the role of organisational culture, trust and mechanisms ... · the role of organisational culture,...
Post on 17-Mar-2020
7 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The Role of Organisational Culture, Trust and Mechanisms in Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Anna Wiewiora
MA (Public Administration) University of Wroclaw
School of Urban Development
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
Australia
2011
iii
First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my lovely
parents Monika Wiewióra and Leszek Wiewióra
who have always believed in me, encouraged me and never let me
fall. Through the years you have instilled in me a desire to expand
my skills, build confidence and encouraged me to reach my dreams.
I would never achieve what I did, and would never be the
person I am without your love, encouragement, goodness,
sincerity and support. Thank you for this.
Tą pracę chciałabym zadedykować moim kochanym rodzicom
Monice i Leszkowi Wiewióra, ktorzy zawsze wierzyli we
mnie i w moje możliwości, motywowali mnie i dodawali mi sił
do dalszej drogi nie pozwalając się poddać.
Kochani rodzice, dziękuję Wam za to że zaszczepiliście we
mnie chęć poznania świata, budowaliscie poczucie mojej
wartości i dopingowaliscie mnie abym zawsze dążyła do
zdobycia wytyczonych celow i marzeń.
Nigdy nie osiągnełabym tego wszystkiego i nie byłabym tą
osobą ktorą jestem teraz bez Waszej miłości, wsparcia,
dobroci i szczerości jaka mnie obdarzaliście przez całe życie.
Za to wszystko dziękuję Wam z całego serca.
iv
v
Acknowledgements
This journey would not be possible without the support of several wonderful people.
My sincere gratitude to my three supervisors: As.Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah, Prof.
Guy Gable, and Dr Glen Murphy. Bambang, thank you for believing in me, for your
encouragement, patience and understanding. You always provided me guidance and
practical solutions throughout the whole process. It was you who first encouraged me
to start the PhD and believed in me, in my passion and ability to undertake the
journey. I thank you for that. Guy I truly enjoyed our chats on methodology and
philosophical stance. They made me aware what PhD really is about. Glen, thank
you so much for your help and the opportunities that you have placed in front of me.
You always pushed me beyond my comfort zone and uncovered abilities I never
knew I have. It is because of you I learned how to think critically and analytically; I
believe this has helped me tremendously to become a better researcher. A warm
thank you to Dr Vaughan Coffey who provided me with great suggestions and has
been like a fatherly figure for me.
Thank you to supportive team from the Research Office, it was always pleasant to
deal with you guys. This study is funded by both the School of Urban Development
and the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Integrated Engineering Asset
Management (CIEAM). I gratefully acknowledge both for their financial assistance. I
wish to make a special note of appreciation for the industry participants who
contributed their time and effort to the case studies. Dennis, Eleonora, Nerida and
Peter — thank you, without you this research would not be possible. A warm thanks
to ISS team and in particular the amazing Karyn Gonano who helped a great deal in
improving my writing skills. You truly were a big part of my PhD journey! I would
also like to thank all those who have provided feedback for this work. I much
appreciate your time, support and interest in this study.
To my close friends from within and outside QUT with whom I have shared ups and
downs of this journey and who were always there for me. Special thanks to Melissa
Chan, Asrul Masrom and Kai Chen Goh. I learned so much about Malaysian culture
during our lunches and coffee breaks, you definitely made this journey enjoyable. I
also want to express my appreciation and thanks to Dr Liang Chen and Sofia Pemsel
— doing collaborative research with you has been such a pleasure. Our stimulating
discussions and brainstorming sessions on our common interest have broaden my
understanding about the field. Finally, I am greatly indebted to my parents who
always believed in me, for your unconditional love, goodness and encouragement,
and to my lovely David, who was there for me through the tough times and
difficulties I faced. Your love, understanding and perspective of life have been a
great help to the completion of my study.
I am grateful to have you all in my life.
vii
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
…………………………………………………………..
Signature
Anna Wiewiora
…………………………………
Date
ix
Keywords
Knowledge sharing, inter-project context, organisational culture, trust, knowledge
sharing mechanisms, case study
xi
Abstract
Knowledge has been recognised as a powerful yet intangible asset, which is difficult
to manage. This is especially true in a project environment where there is the
potential to repeat mistakes, rather than learn from previous experiences. The
literature in the project management field has recognised the importance of
knowledge sharing (KS) within and between projects. However, studies in that field
focus primarily on KS mechanisms including lessons learned (LL) and post project
reviews as the source of knowledge for future projects, and only some preliminary
research has been carried out on the aspects of project management offices (PMOs)
and organisational culture (OC) in KS. This study undertook to investigate KS
behaviours in an inter-project context, with a particular emphasis on the role of trust,
OC and a range of knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) in achieving successful
inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). An extensive literature search resulted in
the development of an I-PKS Framework, which defined the scope of the research
and shaped its initial design.
The literature review indicated that existing research relating to the three factors of
OC, trust and KSM remains inadequate in its ability to fully explain the role of these
contextual factors. In particular, the literature review identified these areas of
interest: (1) the conflicting answers to some of the major questions related to KSM,
(2) the limited empirical research on the role of different trust dimensions, (3) limited
empirical evidence of the role of OC in KS, and (4) the insufficient research on KS in
an inter-project context.
The resulting Framework comprised the three main factors including: OC, trust and
KSM, demonstrating a more integrated view of KS in the inter-project context.
Accordingly, the aim of this research was to examine the relationships between these
three factors and KS by investigating behaviours related to KS from the project
managers‘ (PMs‘) perspective. In order to achieve the aim, this research sought to
answer the following research questions:
1. How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
xii
2. How does the existence of three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and
(iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
3. How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project
management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project knowledge
sharing behaviours?
4. How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational culture,
trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve inter-project knowledge
sharing?
a. What are the relationships between the factors?
b. What is the best fit for given cases to ensure more effective inter-
project knowledge sharing?
Using multiple case studies, this research was designed to build propositions
emerging from cross-case data analysis. The four cases were chosen on the basis of
theoretical sampling. All cases were large project-based organisations (PBOs), with a
strong matrix-type structure, as per the typology proposed by the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) (2008). Data were collected from
project management departments of the respective organisations.
A range of analytical techniques were used to deal with the data including pattern
matching logic and explanation building analysis, complemented by the use of
NVivo for data coding and management. Propositions generated at the end of the
analyses were further compared with the extant literature, and practical implications
based on the data and literature were suggested in order to improve I-PKS.
Findings from this research conclude that OC, trust, and KSM contribute to inter-
project knowledge sharing, and suggest the existence of relationships between these
factors. In view of that, this research identified the relationships between different
trust dimensions, suggesting that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between
ability trust and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, this research demonstrated that
characteristics of culture and trust interact to reinforce preferences for mechanisms of
xiii
knowledge sharing. This means that cultures that facilitate characteristics of Clan
type are more likely to result in trusting relationships, hence are more likely to use
organic sources of knowledge for both tacit and explicit knowledge exchange. In
contrast, cultures that are empirically driven, based on control, efficiency, and
measures (characteristics of Hierarchy and Market types) display tendency to
develop trust primarily in ability of non-organic sources, and therefore use these
sources to share mainly explicit knowledge.
