For KM informal practices, the set of predictor variables accounted for 31% of the variance explained (p < .01). Once again, external adaptation was not significant (b = -0.01, p > .05) for the prediction of this variable. Internal integration was significantly and positively related to the variable (b = 0.56, p < .01). Hence, hypotheses H2 and H2a found support, which was not the case for H1b. The internal integration dimension individually explained 21% of the variance in knowledge management informal practices, while external adaptation explained 0% individually and shared 10% of the variance with internal integration.