focuses on verifying the relationship between the organization and individual knowledge management. The framework uses a set of key KM activities by IPO model as lead indicators within KM flow. To prevent the discussion of “knowledge” limited to “technology”, this study is based on the objective and subjective opinions to discuss the shift context of the tacit and explicit knowledge. The formation of the knowledge cycle based on this context, the generation, transformation and shift of knowledge from the knowledge cycle. The organizational KM activities include acquiring, re-engineering and extending. The personal KM activities include creating, application and sharing.
The results show that organizational knowledge management has positive correlation with individual knowledge management, but the knowledge type and focus of the knowledge management differ. Therefore, the key of successful knowledge transformation is to keep the individual and organizational goal consistent. The organizational and individual knowledge management should both focus on improving the work. The scenario interference results show that employees’ perception of organizational culture has significant interference effect on work performance due to knowledge management. During the knowledge management promotion process, the organizational culture perception is reflected on the mental perception and behaviors of the employees, thus, the context performance and task performance. As verified by research hypotheses, higher “perception of innovative culture” leads to more obvious interference to “individual creation and sharing of knowledge” and “task and context performance”. Higher “perception of supportive culture” leads to more obvious interference to “individual utilization and sharing of knowledge” and “task and context performance”. On the other hand, though the direct effects of “growth need strength” on “Job performance” has been supported, it shows that its reciprocal interaction with “individual creation and sharing of knowledge” has no effect on “task and context performance”.

目 錄
頁 次
第一章 緒論 01
第一節 研究背景與動機 01
第二節 研究目的 03
第二章 文獻探討與假設推論 04
第一節 知識管理 04
第二節 兩構面知識流 17
第三節 工作績效 29
第四節 個人知識管理與工作績效的情境變數 33
第三章 研究設計 38
第一節 觀念性架構 38
第二節 研究架構 39
第三節 變項操作性定義與研究量表 40
第四節 研究對象、抽樣與問卷回收 43
第五節 資料分析方法 46
第四章 結果分析 48
第一節 知識管理量表之驗證性因素分析 48
第二節 人口統計變項與依變項之關係 52
第三節 研究變項描述性統計與信度分析 56
第四節 個人知識管理與工作績效之迴歸分析 60
第五章 結論與研究限制 70
第一節 結論 70
第二節 研究限制 71
第三節 建議 72
參考文獻 74
一、中文部份 74
二、英文部分 75
附錄一 主管自評問卷 80
附錄二 主管評量部屬問卷 82
附錄三 部屬自評問卷 84

參考文獻
一、 中文部份
王誕生、徐其力（2003）組織文化與知識分享動機對知識分享之影響研究。中山管理評論，秋季號，第十一卷第三期：409-431。
知識經濟時代（齊思賢譯）（2000）。台北：時報文化。（原著出版年：1990）
知識管理：理論．評估．應用（劉常勇、李書正合譯）（2002）。台北：美商麥格羅．希爾。（原著出版年：2001）
余德成（1996）品質管理人性面系統因素對工作績效之影響。國立中山大學企業管理研究所博士論文，未出版，高雄。
邱正瀚（2002）企業知識管理架構通用模式之初期探討研究。國立台灣大學工業工程學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北。
吳秉恩（1986）組織行為學。台北：華泰書局。
林東清（2003）知識管理。台北：智勝文化。
林澄貴（2001）知識管理、工程專業人員核心能力與工作績效關係之研究∼以中鋼公司為例。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄。
林燦螢（2001）智慧資本發展模式之研究。國立台灣師範大學工業教育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北。
黃良志（2004）多國際企業子公司知識管理與人力資源管理機制之研究，第二屆「海峽兩岸組織行為與人才開發」學術研討會，高雄第二場。
黃英忠（1997）人力資源管理。台北：三民書局。
黃英忠（2001）現代管理學（四版）。台北：華泰書局。
溫金豐（2001）新進管理碩士的組織調適：組織社會化實務、工作經驗及成長需求強度的效應。人力資源管理學報，秋季號，第一卷第二期：039-056。