This thesis contributes to the project management literature by providing a more
integrative view of I-PKS, bringing the factors of OC, trust and KSM into the
picture. A further contribution is related to the use of collaborative tools as a
substitute for static LL databases and as a facilitator for tacit KS between
geographically dispersed projects. This research adds to the literature on OC by
providing rich empirical evidence of the relationships between OC and the
willingness to share knowledge, and by providing empirical evidence that OC has an
effect on trust; in doing so this research extends the theoretical propositions outlined
by previous research. This study also extends the research on trust by identifying the
relationships between different trust dimensions, suggesting that integrity trust
reinforces the relationship between ability trust and KS. Finally, this research
provides some directions for future studies.
xiv
xv
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... V
STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ........................................................................................ VII
KEYWORDS ..................................................................................................................................... IX
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... XI
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................XV
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. XIX
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. XX
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................ XXI
DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................................ XXIII
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1
1.2. RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RATIONALE .............................................................................. 3
1.3. RESEARCH AIM ................................................................................................................. 6
1.4. THE RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................... 6
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN
PROJECT-BASED ORGANISATIONS .................................................................................................. 11
2.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 11
2.2. THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE......................................................................................... 12
2.3. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 15
2.4. THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING........................................................................................ 18
2.5. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND SHARING ........................................................................... 21
2.6. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN PROJECT-BASED ORGANISATIONS ......................................... 23
2.6.1. The Nature of Project-Based Organisations ........................................................... 23
2.6.2. Knowledge Sharing Practices in a Project Context ................................................. 28
2.6.3. Barriers in Inter-project Knowledge Sharing .......................................................... 32
2.7. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 35
3. INTER-PROJECT KNOWLEDGE SHARING FRAMEWORK ........................................................... 37
3.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 37
3.2. TRUST ............................................................................................................................ 39
3.2.1. The Nature of Trust ............................................................................................... 39
3.2.2. Trust Dimensions ................................................................................................... 40
3.2.3. Current Research on Trust In Project Management and Knowledge Management
Literature .............................................................................................................................. 42
3.2.4. Research Gap ........................................................................................................ 45
3.3. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS ............................................................................ 45
3.3.1. Existing Research on Relational, Technology and Project Management Related
Mechanisms ........................................................................................................................... 49
3.3.2. Research Gap ........................................................................................................ 51
3.4. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ........................................................................................... 52
3.4.1. Organisational Culture and Knowledge Management .......................................... 53
xvi
3.4.2. Organisational Culture and Knowledge Sharing in Project-based Organisations ... 54
3.4.3. Research Gap ........................................................................................................ 57
3.5. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 58
4. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 61
4.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 61
4.2. PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION .............................................................................................. 62
4.3. RESEARCH FLOW ............................................................................................................ 63
4.3.1. Research Reasoning .............................................................................................. 65
4.3.2. Research Approach — Inductive Theory Building .................................................. 66
4.4. RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................................................................... 68
4.4.1. The Rationale for Using a Case Study Method ....................................................... 69
4.4.2. The Use of Multiple Case Studies ........................................................................... 71
4.5. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................... 72
4.5.1. Unit of Analysis and Case Selection ....................................................................... 72
4.5.2. Case Study Protocol ............................................................................................... 74
4.5.3. Entering the Field .................................................................................................. 75
4.5.4. Sources of Evidence ............................................................................................... 76
4.6. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH ............................................................................................ 79
4.6.1. The Use of NVivo in Data Coding and Analysis ...................................................... 79
4.6.2. Within-case Analysis ............................................................................................. 82
4.6.3. Cross-case Analysis ................................................................................................ 84
4.6.4. Analytical Techniques............................................................................................ 84
4.7. RESEARCH QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 87
4.7.1. Validity .................................................................................................................. 88
4.7.2. Reliability versus Consistency and Trustworthiness ............................................... 89
4.7.3. Analytical Generalisability .................................................................................... 90
4.8. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 91
5. WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 93
5.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 93
5.2. WITHIN-CASE PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 94
5.3. ALPHA ............................................................................................................................ 95
5.3.1. Alpha’s Profile ....................................................................................................... 95
5.3.2. Organisational Culture .......................................................................................... 97
5.3.3. Trust .................................................................................................................... 102
5.3.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ......................................................................... 105
5.3.5. Summary of the Alpha Case ................................................................................ 109
5.4. BETA ............................................................................................................................ 112
5.4.1. Beta’s Profile ....................................................................................................... 112
5.4.2. Organisational Culture ........................................................................................ 113
5.4.3. Trust .................................................................................................................... 116
5.4.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ......................................................................... 117
5.4.5. Summary of the Beta Case .................................................................................. 120
5.5. GAMMA ....................................................................................................................... 123
5.5.1. Gamma’s Profile .................................................................................................. 123
5.5.2. Organisational Culture ........................................................................................ 125
5.5.3. Trust .................................................................................................................... 128
5.5.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ......................................................................... 132
5.5.5. Summary of the Gamma Case ............................................................................. 135
xvii
5.6. DELTA .......................................................................................................................... 138
5.6.1. Delta’s Profile...................................................................................................... 138
5.6.2. Organisational Culture ........................................................................................ 140
5.6.3. Trust .................................................................................................................... 144
5.6.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ......................................................................... 148
5.6.5. Summary of the Delta Case ................................................................................. 151
5.7. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 153
6. CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 155
6.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 155
6.2. CROSS-CASES PROCEDURES .......................................................................................... 156
6.3. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ......................................................................................... 157
6.3.1. Organisational Culture and the Willingness to Share Knowledge ........................ 157
6.3.2. Project Manager’s Geographical Location ........................................................... 162
6.4. TRUST .......................................................................................................................... 166
6.4.1. The Contingent Effect of Integrity Trust............................................................... 169
6.4.2. The Effect of Organisational Culture on Trusting Relationships ........................... 171
6.5. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS .......................................................................... 173
6.5.1. Issues with Lessons Learned Across the Cases ..................................................... 176
6.5.2. Wiki — the Avenue for Lessons Learned and Tacit Knowledge Sharing ............... 178
6.5.3. Project Management Office — the Facilitator for Inter-project Knowledge Sharing ..
............................................................................................................................ 181
6.5.4. Summary — Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms..................................................... 183
6.6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, KNOWLEDGE SHARING
MECHANISMS AND TRUST ........................................................................................................ 183
6.7. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 186
7. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................... 189
7.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 189
7.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ..................................................................... 189
7.2.1. Culture and the Willingness to Share Knowledge ................................................ 190
7.2.2. Cultural Differences and Knowledge Sharing Between Co-located versus Dispersed
PMs ............................................................................................................................ 191
7.2.3. The Leadership Active Engagement in Improving Knowledge Sharing Between
Dispersed Projects................................................................................................................ 192
