臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

由於中國和全球經濟成長趨緩，金融海嘯後又發生歐債影響，近期美國為救市場景氣，不斷採取QE量化寬鬆印鈔救市，而歐洲也為歐債危機救市，市場上雖然有資金堆砌而成的行情上漲，使得表面上景氣復甦基本面好轉，但在各國貨幣和匯率競貶進行下，正醞釀著通貨膨脹與物價上漲的現象，可是大多數個人的薪資卻停滯、而且起薪只有22K，未能同步調漲甚或衰退，因此實際上的國內消費市場與購買力仍屬低迷，就業市場也不見起色的大幅好轉，下一個泡沫還有可能發生在新興市場，顯示各國在面對世界經貿和貨幣大戰中，若未能妥善完整考量振興策略、因應方式，不論是個人或家庭或各公司產業機構和產業鏈無法全方位的整合者，最終勢必衰退被潮流的考驗或打擊所淹沒。
面對如此景氣，加上台灣整體社會環境的改變、十二年國教的實施、扶養比例和工作壓力的上升以及對未來的不確定性…等複雜因素，造成不婚、不生、或晚婚等生育率下降之少子化現象嚴重。過去以升學或技職升學為主要目的、經營方向和策略的補教業，是否因評鑑標準和價值觀的轉變，而面臨到更大的轉型危機或轉機。以往必須投入高成本僱用大量補教員工與增加靜態廣告效益的面向，也勢必要有所改變。除了精簡員工外，就是透過各種合作、溝通、分享的方式及尋求降低成本的行銷通路和差異化經營模式。例如：透過運用各種培育訓練課程，把不同科目的老師或職位員工彼此藉由溝通合作、分享技巧經驗，掌控管理價值，強化信任關係和承諾，達成人力資源全方位、多功能、發揮價值最大化的有效運用。創新、創造出最具適應力的管理模式，若再能配合靈活運用：視訊傳輸、遠距、線上教學、教補課預複習系統與RFID、POS、NFC等的教學、教務、行政、執行的科技化，擴大突破區域性的學習限制，相信更能增加核心競爭能力，而且可以降低員工流動再訓練的各種成本風險之經營策略。
本研究是以補教業(含補教業的資方，即含負責人、班主任、資深老師)與員工(新進員工)之間為研究標的，根據Morgan ＆ Hunt(1994)提出的KMV(key mediating variables)模型，以信任-關係承諾為主要的中介變數，並進一步探討前置變數(分享價值、溝通)、結果變數(知識分享意圖)和信任關係承諾理論之間的關係及影響，驗證在補教業的員工中，「信任關係承諾」理論模型是否適用。
本研究將以問卷調查的方式，以台灣補教業、員工為研究對象，並利用SPSS軟體進行敍述性統計分析、信度分析、單因子變異數分析與迴歸分析等研究方法，進行本研究。
經分析結果得出以下結論：
一、KMV模型前置變數(分享價值、溝通)對補教業與員工之間的關係承諾具顯著正向關係。
二、KMV模型前置變數(分享價值、溝通)對補教業與員工之間相互信任具顯著正向關係。
三、補教業與員工之間的信任對關係承諾具顯著正向關係。
四、補教業與員工之間的關係承諾對知識分享意圖具顯著正向關係。
五、補教業與員工之間的相互信任對知識分享意圖的影響具顯著正向關
係。
本研究實證分析後，發現分享價值對溝通、關係承諾、信任與知識分享意圖之結果，正向影響假設成立,證明彼此間有顯著影響;因此，亦印證了學生從事補教業這28年來，任職於管理階層之體認，完全符合。此外，發現影響補教業(負責人或班主任或資深老師)、員工(含新進人員)之間關係的重要因素，在注重員工之間的分享、溝通、信任和關係，以提昇工作夥伴間之合作意願，維持長久的關係，降低師資培訓與經營管理的成本，創造出補習班更大的獲利空間。

With a slowdown in Chinese and global economic growth as well as the impact of European debt occurring after financial crisis, the U.S. recently continues to take the QE loose note printing to save market economy, while Europe also saves market economy for European debt crisis. Although the stock market with piled money rises which shows fundamental improvement and economic recovery in the surface, the phenomenon of inflation and prices rises is brewed under the competitive devaluation of currency and exchange rate between countries. However, most individual salaries are stagnated with the starting salary of only 22K and fail to rise simultaneously or even in recession, so the actual domestic consumer market and purchasing power still remain in the doldrums; the employment market is also not improved substantially; the next bubble may occur in emerging markets, indicating that each country will eventually be bound to decline and be overwhelmed by the trend test or blow if not properly or completely considering revitalization strategies or coping ways faced with the world trade and currency wars, be it individual or family or various companies that cannot comprehensively integrate industrial organizations with industrial chains.