二、 英文部分
Alavi, M. & Gallupe, R. B. (2003). Using Information Technology in Learning: Case Studies in Business and Management Education Programs. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(2), 139-153.
Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Al-hawari, M. & Hasan, H. (2002). Evaluating the knowledge assets of innovative companies. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 10(1), 88-99.
Argote, L., Beckman, S. & Epple, D. (1990). The Persistence and Transfer of Learning in Industrial Settings. Management Science, 36, 1750-1763.
Barley, S., Meyer, G. & Gash, D. (1988). Cultures of culture. Academics, practitioners, and the pragmatics of normative control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 24-60.
Barton, L. D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Beijerse, R. P. (2000). Knowledge management in small and medium-sized companies: knowledge management for entrepreneurs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 162-179.
Borman, W. C. & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Personnel Selection in Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J. & Nobel, R. (1999). Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies, Third Quarter 30(3), 439-462.
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90-111.
Campbell, J. P. (1970). Managerial Behavior Performance and Effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill.
Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Chauvel, D. & Despres, C. (2002). A review of survey research in knowledge management: 1997-2001. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(3), 207-223.
Cook, S. D. N. & Yanow, D. (1993). Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2(4), 373-390.
Couger, J. D. (1988). Motivators vs. Demotivators in the IS Environment. Journal of Systems Management, 39(6), 36-41.
Darr, E. D., Argote, L. & Epple, D. (1995). The Acquisition, Transfer and Depreciation of Knowledge in Service Organizations: Productivity in Franchises. Management Science, November 41(11), 1750-1613.
Davenport, T. H., David, W. D. L. & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects, Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.
Davenport, T. H. & Grover, V. (2001). Special Issue: Knowledge Management. Journal of Management Information System, 18(1), 3-4.
Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, T. H., Thomas R. J. & Cantrell, S. (2002). The Mysterious Art and Science of Knowledge-Worker Performance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(1), 23-30.
DeTienne, K. B., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C. & Harris, S. (2004). Toward a Model of Effective Knowledge Management and Directions for Future Research: Culture, Leadership, and CKOs. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 10(4), 26-43.
Del-Rey-Chamorro, F. M., Roy, R., Wegen, B. & Steele, A. (2003). A framework to create key performance indicators for knowledge management solutions. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(2), 46-62.
Demsetz, H. (1991). The Theory of the Firm Revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Fahey, L. & Prusak, L. (1998). The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-276.
Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing complex organizations. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gamble, P. R. & Blackwell, J. (2001). Knowledge Management: A State of the Art Guide. London: Kogan-page.
Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue (17), 109-122.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159-170.
Hackman, J. R. & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work Design. MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hammer, M., Leonard, D. & Davenport, T. (2004). Why Don’t We Know More About Knowledge? MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 14-18.
Harem, T., Krogh, G. & Roos, J. (1996). Managing knowledge: Perspectives on cooperation and competition. London: SAGE Publications.
Hasan, H. & Al-hawari, M. (2003). Management styles and performance: acknowledge space framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4), 15-28.
Hendriks, P. (1999). Why Share knowledge? The Influence of ICT on the Motivation for Knowledge Sharing. Knowledge and Process Management, June 6(2), 91-100.
Housel T. & Bell, A. H. (2001). Measuring and Managing Knowledge. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kalling, T. (2003). Knowledge management and the occasional links with performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 67-81.
Martin, B. (2000). Knowledge management within the context of management: An evolving relationship. Singapore Management Review, 22(2), 17-36.
Meng, L. & Fei, G, (2003). Why Nonaka highlights tacit knowledge: A critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4), 6-14.
Motowidlo S. J. & Scotter, J. R. V. 1994. Evidence That Task Performance Should Be Distinguished From Contextual Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 475-480.
Natarajan, G. & Shekhar, S. (2000). Knowledge Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, March 9(1), 1-20.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, 33, 5-34.
Nonaka, I. & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 2-10.
O’Dell, C., Grayson, C. J. & Essaides, N. (1998). If only We Knew What We Know: The Transfer of Internal Knowledge and Best Practice. New York: The Free Press.
O’Reilly Ⅲ, C. A. (1989). Corporations, culture, and commitment Motivation and social control in organizations. California Management Review, 31(4), 9-25.
O’Reilly Ⅲ, C. A., Chatman, J. & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and Organizational Culture: A Profile Comparison Approach to Assessing Person-Organization Fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487-516.
Pentland, B. T. (1995). Information Systems and Organizational Learning: The Social Epistemology of Organizational Knowledge Systems. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 5(1), 1-21.
Perez, J. R. & Pablos, P. O. (2003). Knowledge management and organizational competitiveness: A framework for human capital analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 82-91.
Pfeffer, J. & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge into Action. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Polanyi, M. (1983). The Tacit Dimension. Gloucester: Mass. Peter Smith Reprinted.
Quintas, P. & Lefrere, P. & Jones, G. (1997). Knowledge Management: a Strategic Agenda. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 385-391.
Robbins, S. P. (1993). Organization Behavior. (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Roberts, B. (2000). Pick Employees' Brains. HR Magazine, February 45(2), 115-120.
Sathe, V. (1983). Implications of Corporate Culture: The Manager’s Guide to Action. Organizational Dynamics, 5-23.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Three Cultures of Management: The key to Organizational Learning. Sloan Management Review, 9-20.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 229-240.
Schein, E. H. (2003). On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning. Reflections, 4(4), 27-38.
Schermerhorm, J. R. (1989). Management for Productivity. (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Schulz, M. (2001). The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 661-681.
Senge, P. (1999). Sharing Knowledge. Executive Excellence, Sep. 16(9), 6-7.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(winter special issue), 27-43.
Ven, V. D., A. H., Delbecq, A. L., & Koemig, R. (1976). Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 41, 322-338.
Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and Organizations: The Cultural Match. Training and Development Journal, 37(2), 29-36.
Zack, M. H. (1999). Managing Codified Knowledge. Sloan Management Review, 40(4), 45-58.