Abstract
Extending the social exchange theory which emphasizes trust and dependence as important in building and maintaining relationships, exchange specific characteristics (relationship investments and benefits) are additionally posited here as critical antecedents in knowledge sharing relationship among IT service team members, along with partner characteristics (expertise and value similarity) and interaction (communication frequency). An instrument was constructed and administered against client side project leaders in three different IT service firms. Analyses of 126 data points revealed that relationship benefit, investments, and expertise are strongly associated with dependence while relationship investment, expertise and value similarity are strongly associated with trust in IT service relationship. Findings confirm that the exchange characteristics suggested by the social exchange theory plays important roles in building and maintaining dependence in IT service relationships and, in turn, towards building trust for knowledge sharing, but only indirectly via dependence. Also, paths from dependence to trust and knowledge sharing are confirmed as suggested by previous studies. Results implies that the benefits and investments for and in IT service relationship needs to be cultivated, exposed and emphasized in order to increase the necessary knowledge sharing levels. Limitations of the study are discussed with suggestions for further studies into social exchange characteristics in the conclusion.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Tiwana A, McLean ER (2005) Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. J Manag Inf Syst 22:13–43
Xia W, Lee G (2004) Grasping the complexity of IS development projects. Commun ACM 47:68–74
Pee LG, Kankanhalli A, Kim H-W (2010) Knowledge sharing in information systems development: a social interdependence perspective. J Assoc Inf Syst 11:550–575
Hewett K, Bearden WO (2001) Dependence, trust, and relational behavior on the part of foreign subsidiary marketing operations: implications for managing global marketing operations. J Mark 65:51–66
Xu Q, Ma Q (2008) Determinants of ERP implementation knowledge transfer. Inf Manag 45:528–539
Ganesan S (1994) Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer–seller relationships. J Mark 58:1–19
Razzaque MA, Tan Gay Boon MA (2003) Effects of dependence and trust on channel satisfaction, commitment and cooperation. J Bus Bus Mark 10:23–48
Sezen B, Yilmaz C (2007) Relative effects of dependence and trust on flexibility, information exchange, and solidarity in marketing channels. J Bus Ind Mark 22:41–51
Nelson KM, Cooprider JG (1996) The contribution of shared knowledge to is group performance. MIS Q 20:409–432
Kotlarsky J, Oshri H (2005) Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. Eur J Inf Syst 14:37–48
Sarker S, Nicholson DB, Joshi KD (2005) Knowledge transfer in virtual systems development teams: an exploratory study of four key enablers. Prof Commun IEEE Trans 48:201–218
Ko D-G, Kirsch LJ, King WR (2005) Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to clients in enterprise system implementations. MIS Q 29:59–85
Chiu C-M, Hsu M-H, Wang RTG (2006) Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis Support Syst 42:1872–1888
Jones MC, Cline M, Ryan S (2006) Exploring knowledge sharing in ERP implementation: an organizational culture framework. Decis Support Syst 41:411–434
Mooradian T, Renzl B, Matzler K (2006) Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Manag Learn 37:523–540
Joshi KD, Sarker S, Sarker S (2007) Knowledge transfer within information systems development teams: examining the role of knowledge source attributes. Decis Support Syst 43:322–335
Yang S-C, Farn C-K (2009) Social capital, behavioural control, and tacit knowledge sharing—a multi-informant design. Int J Inf Manage 29:9
Yuan M, Zhang X, Chen Z, Vogel DR, Chu X (2009) Antecedents of coordination effectiveness of software developer dyads from interacting teams: an empirical investigation. Eng Manag IEEE Trans 56:494–507
Lin T-C, Huang C-C (2010) Withholding effort in knowledge contribution: the role of social exchange and social cognitive on project teams. Inf Manag 47:188–196
March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87
Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organ Sci 2:88–115
Fey CF, Furu P (2008) Top management incentive compensation and knowledge sharing in multinational corporations. Strateg Manag J 29:1301–1323
