隨著環境的劇烈變化與技術的發展，知識已成為公司獲取競爭優勢不可或缺的重要資產，因此，公司必須確保知識應用與發展在對的時間與對的地點。誠如彼得杜拉克所說：我們位處於後資本時代，知識成為最具意義的資產。知識與傳統資產的差異點在於，由於知識本身非實體資產，導致於知識難以被系統化的管理與發展，也正因如此，知識資產難以被競爭者仿效與學習，因而強化了公司自身的持續競爭優勢。而知識管理係指組織透過一連串的方法與工具，將知識資源利用最大化，提升價值與公司在財務與非財務上的表現。因此，知識管理的採用與發展成為公司獲取競爭優勢不可或缺的發展策略。
本研究採取權變的觀點來探討公司施行某一特定知識管理專案時，知識管理策略的執行對於員工認知、態度與行為意圖的影響。本研究討論的內容如下所示：(1) 探討知識管理策略實行時，對於員工心理層面的認知、態度與行為意圖之間相互影響關係。(2) 探討執行知識管理時，社會影響因素(social influence)對於員工的態度與行為意圖所產生的影響。(3) 以權變的觀點，探討公司內部在關愛(care)與焦慮(anxiety)的組織氣候下，知識管理策略與組織氣候的相互配適（fit）對於員工認知與態度產生之影響。
本研究之主要結論如下：
1.當組織氣候偏向關愛(care)情境時，公司採取以人為導向(human strategy)知識管理策略，會導致員工有較高的員工認知與態度；當組織氣候偏向焦慮(anxiety)情境時，公司採取以系統(system strategy)知識管理策略，會導致員工有較高的員工態度。
2.在社會影響因素(social influence)的三個因素中：內化、認同與順應。內化與認同會對於員工的態度與行為意圖產生較高且顯著的影響。
3.為了提高員工對於知識管理施行的態度與行為意圖，除了知識管理系統的建構，公司必須了解到人的因子、情緒因子與社會影響因素(social influence)之間的互動關係。只有當這三方面的因子都被仔細加以考量，知識管理策略得以更有效能地執行。

With the dynamic environment and the accelerating technological progress, knowledge has become one of the most important assets that can provide proprietary competitive advantages. For a firm to lead among competitors, it is important to ensure that the best corporate knowledge must be available and applied to the needs of clients and within the company in the right places, at the right times.
This study would take a contingency perspective to investigate the interrelationships among social influence, perceived usefulness, attitude and behavior intentions toward using of knowledge management program. The research issues are as follows: (1) To investigate the interrelationships among perceived usefulness, attitude and behavior intentions toward using of KM program; (2) To verify the impact of the fits between factors of knowledge management strategies and positive emotional approach (care) and the negative emotional approach (anxiety) on perceived usefulness, attitude toward using of KM program; (3) To explore the impact of factors of social influence on attitude and behavior intention toward using of KM program; and (4) To evaluate the overall goodness of fit of the conceptual model proposed in this study.
Through a series of expert interview and questionnaire survey, the study conclude the following results：
1.While there are significant relationships between attitude and behavior intention, perceived usefulness and attitude toward using of KM program, the contingency fit between human aspect of KM strategy and positive emotional approach (care) will lead to higher perceived usefulness and attitude toward using of KM program.
2.Among three major factors of social influences：internalization, identification and, internalization and identification will have higher significant influence on employees’ attitude and behavior intention toward using of KM program.
3.To promote employee’s attitude and behavior intention toward using KM program, firms need to be aware of the interactions of human factors, emotional factors, and social influence factors. It is only when these three aspects are considered that the KM program can work more effectively.

1. Adams, D. A., Nelson, R. R. and Todd, P. A. (1992), “Perceived usefulness, ease of use, and usage of information technology: a replication”, MIS Quarterly, 16, pp.227-247.
2. Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1999), “Are individual differences germane to the acceptance of new information technologies?” Decision Science, 30, pp.361-391.
3. Arbucle, J. L. and W. Youjae(1999), Amos 4.0 User's Guide, SmallWaters Corporation.
4. Badaracco, J. L. (1991), The Knowledge Link, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
5. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981), “Attitudes, intentions and behavior: a test of some key hypotheses”, Personality and Social Psychology, 41, pp.607-627.
6. Bagozzi, R. P. (1982), “A field investigation of causal relations among cognitions, affect, intentions and behavior”, Marketing Research, 19, pp.562-584.
7. Bang, H. K., Ellinger, A. E., Hadjimarcou, J. and Traichal, P. A. (2000), “Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: an application of the reasoned action theory”, Psychology and Marketing, 17, pp.449-468.
8. Barrett, G. V., Thornton, M. H., and Cabe, P. A. (1968), “Human factors evaluation of computer based storage and retrieval system”, Human Factors, 10, pp.431-436.
9. Bierly, P., and Chakrabarti, A. (1996), “Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry”, Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.123-135.
10. Bloodgood, J. M. and Salisbury, W. D. (2001), “Understanding the influence of organizational change strategies on information technology and knowledge management strategies”, Decision Support Systems, 31, pp.55-69.