Faced with such a situation, coupled with the change of Taiwan's overall social environment, the implementation of twelve-year national education, the increased support ratios and work pressure, uncertainty about the future and other complex factors, the low birth rate caused by declined fertility rate becomes serious since people are reluctant to get married and give birth to children or get married late. The cram school industry that took studies or vocational studies as the main purpose, business direction and strategy will face larger transition crisis or a favorable turn due to the changes in accreditation standards and values. They must invest high cost before to employ a large majority of remedial education personnel and increase orientation in static advertising effectiveness, which now will be changed. In addition to reducing personnel, they seek marketing channels and differentiated business model that can reduce cost through a variety of cooperation, communication and sharing ways, achieving all-round and multi-functional effective use of human resources with maximum value by letting teachers of different subjects or office staff interact thereby communicating for cooperation, sharing skills experience, controlling management values and strengthening trust-relationship commitment through using various training courses to innovate and create the most adaptable management mode. It is believed that cram schools can increase the core competitiveness and develop the management strategies of reducing various cost risks caused by employee turnover and retraining if combining with flexible use of video transmission, distance, online teaching, preview and review system for teaching and remedial courses as well as the science and technology of the teaching, academic affairs, administration and execution of RFID, POS and NFC so as to expand and break through regional study limitation.

This study aims to study the relation between cram school industry (including the capital of cram schools, namely, person in charge, head teacher and senior teacher) and employees (new employees), to further explore the relationship and influence between antecedent variables (sharing values, communication), outcome variables (knowledge sharing intention) and trust-relationship commitment and then to verify whether the theory model of “trust-relationship commitment” is applicable for employees in cram school industry according to KMV (key mediating variables) model proposed by Morgan ＆ Hunt (1994) with trust-relationship commitment as the main intermediary variables.

This study takes questionnaire survey way with cram schools and employees in Taiwan as subjects and conducts descriptive statistics analysis, reliability analysis, ANOVA, regression analysis and other methods using SPSS software.

The results of the analysis are as follows:
I．KMV model antecedent variables (sharing values and communication) have a significant positive relation with the relationship commitment between cram schools and employees.
II. KMV model antecedent variables (sharing values and communication) have a significant positive relation with the mutual trust between cram schools and employees.
III. The trust between cram schools and employees has a significant positive relation with the relationship commitment.
IV. The relationship commitment between cram schools and employees has a significant positive relation with knowledge sharing intention.
V. The mutual trust between cram schools and employees has a significant positive relation with the impact of knowledge sharing intention.

It’s found from the empirical analysis of the study that the hypothesis of the positive impact of sharing values on communication, relationship commitment, trust and knowledge sharing intention stands, which indicates that they have a significant impact to one another and thus confirms that the recognition of working in the management level in full conformity since students have been engaged in cram school industry for 28 years. In addition, it’s found that the important factors affecting the relationship between cram schools (person in charge, head teacher and senior teacher) and employees (including new employees) consist of the emphasis on sharing, communication, trust and relationships between employees in order to enhance work partners’ willingness to cooperate, maintain a long-term relationship, reduce costs in teacher training and management and create greater profit margins from cram class.