7.3. THE ROLE OF TRUST ...................................................................................................... 195
7.3.1. Practical Implications .......................................................................................... 196
7.4. THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS ........................................................ 196
7.4.1. Practical Implications .......................................................................................... 198
7.5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, TRUST AND MECHANISMS ........ 202
7.6. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRATED RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................. 203
7.7. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 205
8. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 207
8.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 207
8.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, TRUST AND MECHANISMS IN INTER-PROJECT
KNOWLEDGE SHARING ............................................................................................................. 208
8.2.1. Cultural Influences on Inter-Project Knowledge Sharing ...................................... 209
8.2.2. Influence of Ability, Integrity and Benevolence Trusts on Inter-Project Knowledge
Sharing ............................................................................................................................ 210
xviii
8.2.3. Utilisation of Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Inter-Project Knowledge
Sharing Behaviours .............................................................................................................. 210
8.2.4. The Relationships Between Organisational Culture, Trust and Knowledge Sharing
Mechanisms in Improving Inter-Project Knowledge Sharing ................................................ 212
8.3. CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................................................... 213
8.3.1. Contributions to Theory and Methods ................................................................. 213
8.3.2. Practical Contributions ........................................................................................ 217
8.4. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 218
8.5. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH............................................................................. 219
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 221
APPENDIX A - STUDY OUTCOMES ................................................................................................. 233
APPENDIX B – THE CASE STUDY PROTOCOL.................................................................................. 235
APPENDIX C - CORRESPONDENCE WITH STUDY PARTICIPANTS .................................................... 241
APPENDIX D - CONSENT FORM ..................................................................................................... 245
APPENDIX E - QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................... 249
APPENDIX F – EXAMPLE OF THE REPORT SENT TO PARTICIPATING ORGANISATION..................... 253
xix
List of Tables
TABLE 2-1: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT AUTHORS ..................................... 17
TABLE 2-2: KNOWLEDGE SHARING VERSUS KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER .................................................................. 22
TABLE 2-3: PBO VERSUS FUNCTIONAL ORGANISATION.................................................................................. 27
TABLE 2-4: BARRIERS TO EFFECTING KS WITHIN AND BETWEEN PROJECTS .......................................................... 34
TABLE 3-1: SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH ON TRUST ..................................................................................... 47
TABLE 3-2: ATTRIBUTES OF CLAN, ADHOCRACY, HIERARCHY, AND MARKET CULTURES ......................................... 56
TABLE 5-1: DEMOGRAPHICS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IN SA AND WA SITE ................................. 96
TABLE 5-2: SUMMARY OF ALPHA’S PROFILE ............................................................................................... 97
TABLE 5-3: THE PRESENCE OF THREE FORMS OF TRUST DURING KNOWLEDGE SHARING ENDEAVOURS ...................... 102
TABLE 5-4: IMPORTANT AND/OR PRIMARILY USED MECHANISMS FOR INTER-PROJECT KNOWLEDGE SHARING ACCORDING
TO ALPHA RESPONDENTS............................................................................................................. 106
TABLE 5-5: SUMMARY OF BETA’S PROFILE ............................................................................................... 113
TABLE 5-6: THE PRESENCE OF THREE FORMS OF TRUST DURING KNOWLEDGE SHARING ENDEAVOURS (MEAN AND
STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES) ..................................................................................................... 116
TABLE 5-7: IMPORTANT AND/OR PRIMARILY USED MECHANISMS FOR INTER-PROJECT KNOWLEDGE SHARING ACCORDING
TO BETA RESPONDENTS .............................................................................................................. 118
TABLE 5-8: OVERVIEW OF GAMMA INFORMANTS ...................................................................................... 124
TABLE 5-9: SUMMARY OF GAMMA’S PROFILE........................................................................................... 124
TABLE 5-10: THE PRESENCE OF THREE FORMS OF TRUST DURING KNOWLEDGE SHARING ENDEAVOURS (MEAN AND
STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES) ..................................................................................................... 129
TABLE 5-11: IMPORTANT AND/OR PRIMARILY USED MECHANISMS FOR INTER-PROJECT KNOWLEDGE SHARING ACCORDING
TO GAMMA RESPONDENTS .......................................................................................................... 132
TABLE 5-12: SUMMARY OF DELTA’S PROFILE ........................................................................................... 139
TABLE 5-13: THE PRESENCE OF THREE FORMS OF TRUST DURING KNOWLEDGE SHARING ENDEAVOURS (MEAN AND
STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES) ..................................................................................................... 145
TABLE 5-14: IMPORTANT AND/OR PRIMARILY USED MECHANISMS FOR INTER-PROJECT KNOWLEDGE SHARING ACCORDING
TO DELTA RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................................. 149
TABLE 6-1: CULTURE PROFILES — CROSS-CASE COMPARISON ....................................................................... 159
TABLE 6-2: PMS GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION ACROSS-CASES ..................................................................... 163
TABLE 6-3: MAJOR REMARKS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST FROM RESPONDENTS ........................................... 168
TABLE 6-4: IMPORTANT AND/OR PRIMARILY USED MECHANISMS FOR I-PKS ..................................................... 174
TABLE 6-5: MAJOR REMARKS FROM RESPONDENTS ABOUT WHY THEY PREFER FACE-TO-FACE OVER OTHER KSMS ...... 175
TABLE 6-6: LL ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... 177
TABLE 6-7: PMO FUNCTIONS VERSUS PMS’ EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE PMO ................................................. 182
TABLE 7-1: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE ................................................................ 204
xx
List of Figures
FIGURE 1-1: RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 10
FIGURE 3-1: I-PKS FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 38
FIGURE 3-2: I-PKS FRAMEWORK (REPEATED FROM FIGURE 3.1)..................................................................... 59
FIGURE 4-1: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS USED TO APPROACH THEM .................................................... 70
FIGURE 4-2: CASES SELECTION ................................................................................................................ 74
FIGURE 4-3: EXAMPLE OF FIRST PHASE CODING PROCESS ............................................................................... 81
FIGURE 4-4: A FRAGMENT OF TREE NODES STRUCTURE WITH PARENT NODES AND CHILD NODES .............................. 83
FIGURE 4-5: THE USE OF ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND QUERIES FOR WITHIN AND CROSS-CASE ANALYSES ................. 84
FIGURE 4-6: THE EXPLANATION BUILDING TECHNIQUE PROCESS ...................................................................... 86
FIGURE 5-1: I-PKS FRAMEWORK (REPEATED FROM CHAPTER 3, FIGURE 3.1)..................................................... 95
FIGURE 5-2: CULTURE PROFILE OF ALPHA .................................................................................................. 98
FIGURE 5-3: CULTURE PROFILE OF BETA .................................................................................................. 114
FIGURE 5-4: CULTURE PROFILE OF GAMMA ............................................................................................. 125
FIGURE 5-5: CULTURE PROFILES OF DELTA ............................................................................................... 141
FIGURE 6-1: CULTURE PROFILES OF ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA, AND DELTA MIN AND IT ........................................ 158
FIGURE 6-2: CONSEQUENCES OF PMS GEOGRAPHICAL DISPERSION ................................................................ 165
FIGURE 6-3: SWOT ANALYSIS ON WIKIS ACROSS THE FOUR CASES ................................................................. 179
FIGURE 6-4: FACTORS WHICH ENSURE IMPROVED WIKIS .............................................................................. 181
FIGURE 7-1: SUGGESTIONS HOW TO ENSURE UPDATED AND DYNAMIC COLLABORATIVE TOOL FOR I-PKS.................. 201
FIGURE 8-1: INTEGRATED RESEARCH FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 209
xxi
List of Abbreviations
BIP Business Improvement Projects
CoP Communities of Practice
CVF Competing Values Framework
GOC Government Owned Corporation
I-PKS Inter-project Knowledge Sharing
IT Information Technology
KM Knowledge Management
KMS Knowledge Management Systems
KS Knowledge Sharing
KSM Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
KT Knowledge Transfer
LL Lessons Learned
OC Organisational Culture
OCAI Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument
PBO Project-based Organisation
PPO Project Portfolio Office
PM Project Manager
PMBoK Project Management Body of Knowledge
PMD Project Management Department
PMO Project Management Office
PRINCE2 Projects in Controlled Environments 2
SA South Australia
TCP Transition and Customer Projects
WA Western Australia
xxii
xxiii
Definition of Terms
The following concepts and their definitions relating to the I-PKS Framework are
used in this study:
Inter-project
knowledge
sharing:
The process through which a project is affected by the experience of
another project. This definition is informed by the definition
proposed by Argote and Ingram (2000, p. 151). Inter-project
knowledge sharing was examined by analysing the occurrence of
knowledge seeking and sharing behaviours from the perspective of
the project manager as a main knowledge source. Often this
research uses a term knowledge sharing behaviours when describing
actions of an individual, group or a company resulting in the
distribution and exchange of knowledge.
Organisational
Culture:
A set of basic assumptions developed by a group to cope with
problems. A way to perceive, think and feel in relation to the
problems (Schein, 1990). This research examined organisational
culture by focusing on the behaviours of the company that drive
effective knowledge sharing, discussed by Gamble and Blackwell
(2001) and De Long and Fahey (2000) including collaboration,
willingness to share knowledge, existence of silos, learning from
mistakes and teaching.
Trust: Trust is defined as ―the willingness of a party to be vulnerable‖
(Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). This study examines three
trust dimensions, namely ability, benevolence and integrity,
proposed by Mayer et al. (1995). Ability refers to a perception that
another party is knowledgeable and possesses a certain level of
competence and skills (Mayer, et al., 1995). Benevolence suggests
xxiv
that the trustee has some specific attachment to the trustor and
would keep the best interests of the trustor at heart (Mayer & Davis,
1999). Integrity is a perception that the trustee adheres to a set of
principles that the trustor finds acceptable (i.e., honesty and
credibility) (Mayer, et al., 1995). Consistent with other research
(e.g. Pinto 2009) this research refers to ‗trust dimensions‘ and ‗trust
forms‘ interchangeably.
Knowledge
Sharing
Mechanisms:
Are the means through which knowledge is shared. For the use of
this study KSM are categorised into relational (including all types of
face-to-face social networks), technology (including information
and communication technologies, or ICT, techniques) and project
management related mechanisms. Relational mechanisms include
face-to-face formal and/or informal communication during which
knowledge is shared. Technology mechanisms refer to information
technology (IT) or information systems (IS) tools used to facilitate,
capture and exchange knowledge. They include (1) IntellectWeb
Tools, which support collaboration and content management,
providing capabilities for messaging, calendaring, online chat,
application sharing and discussion forums, referred to as
collaborative tools; and (2) Enterprise Repositories that consist of
soft or hard copy documents and databases of codified knowledge
from internal and external sources (other than lessons learned)
(Alavi, Kayworth, & Leidner, 2006). Project management related
mechanisms are the sets of standards, techniques and processes
established to manage projects, including lessons learned, project
reviews, expert judgement, analogous estimating, benchmarking,
quality audit and interviewing.