Ke W, Wei KK (2007) Factors affecting trading partners’ knowledge sharing: using the lens of transaction cost economics and socio-political theories. Electron Commer Res Appl 6:297–308
Pan SL, Leidner DE (2003) Bridging communities of practice with information technology in pursuit of global knowledge sharing. J Strateg Inf Syst 12:71–88
Del Rosso C (2009) Comprehend and analyze knowledge networks to improve software evolution. J Softw Maint Evol Res Pract 21:189–215
Hendriks P (1999) Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowl Process Manag 6:91–100
Davenport TH, De Long DW, Beers MC (1998) Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Manage Rev 39(2):43–57
Bock G-W, Zmud RW, Kim Y-G, Lee J-N (2005) Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivatiors. Soc Psychol Forces Organ Clim MIS Q 29:87–112
Ryu S, Ho SH, Han I (2003) Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Syst Appl 25:113–123
Faraj S, Sproull L (2000) Coordinating expertise in software development teams. Manage Sci 46:1554
Bendapudi N, Berry LL (1997) Customers’ motivations for maintaining relationships with service providers. J Retail 73:15–37
Yilmaz C, Sezen B, Ozdemir O (2005) Joint and interactive effects of trust and (inter) dependence on relational behaviors in long-term channel dyads. Ind Mark Manage 34:235–248
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J Mark Res 18:382–388
Pan SL, Newell S, Huang J, Galliers RD (2007) Overcoming knowledge management challenges during ERP implementation: the need to integrate and share different types of knowledge. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 58:404–419
Vandaie R (2008) The role of organizational knowledge management in successful ERP implementation projects. Knowl Based Syst 21:920–926
Lawson B, Petersen KJ, Cousins PD, Handfield RB (2009) Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product development teams: the effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms*. J Prod Innov Manage 26:156–172
Yang Z, Peterson RT (2004) Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: the role of switching costs. Psychol Mark 21:799–822
Staples DS, Webster J (2008) Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Inf Syst J 18:617–640
Lander MC, Purvis RL, McCray GE, Leigh W (2004) Trust-building mechanisms utilized in outsourced IS development projects: a case study. Inf Manag 41:509–528
Renzl B (2008) Trust in management and knowledge sharing: the mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega 36:206–220
Kanawattanachai P, Yoo Y (2007) The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Q 31:783
Maurer I (2010) How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: the impact of project staffing and project rewards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition and product innovation. Int J Project Manage 28:629–637
Rusbult CE, Van Lange PAM (1996) Interdependence processes. Social psychology: handbook of basic principles. In: Tory E, Kruglanski AW (eds) Social psychology: handbook of basic principles. PressHiggins, New York, pp 564–596
Van der Vegt GS, Van de Vliert E (2005) Effects of perceived skill dissimilarity and task interdependence on helping in work teams. J Manag 31:73–89
Wells CV, Kipnis D (2001) Trust, dependency, and control in the contemporary organization. J Bus Psychol 15:593–603
Andaleeb SS (1996) An experimental investigation of satisfaction and commitment in marketing channels: the role of trust and dependence. J Retail 72:77–93
Wicks AC, Berman SL, Jones TM (1999) The structure of optimal trust: moral and strategic implications. Acad Manag Rev 24:99–116
Grant RM, Baden-Fuller C (2004) A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. J Manage Stud 41:61–84
Sweeney JC, Webb D (2002) Relationship benefits: an exploration of buyer–supplier dyads. J Relat Mark 1:77
Vázquez-Carrasco R, Foxall GR (2006) Positive vs. negative switching barriers: the influence of service consumers’ need for variety. J Consum Behav 5:367–379
Morgan RM, Hunt SD (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. J Mark 58:20–38
Lewandowski J, Rosenberg BD, Parks MJ, Siegel JT (2011) The effect of informal social support: face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication. Comput Hum Behav 27:1806–1814
