Assessment of Significance. SmartPLS results of the structural model where KMS Usage was the endogenous variable (Figure 18) indicated People-oriented

factorsKMS Usage (0.707) was not significant. Organizational Process factorsKMS Usage (0.319) was not significant either. Technology-oriented factorsKMS Usage (2.714) was significant at 1%. Estimations concluded during Stage 4 determined People-oriented factorsKMS Usage and Organizational Process factorsKMS Usage were not significant. Bootstrapping results confirmed significance of this path. Significance of Technology-oriented factorsKMS Usage was confirmed as estimated.

After reviewing the T-statistics in the outer model (Figure 18), all loadings in this model were confirmed to be highly significant. Indicators of the People-oriented factors construct ranged from 14.730 to 42.035. Indicators of the Organizational process factors construct ranged from 9.018 to 33.503. Indicators of the Technology-oriented factors construct ranged from 13.783 to 48.139. Indicators of the KMS usage construct were 31.132 and 39.654. Since no indicators were removed from this structural model due to failed criteria in the estimation stage, the coefficient of determination, R², remained 0.625 for the KMS Usage endogenous latent variable.

Figure 18. Structural Model for KMS Usage with T-Statistics

Results of the structural model where People-oriented factors were the endogenous variable (Figure 19) indicated Organizational Process factors  oriented factors (2.795) was significant at 1%. Technology-oriented factors People-oriented factors (7.530) was also significant at 1%. Estimations concluded during Stage 4 determined both Organizational Process factors  People-oriented factors and

Technology-oriented factors People-oriented factors were significant. Bootstrapping results confirmed significance of both paths as estimated.

After reviewing the T-statistics in the outer model (Figure 19), all loadings in this model were confirmed to be highly significant. Indicators of the Organizational process factors construct ranged from 9.131 to 28.346. Indicators of the Technology-oriented

0.625

factors construct ranged from 16.665 to 36.230. Indicators of the People-oriented factors construct ranged from 16.157 to 51.298. Since no indicators were removed from this structural model due to failed criteria in the estimation stage, the coefficient of determination, R², remained 0.770 for the People-oriented factors endogenous latent variable.

Figure 19. Structural Model for People-oriented Factors with T-Statistics

Results of the structural model where Organizational Process factors were the endogenous variable (Figure 20) indicated People-oriented factors  Organizational Process factors (1.960) was significant at 5%. Technology-oriented factors

Organizational Process factors (2.669) was significant at 1%. Estimations concluded during Stage 4 of the analysis determined People-oriented factors  Organizational Process factors was both significant. Bootstrapping results confirmed significance of these paths as estimated.

0.770

After reviewing the T-statistics in the outer model (Figure 20), all loadings in this model were confirmed to be highly significant. Indicators of the People-oriented factors construct ranged from 16.607 to 49.825. Indicators of the Technology-oriented factors construct ranged from 17.956 to 42.719. Indicators of the Organizational process factors construct ranged from 10.224 to 29.973. Since no indicators were removed from this structural model due to failed criteria in the estimation stage, the coefficient of determination, R², remained 0.694 for the Organizational process factors endogenous latent variable.

Figure 20. Structural Model for Organizational Process Factors with T-Statistics Results of the structural model where Technology-oriented factors were the endogenous variable (Figure 21) indicated People-oriented factors  Technology-oriented factors (4.505) was significant at 1%. Organizational Process factors

0.694

Technology-oriented factors (2.417) was significant at 5%. Estimations concluded during Stage 4 determined both these paths were significant. Bootstrapping results confirmed significance of both paths.

After reviewing the T-statistics in the outer model (Figure 21), all loadings in this model were confirmed to be highly significant. Indicators of the People-oriented factors construct ranged from 15.719 to 48.141. Indicators of the Organizational process factors construct ranged from 10.347 to 31.814. Indicators of the Technology-oriented factors construct ranged from 15.947 to 38.887. Since no indicators were removed from this structural model due to failed criteria in the estimation stage, the coefficient of

determination, R², remained 0.792 for the Technology-oriented factors endogenous latent variable.

Figure 21. Structural Model for Technology-oriented Factors with T-Statistics

0.792

Step 3: Assessment of R². Where KMS Usage was the endogenous latent variable (Figure 17), results indicated the coefficient of determination, R², was 0.625 for the KMS Usage endogenous latent variable. This means that the three latent variables (People factors, Organizational Process Factors, and Technology-oriented factors) explained 62.5% of the variance in KMS Usage. Based on Chin’s (1999) standard, the explanatory power of this structural model would be described as high-moderate.

Where People-oriented factors were the endogenous latent variable (Figure 18), results indicated the R² was 0.770 for the People-oriented factors endogenous latent variable. This means that the two latent variables (Organizational Process Factors and Technology-oriented factors) explained 77% of the variance in People-oriented factors.

Based on Chin’s (1999) standard, the explanatory power of this structural model would be described as substantial.

Where Organizational process factors were the endogenous latent variable (see Figure 19), results indicated the R² was 0.694 for the Organizational process factors endogenous latent variable. This means that the two latent variables (People-oriented factors and Technology-oriented factors) explained 69.4% of the variance in

Organizational process factors. Based on Chin’s (1999) standard, the explanatory power of this structural model would be described as substantial.

Finally, Where Technology-oriented factors were the endogenous latent variable (Figure 20), results indicated the R² was 0.792 for the Technology-oriented factors endogenous latent variable. This means that the two latent variables (People-oriented factors and Organizational Process Factors) explained 79.2% of the variance in

Technology-oriented factors. Based on Chin’s (1999) standard, the explanatory power of this structural model would be described as substantial.

Step 4: Assessment of f ². SmartPLS results of the structural model where KMS