目錄
論文提要.......................................................I
摘要...........................................................II
Abstract.......................................................IV
誌謝...........................................................VII
目錄...........................................................VIII
表目錄.........................................................IX
目錄...........................................................XII
第一章 緒論.....................................................1
　第一節　研究動機與背景........................................1
　第二節　研究範圍與目的........................................2
　第三節　研究步驟..............................................3
第二章　文獻探討................................................4
　第一節　信任-關係承諾模型.....................................4
　第二節 各構面之關係研究......................................15
　第三節 知識分享意圖研究......................................29
第三章　研究方法................................................37
　第一節　研究架構..............................................37
　第二節　操作性定義及問卷設計..................................40
　第三節　抽樣與問卷發放........................................42
　第四節　資料分析方法..........................................43
第四章　實證分析................................................47
　第一節　敘述性統計分析........................................47
　第二節　因素分析與信度檢定....................................57
　第三節　各構面因素之差異性檢定................................65
　第四節　各構面之迴歸分析......................................77
第五章　結論與建議..............................................100
　第一節　研究結論..............................................100
　第二節　理論與實務意涵........................................111
　第三節　研究限制及未來研究方向................................115
附錄一：參考文獻................................................117
附附二：名詞釋義................................................129
附錄三：問卷....................................................132
表 目 錄

表2.1-1、信任定義相關研究..................................8
表2.1-2、分享價值相關研究..................................12
表2.1-3、溝通定義的相關研究................................13
表2.2-1、分享價值與溝通實證研究結果.......................15
表2.2-2、分享價值與關係承諾及信任實證研究結果.............17
表2.2-3、溝通與關係承諾及信任實證研究結果.................19
表 2.2-4、信任與關係承諾相關研究...........................22
表2.2-5、關係承諾與知識分享意圖相關研究...................24
表2.2-6、信任與知識分享意圖相關研究.......................27
表2.3-1、知識分享定義相關研究..............................33
表3.1-1、研究假設..........................................38
表3.2-1、各層構面之變數名稱與操作性定義....................41
表3.4-1、KMO值之參考標準...................................44
表3.4-2、可信度高低之參考值................................45
表4.1-1、受訪者個人統計基本變數在各構面之資料分析表........47
表4.1-2、各個構面之之敘述性統計量..........................51
表4.1-2-1、分享價值構面之敘述性統計量......................52
表4.1-2-2、溝通構面之敘述性統計量..........................53
表4.1-2-3、關係承諾構面之敘述性統計量......................54
表4.1-2-4、信任構面之敘述性統計量..........................55
表4.1-2-5、知識分享意圖構面之敘述性統計量..................56
表4.2-1、KMO及Bartlett球形檢定............................58
表4.2-2、各研究構面之因素及信度檢定表.......................59
表4.3-1、受訪者不同性別在各構面之獨立樣本t檢定.............66
表4.3-2、不同年齡在各構面之Pillai’s Trace值與wilks’ Lambda
值.................................................67
表4.3-2-1、不同年齡在各構面之變異數分析.....................68

表4.3-2-2、對各構面具顯著性『高敏感度』特徵之年齡層顯示分
佈...............................................69
表4.3-3、不同服務年資在各構面之Pillai’s Trace值與wilks’
Lambda值........................................70
表4.3-3-1、不同服務年資在各構面之變異數分析..............71
表4.3-3-2、對各構面具顯著性『高敏感度』特徵之服務年資層顯示
分佈.............................................71
表4.3-4、不同教育程度在各構面之Pillai’s Trace值與wilks’
Lambda值.......................................72
表4.3-4-1、不同教育程度在各構面之變異數分析..............74
表4.3-4-2、對各購面具顯著性『高敏感度』特徵之教育程度層顯示
分佈............................................74
表4.3-5、不同公司年營業額在各構面之Pillai’s Trace值與wilks’
Lambda..........................................75
表4.3-6、不同知識分享意圖分群在各構面之Pillai’s Trace值與
wilks’ Lambda值................................75
表4.3-6-1、不同知識分享意圖分群在各構面之變異數分析.......76
表4.3-6-2、對各購面具顯著性『高敏感度』特徵之"知識分享意圖
分群"顯示分佈....................................77
表4.4-1、分享價值、溝通、信任、關係承諾各構面，彼此間相互影
響之迴歸分析.....................................80
表4.4-2、各構面對於知識分享意圖之迴歸分析..................90
表5.1-1、研究假設成立與否之檢定結果........................100
表5.1-2、研究假設成立與否之檢定結果........................102
表5.1-3、探討補教業、員工，對於「分享價值」、「溝通」、「信任」
、「關係承諾」及「知識分享意圖」變項看法與影響之描述性
分析結果...........................................106