Chapter 1 | Introduction
1
1.
Introduction
1.1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Knowledge is a powerful asset for organisations (e.g. Alavi & Leidner, 2001;
Liebowitz, 2005, 2008; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). To enable its identification,
sharing, application, and creation within the organisation, knowledge has to be
properly managed; otherwise, this valuable asset can be irretrievably lost.
Knowledge management (KM) is fundamental to maintaining organisational
performance (Brown & Gray, 1995; Lee & Choi, 2003). There is a number of
economic benefits related to effective management of knowledge such as
specialisation, co-ordination, and reuse of valuable information (Prencipe & Tell,
2001).
In identifying knowledge as a main resource, organisations are now attempting to
manage it in a more systematic and effective way. However, managing knowledge is
not an easy task as it is intangible, dynamic and involves many cultural issues. Thus,
KM requires intensive efforts to improve how knowledge is created, delivered, and
used (Davenport, Prusak, & Strong, 2008). The theory of KM and organisational
learning emphasises the importance of knowledge as a key to gaining better
performance and ultimately a competitive advantage (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans,
2003b; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Love, Irani, & Edwards,
2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Chapter 1 | Introduction
2
An important part of managing knowledge is its transfer to locations where it is
needed and can be used (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Knowledge sharing (transfer) is
one of the elements in the KM process. In the view of organisational context, it is
defined as ―a process in which an organisation recreates and maintains a complex,
causally ambiguous set of routines in a new setting‖ (Szulanski, 1996). Although the
two concepts, knowledge transfer (KT) and knowledge sharing (KS) are interrelated,
some authors distinguish between them (e.g. King, 2009). Overall, the purpose of
both KT and KS is to exchange and distribute organisational knowledge, thus this
research refers to both concepts as interrelated. This being said, however this
research uses the terminology ‗knowledge sharing‘ (KS) to avoid confusion.
KS can occur at various levels: between individuals, from individuals to explicit
sources, from individuals to groups, between groups, across groups, and from the
group to the organisation (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Renzl, 2008). Furthermore, KS is
more complex than communication, because (1) knowledge resides in organisational
members, tools, tasks and their networks (Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland,
2000); and (2) much knowledge in organisations is tacit, and hard to access and
articulate (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
There is a plethora of real life evidence reporting failures or even disasters caused by
a lack of, or ineffective, KS. One such example, unfortunately tragic in consequence,
was the NASA Challenger disaster. The Challenger spacecraft was launched on 28
January 1986, and exploded 73 seconds after liftoff. It was found that
miscommunication resulting in ineffective KS was a leading cause of the disaster
(Winsor, 1988). More positive, is the success story of effective KS with a Xerox
technician who, by exchanging invaluable tips over water cooler conversations,
helped save the company thousands of dollars (Brown & Gray, 1995).
Literature in the project management field has also recognised the need for KS
within and between projects (Bower & Walker, 2007; Kotnour, 1999; Schindler &
Eppler, 2003; Walker, Wilson, & Srikanathan, 2004). Projects have been identified
as an important locus for organisational learning (Newell, Goussevskaia, Swan,
Bresnen, & Obembe, 2008). Lessons from past projects can offer valuable
knowledge due to unexpected actions, unique approach, or problem experiences
Chapter 1 | Introduction
3
during project phases. Applying knowledge from past projects helps to avoid
unnecessary reinventions that are costly and time consuming (Carrillo, 2005; Fong,
2008; Walker, et al., 2004). Furthermore, Fong (2008) states that project can be seen
as generation of a new knowledge and as such can be utilised in other projects.
Accordingly, he argues that projects should not be view in isolation, but rather as
repositories of knowledge and experience for current and future projects.
1.2. RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RATIONALE
Although the importance of KS within project-based organisations (PBOs) has been
recognised, the KS between projects takes place to a limited extent, it is generally
poor, and results in knowledge wastage (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Newell, Bresnen,
Edelman, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2006; Turner, Keegan, & Crawford, 2000). PBOs
face serious knowledge needs in their projects, which could have been overcome by
more effective inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). Instead projects tend to
repeat the same mistakes because they do not learn from each other (Landaeta,
2008), which result in unnecessary reinventions, errors and time overrun. For
example, the cost of rework in Australian construction projects has been reported as
being up to 35% of total project costs and contributes as much as 50% of a project's
total overrun costs. In fact, rework is one of the primary factors contributing to the
Australian construction industry's poor performance and productivity (Love, et al.,
2003).
The argument of this thesis is that PBOs cannot entirely leverage KS practices from
functional organisations. This is because there are dissimilarities between PBOs and
functional organisations including organisational structure, duration of processes,
viewpoint of time, complexity and uniqueness of tasks and activities, as well as the
mobility of people. Firstly, in a project environment, the handling of time is different
than in functional organisations. Projects have temporary character and their end date
is known from the very beginning of its existence (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995;
Ngoasong & Manfredi, 2007). Thus, projects are subject to urgency, required to
deliver desired outcomes within a required timescale (Turner & Muller, 2003).
Functional organisations are survival rather than time orientated; they perceive the
Chapter 1 | Introduction
4
future as eternal and continuous (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995) whereas in projects
time is literally limited. Having that in mind, project managers (PMs) are primarily
focused on the delivery of project rather than knowledge sharing or coding
endeavours.
Secondly, in functional organisations, specialisation along functional lines enables
learning. Moreover, functional organisations have already embodied mechanisms to
link functional departments and act as knowledge silos. PBOs lack such mechanisms
for knowledge acquisition and transfer from one project to another (Hobday, 2000;
Prencipe & Tell, 2001). In PBOs there are no formal links across projects or, at best,
the connection is weak; this hinders the knowledge sharing and learning process
causing ‗learning closure‘, and lack of inter-project knowledge sharing and
communication (Hobday, 2000).
Thirdly, in PBOs employees‘ frequent mobility hinders I-PKS endeavours. When the
project finishes, people go back to their previous functions or start working on new
projects. Members of the disbanded team often have little time and motivation to
reflect on their experience and document transferable knowledge for recycling in the
future (Brady & Davies, 2004). Consequently, as each new project starts, there is a
tendency to ‗reinvent the wheel‘, rather than to learn from the experiences of
previous projects (Prusak, 1997). These problems are not as common in functional
organisations where people remain in their positions; this can encourage the
development of expertise, as members specialise in a particular function.
Accordingly, it can be seen that there are differences between functional and PBOs
that appear to have an effect on knowledge sharing practices. Consequently, PBOs
cannot entirely apply KS approaches from functional organisations. Furthermore,
some existing project management tools and processes have been developed to
facilitate I-PKS, including the process of lessons learned (LL), end-of-project
reviews, and deployment of project management offices (PMOs). These features are
applicable solely in the project management context, and as such are not considered
in non-project organisations. They do, however, play an important role in I-PKS and
should not be ignored.
Chapter 1 | Introduction
5
For over a decade the project management field has recognised the importance of KS
between projects, and some studies have been conducted in this area. However, these
studies focus primarily on mechanisms such as lessons learned (LL) and post project
reviews as the source of knowledge for future projects (Kotnour, 1999; Purdon,
2008; Sharif, Zakaria, Ching, & Fung, 2005; Turner, et al., 2000). Some preliminary
research has been carried out on the aspect of the PMO (Dai & Wells, 2004; Desouza
& Evaristo, 2006; Liu & Yetton, 2007; Walker & Christenson, 2005), Communities
of Practice (CoP) (Fong & Wong, 2009; Love, Edwards, Love, & Irani, 2011) and
organisational culture (OC) (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007) in
I-PKS. Also, the research on inter-project knowledge sharing in product development
literature is focused primary on mechanisms to share knowledge (Antoni, Nilsson-
Witell, & Dahlgaard, 2005; Nobeoka, 1995).