Rodríguez NG, Pérez MJS, Gutiérrez JAT (2008) Can a good organizational climate compensate for a lack of top management commitment to new product development? J Bus Res 61:118–131
Palmatier RW, Scheer LK, Houston MB, Evans KR, Gopalakrishna S (2007) Use of relationship marketing programs in building customer–salesperson and customer–firm relationships: differential influences on financial outcomes. Int J Res Mark 24:210–223
Palmatier RW, Gopalakrishna S, Houston MB (2006) Returns on business-to-business relationship marketing investments: strategies for leveraging profits. Mark Sci 25:477–493
Goo J, Kishore R, Rao HR, Nam K (2009) The role of service level agreements in relational management of information technology outsourcing: an empirical study. MIS Q 33:119–145
Zeithaml VA, Berry LL, Parasuraman A (1996) The behavioral consequences of service quality. J Mark 60:16
Doney PM, Cannon JP (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relationships. J Mark 61:35–51
Chiu H-C, Hsieh Y-C, Li Y-C, Lee M (2005) Relationship marketing and consumer switching behavior. J Bus Res 58:1681–1689
Palmatier RW, Dant RP, Grewal D (2007) A comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance. J Mark 71:172–194
Jones MA, Reynolds KE, Mothersbaugh DL, Beatty SE (2007) The positive and negative effects of switching costs on relational outcomes. J Serv Res 9:335–355
Belonax JJJ, Newell SJ, Plank RE (2007) The role of purchase importance on buyer perceptions of the trust and expertise components of supplier and salesperson credibility in business-to-business relationships. J Pers Sell Sales Manag 27:247–258
Wang ETG, Lin CC-L, Jiang JJ, Klein G (2007) Improving enterprise resource planning (ERP) fit to organizational process through knowledge transfer. Int J Inf Manag 27:200–212
Palmatier RW, Dant RP, Grewal D, Evans KR (2006) Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. J Mark 70:136–153
Celly KS, Frazier GL (1996) Outcome-based and behavior-based coordination efforts in channel relationships. J Mark Res 33:200–210
Scheer L, Miao C, Garrett J (2010) The effects of supplier capabilities on industrial customers’ loyalty: the role of dependence. J Acad Mark Sci 38:90–104
Moorman C, Deshpande R, Zaltman G (1993) Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. J Mark 57:81–101
Spake DF, Megehee CM (2010) Consumer sociability and service provider expertise influence on service relationship success. J Serv Mark 24:314–324
Ming-Tien T, Chao-Wei C, Cheng-Chung C (2010) The effect of trust belief and salesperson’s expertise on consumer’s intention to purchase nutraceuticals: applying the theory of reasoned action. Soc Behav Personal Int J 38:273–287
Thong JYL, Yap C-S (1994) Engagement of external expertise in information systems implementation. J Manag Inf Syst 11:209–231
Johnson D, Grayson K (2005) Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. J Bus Res 58:8
Darr ED, Kurtzberg TR (2000) An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82:28–44
Nicholson C, Compeau L, Sethi R (2001) The role of interpersonal liking in building trust in long-term channel relationships. J Acad Mark Sci 29:3–15
Ring P, Van de Ven A (1994) Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad Manag Rev 19:90–118
Robson MJ, Katsikeas CS, Bello DC (2008) Drivers and performance outcomes of trust in international strategic alliances: the role of organizational complexity. Organ Sci 19:647–665
Gefen D (2004) What makes an ERP implementation relationship worthwhile: linking trust mechanisms and ERP usefulness. J Manag Inf Syst 21:263–288
Fisher RJ, Maltz E, Jaworski BJ (1997) Enhancing communication between marketing and engineering: the moderating role of relative funcational identification. J Mark 61:54–70
Hartwick J, Barki H (2001) Communication as a dimension of user participation. Prof Commun IEEE Trans 44:21–36
Mitręga M, Katrichis JM (2010) Benefiting from dedication and constraint in buyer–seller relationships. Ind Mark Manage 39:616–624
Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Strandford University Press, Strandford
de Ruyter K, Moorman L, Lemmink J (2001) Antecedents of commitment and trust in customer-supplier relationships in high technology markets. Ind Mark Manage 30:271–286
Anderson JC, Narus JA (1990) A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. J Mark 54:42–58
Becerra-Fernandez I, Sabherwal R (2001) Organizational knowledge management: a contingency perspective. J Manag Inf Syst 18:23–55