表5.1-4、探討台灣補教業、員工在「知識分享意圖」構面中與「分享
價值」、「溝通」、「信任」、「關係承諾」相互之間是否有
顯著正向的影響檢定小結.............................107
表5.2-1、本研究發現與各理論文獻之異同處結果彙整............112

圖 目 錄

圖1.2-1、本研究流程 ........................................3
圖2.1-1、關係行銷之關係交換圖...............................4
圖2.1-2、關係行銷的承諾─信任理論...........................6
圖2.3-1、精簡的知識分享模型.................................35
圖3.1-1、研究架構...........................................37
圖4.1-1、受訪者不同性別，在全體樣本中之分佈情況.............49
圖4.1-2、受訪者各年齡層，在全體樣本中之分佈情況.............49
圖4.1-3、受訪者不同服務年資，在全體樣本中之分佈情況.........50
圖4.1-4、受訪者不同教育程度，在全體樣本中之分佈情況.........50
圖4.1-5、受訪者所服務的公司，不同年營業額，在全體樣本中之分佈
情況...............................................51
圖4.4-1、分享價值、溝通構面迴歸模式示意圖...................78
圖4.4-2、分享價值、溝通構面對於關係承諾構面迴歸模式示意圖...78
圖4.4-3、分享價值、溝通、關係承諾構面對於信任構面迴歸模式示
意圖...............................................79
圖4.4-4、分享價值、溝通、信任、關係承諾各構面，對於知識分享意
圖之迴歸模式示意圖.................................89

一、中文文獻
1.王正華 ＆ 陳寬裕(2010)，「論文統計分析實務：SPSS與AMOS的運用」，初版，五南圖書出版股份有限公司，台北。
2.呂長民(2008)，「運用修改後KMV模式探討顧客關係行銷之實證研究」，中小企業發展季刊，第8期(2008.06)。
3.吳欣欣(2003)，「獨立店車用加油站與油品供應商之夥伴關係」，國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文。
4.吳萬益(2008)，「企業研究方法」，第三版，華泰出版社，台北。
5.陳澤義 ＆ 陳建州(2004)，「關係滿意、信任與承諾影響因素之探討─以銀行個人理財部門為例」，商管科技季刊，第五卷第3期，P.349-375。
6.黃照貴 ＆ 顏郁人(2008)，「以關係承諾觀點探討虛擬社群不同參與程度成員之行為」，資訊管理學報，第十六卷，P.57-81。
7.蔡坤宏 ＆ 謝昇紘(2005)，「信任-關係承諾」理論之實證研究-以海運承攬運送業為例，行銷評論，2005年秋季第二卷(第3期)，P.277-312。
8.鞏振源(2009)，「以理性行動理論探討內部稽核員工知識分享意圖」，國立成功大學高階管理碩士在職專班。