Nevertheless, not only mechanisms are important for effective knowledge sharing
and successful project delivery. For example Ndoni and Elhag (2010) suggest that
collaborative relationship can help to achieve effective KM and enhance project
performance. In reality, intellectual capital is often not well recognised and is not
entirely utilised in KS endeavours (Carneiro, 2000). Furthermore, existing literature
outside the project management area found other factors that influence KS, such as
trust (Ding, Ng, & Cai, 2007; Foos, Schum, & Rothenberg, 2006; Holste & Fields,
2010; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004). It is therefore unlikely that
effective I-PKS is simply a matter of better post project reviews and taking a LL
approach.
Accordingly, this research revisits other disciplines outside project management in a
search for drivers that can potentially influence I-PKS. No widely accepted,
comprehensive knowledge transfer or sharing framework exists in the KM literature;
the existing KS frameworks are either integrated as a part of larger KM models (e.g.
Argote, et al., 2003b; Carlile, 2004), or are focused solely on certain aspects of KS or
KS, such as on the transfer of LL (Kotnour, 1999; Purdon, 2008), or on social capital
dimensions (Levin & Cross, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Furthermore, KS and
learning frameworks for project specific environment developed thus far (Carrillo,
Robinson, Anumba, & Bouchlaghem, 2006; Chinowsky & Carrillo, 2007;
Chinowsky, Molenaar, & Realph, 2007) do not link project management to social
Chapter 1 | Introduction
6
relationships, such as trust. Therefore, as a result of a wider literature search, an I-
PKS Framework emerged, which defines the scope of this research and shapes its
initial design. The Framework comprises three main factors including: organisational
culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM), and demonstrates more
holistic view of I-PKS.
1.3. RESEARCH AIM
In view of the research problem and rationale, the aim of this research is to
investigate how OC, trust and KSM influence I-PKS behaviours.
1.4. THE RESEARCH APPROACH
This research investigates KS behaviours from the project managers‘ perspective.
PMs are central to the project network and per se have knowledge about the project
issues (Blackburn, 2002). They typically have a high status and direct control over
business functions, personnel and other resources (Hobday, 2000) and as such play
an important role as connectors between projects and the organisation, and across
projects (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Loo, 2002). They also have KS responsibilities,
which include the requirement to produce LL and manage project communication
(Office of Government Commerce UK, 2005; Project Management Institute, 2008),
and have a strong capability to minimise errors, and enact reinvention by learning
from each other (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007). Therefore, the reason for focusing on the
PMs‘ perspective is their position in the centre of the project knowledge network and
their broad knowledge about project issues.
This research chose an inductive theory building approach advised by Eisenhardt
(1989) where multiple case studies were selected in an attempt to build theories from
cases. The use of theoretical (purposeful) logic allows for the selection of four cases,
which all, according to the classification proposed by the Project Management Body
of Knowledge (PMBoK) (Project Management Institute, 2008), were large PBOs
Chapter 1 | Introduction
7
with strong matrix structures. Data were collected from the project management
departments of the respective organisations.
The research problem is further investigated in Chapter 2, focusing on KS practices
in organisations engaging in project management and underpins the identification of
the main research problem. The first key points of this chapter provide a
comprehensive understanding of the concept of knowledge. The second part
examines the theoretical foundation of the study and the literature closely related to
KM. Subsequent sections outline the nature of PBOs by examining this in contrast
with functional types of firms, and compiling a range of project typologies. The final
discussion of this chapter underpins the identification of the main research problem:
projects tend to repeat the same mistakes too often because of ineffective I-PKS
practices and insufficient use of project management processes that could facilitate
KS.
Chapter 3 then synthesises the literature related to KS within and outside the project
management field and develops the I-PKS Framework, which contains of three main
factors, organisational culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms that appear
to influence I-PKS behaviours. The framework defines the scope of the research and
shapes its initial design.
Based on these chapters, Chapter 4 outlines and discusses the rationale for choosing
the inductive theory building approach and the establishment of the research
questions set to achieve the research aim:
1. How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge
sharing?
2. How does the existence of the three forms of trust – (i) ability, (ii)
benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge
sharing?
3. How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project
management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours?
Chapter 1 | Introduction
8
4. How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational
culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve inter-project
knowledge sharing?
a. What are the relationships between the factors?
b. What is the best fit for given cases to ensure more effective inter-
project knowledge sharing?
The literature review demonstrated that the existing research related to these three
factors of OC, trust, and KSM is still inadequate to address the research questions by
applying a theory testing approach. Therefore, this research applied inductive theory
building, using a multiple case study method proposed by Eisenhardt (1989) who
developed a roadmap for building theories from case study research, which was
followed in this study. Inductive theory building allows investigating complex
phenomenon of I-PKS, in a specific, project-based environment. Rich data from the
multiple case studies make possible to better understand the problem and generate
practical solutions. The use of multiple case studies, as a research method gave the
possibility to compare data from a number of related cases and generate more
compelling results. Following the justification for choosing inductive theory building
from multiple cases; data management, analysis and research quality are also raised
in this chapter.
Chapter 5 reports the results of the within case analysis of the four cases and answers
the related research questions. In analysing the data, the main interest is in the factors
that influence I-PKS behaviours, illustrated in the I-PKS Framework. This chapter
comprises four sections in the same format, each representing the analysis of one
case. The aim of this chapter is to become familiar with each case as a stand-alone
entity before the cross-case analysis begins.
Chapter 6 reports the results of the cross-case examination of data related to the role
of I-PKS factors. This cross-case analysis aims to compare the cases looking for
similarities and differences between them, which is likely to bring more robust
outcomes, and help to strengthen the research findings. The outcome from the cross-
case analysis is seven propositions that form the main contribution of this research.
Chapter 1 | Introduction
9
Chapter 7 discusses results from the analysis outlined in Chapters 5 and 6,
comparing emergent propositions with the prior literature. It also provides some
practical implications related to the improvement of I-PKS; it provides managers
with guidelines on how to build trust, proposes how to ensure the development of an
updated and dynamic collaborative tool as a substitute for static LL documents, and
provides insight into the role of leadership in promoting I-PKS.
Chapter 8 concludes the thesis by re-visiting the research questions and providing an
overview of the findings. It highlights contributions to the theory and practice, and
reports on the limitations of this research providing potential directions for future
research. The research design is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Chapter 1 | Introduction
10
Literature in project management field
Research Problem
Literature review outside project management
I-PKS Framework
Research Aim and Questions
Case Study Protocol
Case Study Alpha
Case Study Beta
Case Study Gamma
Case Study Delta
Within-case analysis
Within-case analysis
Within-case analysis
Within-case analysis
Cross-case analysis
Derive Propositions
Revise Theoretical
Position
Interpret findings and
write up
Implications for research and practice
Further research directions
CO
NC
EP
TIO
N P
HA
SE
CA
SE
ST
UD
Y P
HA
SE
TH
EO
RY
BU
ILD
ING
AN
D
WR
ITIN
G P
HA
SE
Figure 1-1: Research Design
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
11
2.
Literature Review on Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Sharing in Project-Based Organisations
2.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter explores the current literature on knowledge management (KM)
focusing on knowledge sharing (KS) practices in project-based organisations
(PBOs). The first key points of this chapter provide a comprehensive depiction of the
concept of knowledge, its taxonomy, evolution, management and its processes,
including KS. The second part examines the theoretical foundations of the study and
literature closely related to KM. Subsequent sections outline the nature of PBOs by
examining these in contrast with functional types of firms. Furthermore, this chapter
explores KM practices in PBOs, outlining the latest findings on KS in the context of
project management. The final discussion of this chapter underpins the identification
of the main research problem: projects tend to repeat the same mistakes too often
because of ineffective inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS) practices and
insufficient use of project management processes that could facilitate KS.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
12
The reason for providing such a comprehensive overview of the literature is
motivated that this research is situated in the two broad fields of KM and project
management. Thus, potential readers‘ interest could be in one field, but not the other.
In order to respect the reader, a complete picture of the area of this research is
provided.