11. Bock, G. W. and Kim, Y. G. (2002), “Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing”, Information Resources Management Journal, April- June, pp.14-21.
12. Bohn, R. (1994), “Measuring and managing technological knowledge”, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp.61-73.
13. Bowen, W. (1986), “The puny payoff from office computers”, Furtune, May 26, pp.20-24.
14. Carroll, J. M. and Thomas, J.C. (1988), “Fun”, SIGCHI Bulletin, 19, pp.21-24.
15. Cattell, R. B., and Scheier I. H. (1961) The Meaning and Measurement If Neuroticism and Anxiety, New York: Ronald Press.

16. Chin, W. W., and Gopal, A. (1995), “Adoption intention in GSS: relative importance of beliefs”, DATABASE, 26, pp.42-63.
17. Choi, B., and Lee, H. (2002), “Knowledge management strategy and its link to knowledge creation process”, Expert Systems with Application, 23, pp.173-187.
18. Davenport, T. H., Harris J. G., De Long, D. W. and Jacobson A. L. (2001), “Data to knowledge to results: building an analytic capability”, California management Review, 43, pp117-138.
19. David W. De Long and Liam Fahey (2000), “Diagnosing culture barriers to knowledge management”, Academy of Management Executive, 14, pp.13-127.
20. Davis, F. D. (1986), A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.
21. Davis, F. D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, MIS Quarterly, 13, pp.319-340.
22. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., and Warshaw, P. R. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of Two Theoretical Models”, Management Science, 35, pp.982-1003.
23. De Long, D. W. and Fahey, L. (2000), “Diagnosing culture barriers to knowledge management”, Academy of Management Executive, 14, pp.113-127.
24. Dewar, R., and Werbel, J. (1979), “Universalistic and contingency predictions of employee satisfaction and conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, pp.426-448.
25. Dilley, R. (1999), The Problem of Context, Berghahn Books, New York, NY.
26. Doll, W. J., Hendrickson, A., and Deng, X. “Using Davis's perceived usefulness and ease-of-use instruments for decision making: A confirmatory and multigroup invariance analysis”, Decision Science, 29, pp.839-869.
27. Drucker, P. (1993), Post- Capitalist Society, HarperCollins Publishers.
28. Earl, M. (2001), “Knowledge management strategies: toward a taxonomy”, Journal of Management Information System, 18, pp.215-233.
29. Erickson, F. and Schultz, J. (1997), “What is a context？ Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence”, In Cole, M. Engeström, Y. and Vasquez, O., Mind, Culture and Activity- Seminal Papers from the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.22-34.
30. Fernandez, I. B. and Sabherwal, R. (2001), “Organizational knowledge management：a contingency perspective”, Journal of Management system, 18, pp.23-55.
31. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison- Wesley.
32. Focault, M. (1972), The Care for the Self, New York, NY：Vintage Books.
33. Freud, S. (1936), The Problem of Anxiety, New York: Norton.
34. Gabriel, Y. and Griffiths, D. S. (2002), “Emotion, learning and organizing”, The Learning Organization, 9, pp.214-221.
35. Gefen, D. and Keil M. (1998), “The impact of developer responsiveness on perceptions of usefulness: an extension of the technology acceptance model”, The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems, spring, 29, NO.2, pp.35-49.
36. Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?” Harvard Business Review, March- April, pp.106-116.
37. Heidegger, M. (1962), Being and Time, San Francisco, CA: Harper.
38. Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
39. Igbaria, M., Guimaraes, T. and Davis, G. B. (1995), “Testing the determinants of microcomputer usage via a structural equation model”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 11, pp.87-114.
40. Igbaria, M., Parasuraman, S., and Baroudi, J. J. (1996), “Microcomputer usage”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 13, pp.127-143.
41. Jackson, C. M., Chow, S. and Leitch, R. A. (1997), “Toward an understanding of the behavioural intentions to use an information system”, Decision Sciences, 28, pp.357-389.
42. Jordan, J. and Jones, P. (1997), “Assessing your company’s knowledge management style”, Long Range Planning, 30(3), pp.392-398.
43. Joreskog, K. and D.Sorbom (1994), Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language, Chicago: Scientific Software International.
44. Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J. and Carrillo P.M. (2002), “A CLEVER approach to selecting a knowledge management strategy”, International Journal of Project Management, 20, pp.205-221.
45. Keil, M., Beranek, P. M. and Konsynski, B. R. (1995), “Usefulness and ease of use: field study evidence regarding task considerations”, Decision Support Systems, 13, pp.75-91.
46. Kelman, H. C. (1958), “Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, pp.51-60.
47. Krogh, G. V. (1998), “Care in knowledge creation”, California Management Review, 40, 3, pp.133-153.
48. Krogh, G. V. and Nonaka, I. (2000), Enabling Knowledge Creation, Oxford University Press.
49. Krough G.V., Nonaka I., and Aben M. (2001), “Making the most of your company’s knowledge: A strategic framework,” Long Range Planning, 34, pp.421-439.