二、英文文獻
1.Abrams, L., Cross, R., Lesser, E., ＆ Levin, D. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. The Academy of Management Executive (1993),17(4), 64-77.
2.Abramson, J., ＆ Rosenthal, B. (1995). Interdisciplinary and interorganizational collaboration. Encyclopedia of social work, 19, 1479-1489.
3.Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
4.Ajzen, I., ＆ Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior: Prentice-Hall.
5.Anderson, J.C., ＆ Narus, J.A. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42-58.
6.Arino, A. (1997). Veracity and commitment: Cooperative behavior in first-time collaborative ventures. Cooperative strategies, 2, 215-241.
7.Bartol, K., ＆ Srivastava, A. (2002). Encouraging knowledge sharing: The role of organizational reward systems. Journal of Leadership ＆ Organizational Studies; Summer, 9, 1.
8.Bearden, W.O., ＆ Woodside, A.G. (1977). Testing variations of Fishbein’s behavioral intention model within a consumer behavior context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(3), 352-357.
9.Cannon, J., Achrol, R., ＆ Gundlach, G. (2000). Contracts, norms, and plural form governance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 180-194.
10.Cannon, J., ＆ Homburg, C. (2001). Buyer-supplier relationships and customer firm costs. Journal of Marketing, 65(1), 29-43.
11.Carud, R. (1997). On the distinction between know-how, know-why, and know-what. Advances in strategic management, 14, 81-101.
12.Cater, B., ＆ Cater, T. (2009). Emotional and rational motivations for customer loyalty in business-to-business professional services. [Article]. Service Industries Journal, 29(8), 1151-1169.
13.Chih-Chien, W. (2004). The Influence of ethical and self-interest concerns on knowledge sharing intentions among managers: an empirical study. [Article]. International Journal of Management, 21(3), 370-381.
14.Chiu, C., Hsu, M., ＆ Wang, E. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
15.Chowdhury, S. (2005). The role of affect-and cognition-based trust in complex knowledge sharing. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17(3), 310.
16.Claycomb, C., ＆ Frankwick, G.L. (2004). A contingency perspective of communication, conflict resolution and buyer search effort in buyer-supplier relationships. [Article]. Journal of Supply Chain Management: A Global Review of Purchasing ＆ Supply, 40(1), 18-34.
17.Cohen, W., ＆ Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Innovation, 128-152.
18.Cote, J., ＆ Latham, C. (2003). Hidden costs in the physician-insurer relationship. [Article]. Journal of Health Care Finance, 30(2), 30-36.
19.Cote, J., ＆ Latham, C. (2006). Trust and commitment: intangible drivers of interorganizational performance. Advances in Management Accounting, 15, 293, 325.
20.Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R., ＆ Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling-an interpersonal influence perspective. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68-81.
21.Cummings, T. (1984). Transorganizational development. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 367-422.
22.Darden, W., ＆ Dorsch, M. (1990). An action strategy approach to examining shopping behavior. Journal of Business Research, 21(3), 289-308.
23.Das, T., ＆ Teng, B. (1998). Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491-512.
24.Davenport, T., ＆ Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know: Harvard Business School Pr.
25.Davenport, T., ＆ Prusak, L.(2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know: Harvard Business School Pr.
26.Desouza, K. (2003). Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange.
27.Doney, P.M., ＆ Cannon, J.P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 35-51.
28.Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the Flow of Information: Blackwell.
29.Drucker, P. (1994). The theory of the business. Harvard Business Review, 72(5), 95.
30.Dwyer, F., Schurr, P., ＆ Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer-seller relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11-27.
31.Farrelly, F., Quester, P., ＆ Mavondo, F. (2003). Collaborative communication in sponsor relations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8(2), 128-138.
32.Fontenot, R., ＆ Wilson, E. (1997). Relational exchange: a review of selected models for a prediction matrix of relationship activities. Journal of Business Research, 39(1), 5-12.
33.Frazier G (1983). Interorganizational exchange behavior in marketing channels: a broadened perspective. The Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 68-78.
34.Friman, M., Garling, T., Millett, B., Mattsson, J., ＆ Johnston, R. (2002). An analysis of international business-to-business relationships based on the Commitment-Trust theory. [Article]. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(5), 403-409.
35.Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 1.
36.Garbarino, E., ＆ Johnson, M.S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.
37.Geyskens, I., ＆ Steenkamp, J. (1995). An investigation into the joint effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment.
38.Glazer, R. (1991). Marketing in an information-intensive environment: strategic implications of knowledge as an asset. The Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 1-19.
39.Grant, R.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. [Article]. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.
40.Gruen, T., Summers, J., ＆ Acito, F. (2000). Relationship marketing activities, commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 34-49.
41.Gwinner, K., Gremler, D., ＆ Bitner, M. (1998). Relational benefits in services industries: the customer perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 101-114.