2.2. THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE
The definition of knowledge is an ongoing debate among philosophers in the field of
epistemology. The search for the meaning of knowledge began in ancient Greece
with an extensive debate between Theaetetus and Plato resulting in the oldest
definition, but one which remains in use: ―justified true belief‖ (Waterfield, 1987,
pp. 137-246). More recently knowledge has been defined by Davenport and Prusak
(1998, p. 137) as:
―a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and
expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and
incorporating new experiences and information. It originates in the
minds of knowledge holders and is transferred into documents,
organisational routines, processes, practices, and norms‖.
To better understand the nature of knowledge it is important to distinguish its
meaning from the concepts of data and information. Data is a set of discrete and
objective facts about events, it provides no judgement or interpretation. There is no
inherent meaning in data (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), whereas information is a
message, usually in the form of a document or an audible or a visible
communication. Unlike data, information has a meaning (Prusak, 1997). Once the
information is used and becomes actionable, it is transformed into knowledge
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Knowledge, unlike information, is about action, beliefs
and commitment; it is context-specific and relational. Knowledge, like information,
is about meaning. When knowledge is learned and shared among individuals and
adapted in organisational processes it becomes a valuable asset (Alavi & Leidner,
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
13
2001; Liebowitz, 2005, 2008; Love, Fong, & Irani, 2005; Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995).
There is a number of knowledge typologies proposed in the literature (Alavi &
Leidner, 2001; Frappaolo, 2008; Gamble & Blackwell, 2001; Sackmann, 1992), but
the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is most often used (Davenport &
Prusak, 1998; Foos, et al., 2006; Koskinen, Pihlanto, & Vanharanta, 2003; Levin &
Cross, 2004; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Smith, 2001). Explicit knowledge implies
factual statements, technical information, and tool characteristics and can be
articulated in a formal language including grammatical statements, mathematical
expressions, specifications and manuals. This kind of knowledge can be transmitted
to individuals formally and clearly (Koskinen, et al., 2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995). Polanyi (1967) recognised that knowledge has also a tacit dimension stating
that ―we can know more than we can tell‖ (p. 4).
―No matter how much we try, it is impossible to write a one page, easily
understood document that would help a young child to understand how
to ride a bicycle. There is no way that we could transcribe into document
feelings such as confidence and balance.‖ (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001
p.11)
Tacit knowledge refers to personal ideas, experiences, values and emotions (Nonaka
& Takeuchi, 1995), and is hard to articulate using a formal language. What is more,
many experts are unable to clearly articulate all they know and are able to do
(Koskinen, et al., 2003). Thus, often the only way of expressing knowledge is
through methods that require an informal use of language including metaphors or
drawings. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) divided tacit knowledge into two
dimensions: technical and cognitive. The technical dimension refers to ‗know-how‘
knowledge: hard to teach skills, crafts and talents an individual gains, but others
cannot posses without practising and experiencing. The cognitive dimension is the
subjective way we see the world around us, including mental models, beliefs and
perceptions unique for every individual (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 8). The key
distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge is that the former can be stored in an
artefact, such as a piece of paper, a drawing or a computer. Embodied, tacit
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
14
knowledge is more intangible; it involves personal beliefs, perspectives and values.
The storage medium for embodied knowledge is therefore generally people (Gamble
& Blackwell, 2001 p.11).
Early approaches to knowledge suggested that complex and hard to transfer tacit
knowledge firstly needs to be converted to clearer and easily-articulated explicit
knowledge to allow its access (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). More recent research
recognises a need to find ways to share tacit knowledge (Foos, et al., 2006;
Koskinen, et al., 2003; Smith, 2001), arguing that some tacit knowledge cannot be
converted into explicit form (Frappaolo, 2008). In fact, tacit knowledge has
tremendous value for organisations, and its sharing is a critical component of
successful KM efforts (Sharif, et al., 2005). This is because tacit knowledge is
complex and rich in context, it refers to personal ideas, experiences, values
(Davenport, Prusak, & Strong, 2008), and as such, it can determine to what extent
companies will be competitive in a turbulent market, and a global economy
(Johannessen, Olaisen, & Olsen, 2001; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Another knowledge typology, situated in the context of project management, was
proposed by Kasvi, Vartiainen, and Hailikari (2003), who distinguished three types
of project-related knowledge: technical, procedural and organisational. Technical
knowledge is about the product, its parts and technologies. Procedural knowledge
concerns production and action in a project. Organisational knowledge concentrates
on communication and collaboration (Kasvi, et al., 2003). This typology, although
related to project knowledge, is not sufficiently explained by its authors. For
example, it is not clear what organisational knowledge includes. Is it the knowledge
about how to communicate or collaborate between projects, with project stakeholders
or between projects and organisations? Furthermore, the typology does not consider
knowledge related to customer expectations, which play an important role in product
or service development. Consistent with PMBoK ―meeting customer requirements
by overlooking the project team may produce negative consequences in the form of
increased employee attrition, unfounded errors, or rework‖ (Project Management
Institute, 2004, p. 180). Accordingly, Kasvi, et al. (2003) typology cannot be as such
applied in this study.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
15
2.3. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
In recent years, companies function in a rapidly changing and knowledge intensive
environment. In these conditions firms need to be highly competitive to achieve
continuous growth in the industry. To achieve this, companies need to ensure the best
use of their organisational knowledge. This can be achieved through KM that enables
the effective organisation of knowledge in a company by ―identifying, organising,
transferring, and using the information and knowledge both personally and
institutionally within the organisation to support strategic objectives‖ (Gamble &
Blackwell, 2001, p. 3). KM can improve knowledge creation, delivery and use
(Davenport, et al., 2008), leading organisations to more efficient product
development (Davenport & Prusak, 1998) and innovations (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995).
Although KM has only recently emerged as an explicit area of research in the
academic as well as practitioner fields, knowledge has been managed implicitly for a
long time (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Wiig, 1997). The view on knowledge in
organisations has been evolving over the last few decades or even centuries, but only
in the mid-1900s were employees recognised to be able to learn from experience.
This phenomenon was recognised in 1962 in Nobel Prize-winning, economist
Kenneth Arrow's article, "Learning by Doing" (Prusak, 2001). During the second
half of the 20th century, information technology (IT) became available, which led to
extensive knowledge gathering and the use of technology to store and share
knowledge. The view shifted again in the late-1980s, when employees began to be
viewed as knowledgeable resources and drivers for organisational performance
(Wiig, 1997). The current trend of KM is evolving in the direction of issues
concerning: what stimulates individuals to acquire and share knowledge (Koskinen,
et al., 2003; Levin & Cross, 2004; Maurer, 2010); how to motivate employees to
contribute their knowledge to an organisational KM system; and how to develop and
sustain KM so that it maximises success in the organisation (King, 2009).
In the KM-related literature it is widely accepted that KM forms a cycle of processes
(Liebowitz, 2005; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) including: (i) knowledge generation,
(ii) codification and coordination, and (iii) transfer (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). For
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
16
example, according to Alavi and Leidner (2001) KM process consists of four
elements: (1) knowledge creation, (2) knowledge storage, (3) knowledge transfer,
and (4) knowledge application; these are discussed below.
Knowledge creation is the ability of an organisation to develop novel and useful
ideas and solutions; Marakas, 1999, p. 440 (as cited in Kasvi, et al., 2003), which
also means to use or recombine existing knowledge to solve current problems.
Organisational knowledge creation involves developing new content or replacing
existing content within the organisation's tacit and explicit knowledge (Alavi &
Leidner, 2001). Similarly, Fong (2005) refers to knowledge generation as a process
of knowledge creation in which teams create, by generating new or developing
knowledge through interaction and communication.
While organisations create knowledge and learn, they also forget. Therefore,
knowledge storage and retrieval are important elements of knowledge management.
Alavi and Leidner (2001) refer to organisational memory including: written
documentation, reports, databases, codified human knowledge, documented
organisational procedures, and tacit knowledge acquired by individuals and networks
of individuals. Kasvi et al. (2003) describe that process as knowledge administration,
while Davenport and Prusak (1998) refer to it as knowledge codification and
coordination. The aim of codification is to put organisational knowledge into a form
that makes it accessible to those who need it. It literally turns knowledge into a code
to make it as organised, explicit, portable, and easy to understand as possible.
