The main purpose of the current study is to validate the framework of knowledge management (KM) capabilities created by Gold ("Towards a theory of organizational knowledge management capabilities." Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) 2001) in a study of South Korean companies. However, the original framework did not provide a thorough explanation of the effect of incentives, which motivate and encourage the knowledge management process. In this study, the modified framework that includes incentives in the knowledge infrastructure capability was tested. Moreover, since there is a weak linkage between KM and organizational performance, this study used empirical evidence to identify the relationship between KM capabilities (KMC) and four perspectives of organizational performance. Since structural equation modeling (SEM) is mostly used to describe causal relationships among unobserved (latent) and observed variables, this study used SEM procedures to determine whether there were any structural relationships between knowledge management capabilities and four perspectives of organizational performance. Moreover, the SEM procedure is "a statistical test to find whether a model fits a set of data, whether it matches a theoretical expectation" (Vogt, "Dictionary of statistics & methodology." Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, p 135, 2005). Therefore, this study also used SEM procedures to test a hypothesized model that had a good fit indicates that the model adequately describes the sample data. This study assumed that knowledge management capabilities could be divided into two types: knowledge infrastructure and process capabilities. The original hypothesized model showed that there was a positive relationship between knowledge management capabilities and organizational performance, but the overall model fit was insufficient to be accepted, because knowledge infrastructure and process capabilities were highly correlated. This study proposed two alternative models to find the best fit and found that knowledge infrastructure and process capabilities should be combined under the higher-order latent variable as subordinate latent variables. Lastly, there was a positive relationship between KMC and organizational performance. This study might not be free from common method bias to some degrees. It would be better to divide participants into two groups to respond to either the knowledge management capabilities survey or the organizational performance survey and to investigate the correlation between them. There are two main contributions for the field of knowledge management. First, this study attempted to integrate the fragmented literature of knowledge management into a holistic view and develop a framework for knowledge management. Moreover, this study found that there is a strong and positive relationship between KM infrastructure and process, which could refer that, to improve organizational performance, an organization should support KM processes, as well as build decent KM infrastructure. The results of this study would help KM practitioners to advocate the importance of KM to top managements.