Park J-G, Lee J (2014) Knowledge sharing in information systems development projects: explicating the role of dependence and trust. Int J Project Manage 32:153–165
Reynolds KE, Beatty SE (1999) Customer benefits and company consequences of customer–salesperson relationships in retailing. J Retail 75:11–32
De Kristof W, Gaby O-S, Iacobucci D (2001) Investments in consumer relationships: a cross-country and cross-industry exploration. J Mark 65:33–50
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903
Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 14:396–402
Gefen D, Straub DW, Boudreau M-C (2000) Structural equation modeling and regression: guidelines for research practice. Commun AIS 4:1–79
Barclay C, Osei-Bryson K-M (2009) Toward a more practical approach to evaluating programs: the multi-objective realization approach. Project Manag J 40:74–93
Hair J Jr, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W (1995) Multivariate data analysis: with readings. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River
Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA (ed) Methodology for business and management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, pp 295–336
Massey GR, Kyriazis E (2007) Interpersonal trust between marketing and R&D during new product development projects. Eur J Mark 41:1146–1172
Park J, Lee J, Lee H, Truex D (2012) Exploring the impact of communication effectiveness on service quality, trust and relationship commitment in IT services. Int J Inf Manage 32:459–468
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2012S1A3A2033474).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Measurement items
Appendix: Measurement items
Expertise—Spake and Megehee [68]
-
1.
My partner has specialized knowledge.
-
2.
My partner has extensive, broad knowledge.
-
3.
My partner is experienced in solving problems like mine.
-
4.
My partner contributes expertise and experience in executing the IS Project.
Relationship benefits—Sweeney and Webb [49] and Reynolds and Beatty [85]
-
1.
I value very highly of the convenience my partner provides to me.
-
2.
I value very highly of the time-saving my partner provides to me.
-
3.
I benefit from advices my partner gives to me.
-
4.
I make better decisions because of my partner.
-
5.
I enjoy spending time with my partner.
-
6.
I have more than just a formal business relationship with my partner.
Relationship Investment—Kristof De et al. [86]
-
1.
My partner makes efforts to increase my loyalty.
-
2.
My partner makes various efforts to improve the tie with me.
-
3.
My partner really cares about relating with me.
Similarity of project value—Nicholson et al. [73]
-
1.
My partner and I share the same basic project values.
-
2.
My partner and I agree about how to manage the projects.
-
3.
My partner and I think alike about how to manage the projects.
-
4.
I think that my perception of project value is similar to that of my partner’s.
Communication frequency—Massey and Kyriazis [93]
-
1.
Electronic mail
-
2.
Scheduled one-to-one meetings (face-to-face)
-
3.
Informal face-to-face conversations in a non-work setting (e.g. after-work drinks, barbeques)
Trust—Park et al. [94]
-
1.
My partner is open and honest when problems occur.
-
2.
My partner helps me make critical decisions.
-
3.
My partner is always willing to provide assistance.
-
4.
My partner is always sincere.
-
5.
My partner would be trusted completely.
Dependence—Yilmaz et al. [32]
-
1.
My partner is important to our IS Project.
-
2.
My partner is crucial to our overall IS performance.
-
3.
It would be costly to lose my partner.
Knowledge Sharing—Bock et al. [28]
-
1.
We share the minutes of meetings or discussion records in an effective way.
-
2.
We always provide technical documents, including manuals, books, training materials to each other.
-
3.
We share project plans, project status in an effective way.
-
4.
We always provide know-where or know-whom information to each other in an effective way.
-
5.
We try to share expertise from education or training in an effective way.
-
6.
We always share experience or know-how from work in a responsive and effective way.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, JG., Lee, H. & Lee, J. Applying social exchange theory in IT service relationships: exploring roles of exchange characteristics in knowledge sharing. Inf Technol Manag 16, 193–206 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0220-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0220-x