Codification gives permanence to knowledge that may otherwise exist only inside an
individual mind. It represents knowledge in forms that can be shared, stored,
combined, and manipulated.
An important part of managing the knowledge is its transfer to locations where it is
needed and can be used. Knowledge needs to be distributed and shared throughout
the organisation, before it can be exploited at the organisational level (Bhatt, 2001).
Transfer of knowledge occurs at various levels: transfer of knowledge between
individuals, from individuals to explicit sources, from individuals to groups, between
groups, across groups, and from the group to the organisation (Alavi & Leidner,
2001). More on knowledge transfer is explained in the next subchapter.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
17
Knowledge application means making knowledge more active and relevant for the
firm in creating values (Bhatt, 2001). There are a number of ways through which an
organisation can employ its knowledge resources. For example, it could repackage
available knowledge in a different context, raise the internal measurement standard,
train and motivate its people to think creatively, and use their understanding in the
company's products, processes, or services (Bhatt, 2001). It is therefore important to
create organisational knowledge capacity. Describing knowledge application, Kasvi
(2003) refers to knowledge utilisation and productisation, for example; integration
into products and decisions, and application in other projects. The source of
competitive advantage resides in the application of knowledge rather than in
knowledge itself Alavi and Leidner (2001).
KM processes have also been proposed by other authors; some of the most often
cited classifications are summarised in Table 2.1. In general, the processes used by
these other authors are similar, differing only in scope and terminology. For example,
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Liebowitz (2005) and Fong (2005) use the term
‗knowledge sharing‘; Davenport and Prusak (1998), Argote et al. (2003b), and Alavi
and Leidner (2001) refer to ‗knowledge transfer‘ (KT); however, Kasvi, et al. (2003)
describe the process as ‗knowledge dissemination‘, while Bhatt (2001) refers to
‗knowledge distribution‘. Nevertheless, in all cases these processes contribute to
organisational learning by providing a framework for consolidating organisational
knowledge, facilitating its location and distribution, and providing easier access to
tacit knowledge.
Table 2-1: Knowledge management processes according to different authors
Authors Davenport and Prusak
(1998) Bhatt (2001)
Alavi and Leidner (2001)
Kasvi et al. (2003)
(King, 2009)
KM Process
Generation Codification & Coordination Transfer
Creation Validation Presentation Distribution Application
Creation Storage Transfer Application
Creation Administration Dissemination Utilisation & Productisation
Creation Acquisition Refinement Storage Transfer Sharing Utilisation
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
18
The focus of this research is on one element of the KM process: knowledge sharing,
which has been recognised as a critical component of knowledge management efforts
and seen as a vital source of competitive advantage in many industries (eg. Haas &
Hansen, 2007; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
2.4. THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING
KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the 1990s. Significant input into KM theory
was contributed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and Davenport and Prusak (1998).
These studies, along with the research which followed their lead (e.g. Alavi &
Leidner, 2001; Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003a; Goh, 2002; Love, et al., 2005)
constitute the foundation of the KM discipline. Although widespread acceptance of
the concepts of KM exists across a range of fields including economics, information
systems, organisational behaviour and theory, psychology, strategic management and
sociology, thus far no single theory or model of KM is universally accepted.
According to Argote et al. (2003b) the reason for this lies in the lack of research
providing cross-disciplinary perspectives. The same authors proposed a two
dimensional integrative framework for organising KM that fits across a range of
disciplines. The first dimension, knowledge management outcomes, includes (1)
knowledge creation, (2) retention, and (3) transfer. Second, KM context represents
properties of the context within which knowledge management occurs including (1)
the properties of a unit, (2) the relationships between units, and (3) the properties of
knowledge. The properties of a unit involved in KM span three levels: individual,
group and organisational level and include examining individual‘s absorptive
capacity and status (Shu, Chuang, & Sheng Lin, 2009; Szulanski, 1996), group or
team structure (Akgun, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005; Keller & Holland,
1983; Newell, et al., 2008; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986), and organisational culture (OC)
(Alavi, et al., 2006; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Fong &
Kwok, 2009). Properties of relationships between units include trust (Ding, et al.,
2007; Foos, et al., 2006; Holste & Fields, 2010; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Levin &
Cross, 2004) and tie strength (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006; Hansen, 1999; Levin &
Cross, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Properties of knowledge consist in
different knowledge types (e.g. tacit vs. explicit).
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
19
Even though much research on KM has been undertaken, the discipline is still
considered to be relatively new. Furthermore, spread across a range of fields, KM
theory lacks agreement about the meaning of the terminology used. For example,
concepts of KT and KS are sometimes used interchangeably (Dyer & Nobeoka,
2000; Levin & Cross, 2004) while at other times authors clearly emphasise the
differences between the two (King, 2006a, 2006b). The distinction between
knowledge transfer and sharing is discussed further in Section 2.5.
KM is closely associated with the theory of social capital. According to Nahapiet and
Ghoshal (1998, p. 243) social capital is ―the sum of the actual and potential
resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of
relationships possessed by an individual or social unit‖. It includes both
interpersonal relationships and the resources embedded in the relationships (Burt,
1992). It has been found that the characteristics of social networks including the
location of an actor's contacts in a social structure, strength of relationships and
assets rooted in these relationships, such as trust influence the level of KS between
individuals (Chiu, et al., 2006; Granovetter, 1973; Hansen, 1999; Levin & Cross,
2004; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Szulanski, 1996; Tsai
& Ghoshal, 1998). These associations have been widely studied on an individual
level (Granovetter, 1973; Hansen, 1999; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Szulanski, 1996;
Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). However, the interrelation between these two has seldom
been examined at the group or project level (Levin & Cross, 2004).
Information technology (IT) also plays an important role in the success of KM in
organisations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Advanced information technologies including
the Internet, intranets, browsers, data warehouses, data mining techniques and
software agents can be used to systematise, enhance and expedite large-scale intra-
and inter-firm KM. Earlier research in the IT literature focused primarily on the role
of IT mechanisms used in KM. More recent research shifted towards recognising the
role of soft factors including trust, in the context of virtual communities (Jarvenpaa,
Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze,
2002) and organisational culture (OC) (Alavi, et al., 2006; Issa & Haddad, 2008).
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
20
Many studies in the discipline of IT raised the issue of OC‘s influence on KM
success. However, only a few studies have investigated how it actually occurs (Alavi,
et al., 2006). For example, Scott and Gable (1997) investigated how to strengthen
knowledge links in alliances between two universities and one market leader in
Enterprise Software. Their observations brought to light that a lack of trust, and
incompatible OC hinder the success of alliances, which suggests that efforts to
manage trust and OC are likely to improve knowledge links. Furthermore, Nguyen,
Smyth and Gable (2004) suggested that although technology plays important role in
enabling effective KM, it is in fact the OC that foster KS behaviours in the
organisation. Furthermore, Alavi, et al.‘s (2006) findings revealed that OC influences
the way in which employees use KM technology. These findings on KM practices
are especially relevant in the context of project management, which can derive much
benefit from leveraging KM practices established in the IT field.
Finally, the literature on KM is closely related to that of Organisational Learning.
These two disciplines significantly overlap and some researchers do not clearly
distinguish between them (e.g. Argote, et al., 2003b). Organisational Learning is the
process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding (Fiol &
Lyles, 1985), but it is not simply the sum of each member's learning. Senge (2006)
argue that team learning is vital because teams, not individuals, are the fundamental
learning unit in modern organisations. Furthermore, organisations, unlike
individuals, develop and maintain learning systems that not only influence their
immediate members, but also are embodied into organisational histories and norms.
When teams are truly learning, not only are they producing extraordinary results, the
individual members are growing more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise.
March (1991) stated that mutual learning leads to convergence between
organisational and individual beliefs that is generally useful for both parties.