42.Heide, J., ＆ John. G. (1992). Do norms matter in marketing relationships? The Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 32-44.
43.Hendriks, P. (1999). Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and process management, 6(2), 91-100.
44.Hewett, K., ＆ Bearden, W. (2001). Dependence, trust, and relational behavior on the part of foreign subsidiary marketing operations: implications for managing global marketing operations. The Journal of Marketing, 65(4), 51-66.
45.Hinds, P., ＆ Pfeffer, J. (2003). Why organizations don’t know what they know: cognitive and motivational factors affecting the transfer of expertise. Sharing expertise: Beyond knowledge management, 3-26.
46.Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment: A review and research agenda. Employee relations, 25(2), 182-202.
47.Holdford, D., ＆ White, S. (1997). Testing commitment-trust theory in relationships between pharmacy schools and students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 61(3), 249-256.
48.Holste, J., ＆ Fields, D. (2005). The relationship of affect-and cognition-based trust with sharing and use of tacit knowledge.
49.Huang, Q., Davison, R., Liu, H., ＆ Gu, J. (2006). The impact of management style on the intention to share knowledge in China. The Tenth Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems.
50.Jarvenpaa, S.L., ＆ Staples, D.S. (2001). Exploring perceptions of organizational ownership of information and expertise. J. Manage. Inf. Syst., 18(1), 151-183.
51.Kelloway, E., ＆ Barling, J. (2000). Knowledge work as organizational behavior. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(3), 287-304.
52.Kogut, B., ＆ Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. [Article]. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
53.Koh, J., ＆ Kim, Y. (2004). Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an e-business perspective. Expert Systems with Applictions, 26(2), 155-166.
54.Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., ＆ Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1995a). The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. [Article]. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 32(3), 348-356.
55.Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., ＆ Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M. (1995b)The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. [Article]. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 32(1), 54-65.
56.Kwon, I. W. G., ＆ Suh, T. (2005). Trust commitment and relationships in supply chain management: a path analysis. [Article]. Supply Chain Mangement-an International Journal, 10(1), 26-33.
57.Kyung Woo, K., ＆ Seung Kyoon, S. (2009). Modeling antecedents of knowledge exchange intentions in virtual communities: anonymity and perceived and perceived network-structure approach. [Article]. Proceedings for the Northeast Region Decision Sciences Institute (NEDSI), 197-202.
58.Lai, J. M., Lee, G. G., ＆ Hsu, W. L. (2009). The influence of partner's trust-commitment relationship on electronic commerce strategic planning. [Article]. Management Decision, 47(3), 491-507.
59.Leuthesser, L. (1997). Supplier relational behavior: An empirical assessment. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(3), 245-254.
60.Lewin, J. E., ＆ Johnston, W. J. (1997). Relationship marketing theory in practice: A case study. [Article]. Journal of Business Research, 39(1), 23-31.
61.Lin, C.-P. (2007). To share or not to share: modeling tacit knowledge sharing, Its mediators and antecedents. [Article]. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(4), 411-428.
62.Luo, Y., Liu, Y., ＆ Xue, J. (2009). Relationship investment and channel performance: An analysis of mediating forces. Journal of Management Studies, 46(7), 1113-1137.
63.Machlup, F. (1962). The production and distribution of knowledge in the United States: Princetion Univ Pr.
64.Machlup, F. (1980). Knowledge: Its creation, distribution and economic significance, volume I: knowledge and knowledge production.
65.Machlup, F. (1983). Semantic quirks in studies of information. The study of information: Interdisciplinary messages, 641-671.
66.MacMillan, K., Money, K., Money, A., ＆ Downing, S. (2005). Relationship marketing in the not-for-profit sector: an extension and application of the commitment-trust theory. [Article]. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 806-818.
67.Mayer, R., Davis, J., ＆ Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
68.McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-based and congnition-based trust as foundation for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. [Article]. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
69.Meyer, J., ＆ Allen, N. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89.
70.Meyer, J., ＆ Allen, N. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application: Sage Pubns.
71.Mohr, J., ＆. (1994). Chracteristics of partnership success - partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict - resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 135-152.
72.Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., ＆ Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affectiong trust in market research relationships. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81-101.
73.Morgan, R. M., ＆ Junt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. [Article]. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
74.Morris, M., ＆ Carter, C. R. (2005). Relationship marketing and supplier logistics performance: an extension of the key mediating variables model. [Article]. Journal of Supply Chain Management: A Global Review of Purchasing ＆ Supply, 41(4), 32-43.