50. Lazarus, R. S. (1967), Psychological Stress and the Coping Process, New York: McGraw- Hill.
51. Levy, D. M. and Marshall, C. C. (1995), “Going digital: a look at the assumptions underlying digital libraries”, Communications of the ACM, 38, pp.77-84.
52. Malhotra, Y. and Galletta D. F. (1999), “Extending the Technology Acceptance Model to account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation”, IEEE.
53. Malone, T. W. (1981), “Toward a theory of intrinsically motivating instruction”, Cognitive Science, 4, pp.333-369.
54. Martin, P. B. (2000), “Knowledge management within the context of management: an evolving relationship”, Singapore Management Review, pp.17-36.
55. Mathieson, K. (1991), “Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior”, Information Systems Research, 2, pp.173-191.
56. Mayeroff, M. (1971), On Caring, New York, NY: Harper and Row, p.1.
57. McDermott, R.P. (1976), “Kids make sense：an ethnographic account of the interactional management of success and failure in one first grade classroom”, Unpublished Dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
58. Moore, G. C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Adopting”, Information System Research, 2, pp.192-222.
59. Nonaka I., Toyama R. and Konno N. (2000), "SECI, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation”, Long Range Planning, 33, pp5-34.
60. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. and Nagata, A. (2000a), “A firm as a knowledge creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, No.1, pp.1-20.
61. O’Reilly, C., Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational commitment and psychology attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior”, Journal of Applied Journal, 71, pp.487-516.
62. Paul, J. H., Chau, Y. K., Sheng, R.L. and Tam, K. Y. (1999), “Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology”, Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, NO.2, pp.91-112.
63. Quinn, J.B. (1992), Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry, The Free Press.
64. Robbins, S.P. and Coulter, M. (2002), Management, Prentice-Hall International, 7th edition.
65. Roberts, P. and Henderson, R. (2000), “Information technology acceptance in a sample if government employees: a test of the technology acceptance model”, Interacting with Computers, 12, pp.427-443.
66. Ruggles, R. (1998), “The state of notion: knowledge management in practice”, California Management Review, 40(3), Spring, pp.80-89.
67. Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (1999), Case-Studies in Knowledge Management. IPD, London.
68. Schultz, R. L. and Slevin D. P. (1975), “Implementing operations research”, Management Science, American Elsevier, New York, pp.153-182.
69. Schulz, M and Jobe, L. A. (2001) , “Codification and tacitness as knowledge management strategies An empirical exploration”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12, pp.139-165.
70. Singh, H. and Zollo, M. (1998), “The impact of knowledge codification, experience trajectories and integration strategies on the performance of corporation acquisitions”, The Wharton School Working Paper, No.98-24.
71. Skyrme, D.J. and Amidon D.M. (1997), Creating the Knowledge- Based Business, London: Business Intelligence.
72. Snowden, D. (1999), “Liberating Knowledge”, In：Reeves J, editor. Liberating knowledge. London: Caspian Publishing, pp.6-19.
73. Soliman, F. and Spooner, K. (2000), “Strategies for implementing knowledge management：role of human resources management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 4 (4), p.337-378.
74. Swan, J., Newell, S., and Robertson, M. (2000), “Limits of IT- driven knowledge management for interactive innovation processes: towards a community-based approach”, Proceedings of 33rd HICSS.
75. Swanson, E. B. (1987), “Information channel disposition and use”, Decision Science, 21, pp.131-145.
76. Taylor, S. and Todd, P. A. (1995), “Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models”, Information Systems Research, 6:2, pp.144-176.
77. Terpstra, D. E. and Rozell, E. J. (1993), “The relationship of staffing practices to organizational level measures of performance”, Personnel Psychology, 46, pp.27-48.
78. Treandis, H. C. (1977), Interpersonal Behavior, Brooks/ Cole, Monterey, CA.
79. Vallacher, R. R. and Wegner D. M. (1985), A Theory of Action Identification, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1985.

80. Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model”, Information Systems Research, 11, pp.342-365.
81. Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. "Why don’t men ever stop ask for directions? Gende , social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior", MIS Quarterly, 24(1), pp115-139.
82. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F. (1996), “A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test”, Decision Sciences, 27, pp.451-481.
83. Venkatesh, V., and Davis, F.D. (2000) " A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies", Management Science, 46(2), pp.186-204.
84. Vigoda, Eran (2000), "Internal Politics in Public Administration Systems: An Empiricla Examination of its Relationship with Job Congruence, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and In-Role Performance," Public Personnel Management, Vol.29 (2), pp.185-210
85. Winnicott, D. W. (1964), The Child, the Family and the Outside World, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
86. Young, T. R. (1984), “The lonely micro”, Datamation (30:4), April, pp.100-114.
87. Zack, M. H. (1999), “Developing a knowledge strategy”, California Management Review, 41(3), pp.125-145.
88. Zack, M. H. (1999), “Managing codified knowledge”, Sloan Management Review, summer, pp.45-58.