75.Mowday, R., Porter, L., ＆ Steer, R. (1982). Organizational linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. San Diego.
76.Mukherjee, A., ＆ Nath, P. (2003). A model of trust in online relationship banking. [Article]. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 21(1), 5.
77.Mukherjee, A., ＆ Nath, P. (2007). Role of electronic trust in online retailing - A re-examination of the commitment-trust theory. [Article]. European Journal of Marketing, 41(9-10), 1173-1202.
78.Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. [Article]. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
79.Nonaka, I., ＆ Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation: Oxford university press.
80.Panteli, N., ＆ Sockalingam, S. (2005). Trust and conflict within virtual inter-organizational alliances: a framework for facilitating knowledge sharing. Decision Support Systems, 39(4), 599-617.
81.Pavlou, P. A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of electronic commerce: Integrating trust and risk with the technology acceptance model. [Article]. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7(3), 101-134.
82.Qian, H., Davison, R. M., ＆ Jibao, G. (2008). Impact of personal and culural factors on knowledge sharing in China. [Article]. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 25(3), 451-471.
83.Quinn, J. B., Anderson, P., ＆ Finkelstein, S. (1996). Leveraging intellect. [Article]. Academy of Management Executive, 10(3), 7-27.
84.Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear and knowledge documentation. Omega, 36(2), 206-220.
85.Ring, P., ＆ Van de Ven, A. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 90-118.
86.Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., ＆ Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. [Editorial Material]. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
87.Ruggles, R. (1999). The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice. The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000, 295.
88.Ryu, S., Ho, S., ＆ Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in hospitals. Expert Svstems with Applications, 25(1), 113-122.
89.Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization, currency doubleday. New york, 139.
90.Senge, P. (1997). Sharing Knowledge: The leader's role is key to a learning culture. Executive Excellence, 14, 17-17.
91.Shankar, V., Urban, G. L., ＆ Sultan, F. (2002). Online trust: a stakeholder perspective, concepts, implications, and future directions. [Article]. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 325-344.
92.Sharma, N., ＆ Patterson, P. G. (1999). The impact of communication effectiveness and service quality on relationship commitment in. [Article]. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(2/3), 151.
93.Singh, J., ＆ Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanisms in consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. [Article]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150.
94.Smith, J., ＆ Barclay, D. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 3-21.
95.Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., ＆ Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra-and interorganizational cooperation: toward a research agenda [Article]. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 7-23.
96.Theron, E., Terblanche, N. S., ＆ Boshoff, C. (2008). The antecedents of relationship commitment int eh management of relationships in business-to-business (B2B) financial services. [Article]. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(9/10), 997-1010.
97.Tsai, M., ＆ Li, Y. (2007). Knowledge creation process in new venture strategy and performance, Journal of Business Research, 60(4), 371-381.
98.Van den Bosch, F., ＆ Van Wijk, R. (2001). Creation of managerial capabilities through managerial knowledge integration: A competence-based perspective. Knowledge management and organizational competence, 159-176.
99.Van Den Hooff, B., ＆ Van Weenen, F. D. L. (2004). Committed to share: commitment and CMC use as antecedents of knowledge sharing. [Article]. Knowledge ＆ Process Management, 11(1), 13-24.
100.Wang, J. (2009). Trust and relationship commitment between direct selling distributors and customers. African Journal of Business Management, 3(12), 862-870.
101.Wasko, M. M., ＆ Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of parctice. Mis Quqrterly, 29(1), 35-57.
102.Weitz, B., ＆ Jap, S. (1995). Relationship marketing and distribution channels. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 305-320.
103.Wijnhoven, F. (1999). Knowledge logistics in business contexts: analyzing and diagnosing knowledge sharing by logistics concepts. Business Change and Re-engineering, 5(3), 143-157.
104.Wittmann, C. M., Hunt, S. D., ＆ Arnett, D. B. (2009). Explaining alliance success: Competences, resources, relational factors, and resource-advantage theory. Industial Marketing Management, 38(7), 743-756.
105.Wong, A., ＆ Sohal, A. (2002). An examination of the relationship between trust, commitment and relationship quality. [Article]. International Journal of Retail ＆ Distribution Management, 30(1).
106.Young, L., ＆ Wilkinson, I. (1998) The space between: towards a
typology of interfirm relations. Journal of Business To Business
Marketing, 4(2), 53-97.
107.Zineldin, M., ＆ Jonsson, P. (2000). An examination of the main
factors affectiong trust/commitment in supplier-dealer
relationships: an empirical study of the Swedish wood industry. The
TQM Magazine, 12(4), 245-266.
108.Zucker, L. G. (1986). Production of trust: institutional sources
of economic structure. [Article]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 53.