Research on Organisational Learning and KM focuses on a set of the same
fundamental questions, including how do organisations create knowledge and what
factors influence that process?; how do organisations retain the knowledge they
create?; how is knowledge transferred within organisations and what factors facilitate
(or inhibit) its transfer? (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Argote, et al., 2003a). King (2009)
refers to the view of Organisational Learning as the goal of KM. KM processes help
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
21
embed knowledge into organisational routines so that it can continuously improve its
practices and behaviours. From this perspective Organisational Learning ensures
sustainable improvement and utilisation of knowledge. KM focuses on the
organisation of knowledge in a company (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001), while
Organisational Learning concerns behavioural and cognitive development of
individuals and organisations (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). However, both Organisational
Learning and KM, in particular KM process of knowledge creation, are closely
related. The aim of both, knowledge creation and Organisational Learning is
knowledge development that occurs in a spiral process of socialisation,
externalisation, combination, and internalisation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Due to
the common fundamentals and apparent similarities in both areas, this study views
Organisational Learning as integral part of KM.
2.5. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND SHARING
KT and KS are two elements of the KM process (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Bhatt,
2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Kasvi, et al., 2003; King, 2009) and components
of everyday organisational life (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). These two concepts
occur in organisations, whether managed or not, and as terms are often used
interchangeably. An evaluation of both KT and KS is the aim of this section.
One main distinction between knowledge sharing and transfer is that transfer implies
focus with a clear objective, and is unidirectional (King, 2006b). KS also relates to
the exchange of knowledge, but unlike KT, can be multidirectional and informal
(King, 2006a). King (2006b) conceptualises knowledge transfer and sharing as two
ends of a spectrum. The KT end is formalised, with a clearly defined purpose and is
unidirectional. The KS end is multidirectional, informal, has no clear objective and
few rules. Both the transfer and sharing of knowledge occur at various levels:
between individuals, from individuals to explicit sources, from individuals to groups,
between groups, across groups, and from the group to the organisation (Alavi &
Leidner, 2001; Renzl, 2008). Furthermore, the purpose of both transfer and sharing is
to exchange and distribute organisational knowledge. Both concepts are interrelated
and are often used as synonyms in the KM literature. Nevertheless, some patterns
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
22
exist. Scholars who normally examine KM in the context of social capital refer to
KS, except Inkpen & Tsang (2005) and Levin & Cross (2004) who refer to
‗knowledge transfer‘. However, the majority of project management literature
concerning KM, does not distinguish between them (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008;
Bresnen, Edelman, Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003; Foos, et al., 2006; Newell, et
al., 2006). Therefore, it would not be feasible to solely concentrate on one aspect —
either knowledge sharing or transfer — and ignore the literature examining the other.
Thus, this research refers to the majority of the KM literature regarding both
concepts as interrelated, however uses the terminology knowledge sharing (KS) to
avoid confusion. Table 2.2 compares both concepts.
Table 2-2: Knowledge sharing versus knowledge transfer
KNOWLEDGE SHARING KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER
DIF
FE
RE
NC
ES
Interactive process Static process
Collective interaction between source and recipient
Static transmission of knowledge from source to recipient
Can be - Unintended - Without a specific objective - Multidirectional
- Implies focus - Has clear objective - Is unidirectional
SIM
ILA
RIT
IES
Transaction of a common resource: knowledge
Common aim: to exchange and distribute organisational knowledge involving individuals, teams, groups, organisational units and organisations
Often used interchangeably in the KM literature
No widely accepted, comprehensive knowledge transfer or sharing framework exists
in the KM literature. Most existing frameworks are integrated as a part of a larger
KM construct (e.g. Argote, et al., 2003b; Carlile, 2004), while others focus solely on
certain aspects of KT or KS, such as transfer of LL (Kotnour, 1999; Purdon, 2008),
or social capital dimensions (Levin & Cross, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Goh
(2002) introduced an integrative KT framework considering multiple factors
influencing effective KS; however, this conceptual KT approach targets functional,
not project-based organisations and lacks empirical validation. This research aims to
search for factors that could potentially influence KS in an inter-project context. This
effort is undertaken in Chapter 3 (I-PKS Framework).
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
23
2.6. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN PROJECT-BASED
ORGANISATIONS
This section outlines the nature of PBOs, compiles a range of project typologies,
examines PBOs in contrast with functional type of firms, and reviews KS practices
applicable solely for a project management context.
2.6.1. The Nature of Project-Based
Organisations
The second half of the 20th century has seen an evolution in the nature of
organisations, from the functional structure that was almost universally adopted in
the first half of the century to the PBO. This evolution was caused by the changing
nature of work from mass production, with essentially stable customer requirements
and slowly changing technology, to the current situation, where changes in product
design, technology and markets are continuous and rapid (Turner & Keegan, 2000).
Currently, many organisations across industries switch to matrixes or PBOs due to
innovative and rapidly changing environments. For example, in the building industry
the variability in work volume, geographic limitations and the site-based nature of
construction and infrastructure create a need to organise work on a project basis
(Stinchcombe, 1987; Taylor & Levitt, 2005).
In PBOs projects are launched in different departments within the organisation and
PMs select their teams to perform a project‘s activities (Project Management
Institute, 2004). An outmost form of PBO is a pure PBO structure (Hobday, 2000).
In this form the PBO is organised solely around projects (Prencipe & Tell, 2001) and
there is no formal functional coordination across project lines. Often the entire
organisation is dedicated to one or more projects, thus business processes and all
major business functions, including marketing, HR and finance, are coordinated
within the project (Hobday, 2000). Accordingly, PBOs can be grouped based on two
categories: (1) organisations that derive their revenue primarily from performing
projects for others under contracts, for example: architectural firms, consultants,
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
24
construction and government contractors; and (2) organisations that have adopted
management by projects and have management systems structured to facilitate
project management (Project Management Institute, 2004; Turner, et al., 2000). This
research focuses on the latter type. The former type includes a range of different
groups for instance contractors, owners and clients, which sometimes may be
managed as separate organisations, while at other times can constitute one large
PBO. This means that organisational boundaries of this type of PBO are often
unclear and are difficult to define. Thus, to ensure the research was manageable, this
study focused on the latter type.
2.6.1.1 A Project and Project Typologies
The key characteristic of PBOs is that they operate on projects. PMBoK defines a
project as ―a temporary effort undertaken to create a unique product, service or
result‖ (Project Management Institute, 2004). ‗Temporary‘ means that every project
has a definite beginning and end. Projects can last for several days as well as for a
few years; nevertheless, the duration of the project is finite. A project is complex,
composed of a number of activities and is goal-orientated. It has limited resources
and a budget, and involves many people across several functional areas in the
organisation (Weiss & Wysocki, 1992). A project is similar to an organisational
entity with its own budget, staff and performance criteria (Billows, 2006), and is
often referred to as a temporary organisation (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Turner &
Muller, 2003). Managing through projects has the advantage of speed and focus
(Lampel, Scarbrough, & Macmillan, 2008) and each project creates unique
deliverables (Project Management Institute, 2004). Despite their individual
differences, a project‘s activities can be reused in other projects, and can provide
valuable lessons due to the previous problems experienced and common
uncertainties.
Projects are very diverse, ranging from one or two people working on a small project
lasting a few days (sometimes even hours) to hundreds of people working to
complete multiple tasks over a period of a few years. There is a range of project
classifications available in the literature. For example, project taxonomy can be
determined by a project´s deliverables: product projects, service projects and
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
25
continuous improvement projects (Cleland & Ireland, 1994); by business experience:
projects that have been done before, that have not been done before, have some new
work, for which no experience base exists (Cleland & Ireland, 1994). Evaristo and
van Fenema (1999) introduced a matrix of seven types of projects across two
dimensions: the number of projects (singe project versus multiple) and location (one
site versus geographically spread in multiple sites). Furthermore, Newell et al. (2008)
classified projects accordingly to their complexity and, the extent of interaction
between projects. They found that as projects become more highly distributed along
the dimensions of space, time and organisations, the problems associated with
knowledge boundaries between the practices of different projects involved also
increase. In this research, it is also important to agree on a project typology that
accounts for the diverse project characteristics which determine KS practices.
2.6.1.2 Project Based Organisations versus Functional
Organisations
PBOs differ significantly from functional organisations in terms of their structure,
viewpoint on time, processes and employees‘ mobility. The classic functional
organisation is hierarchical, where each employee normally has one superior, who
further reports to an upper level manager in a chain of command. Functional
organisations can also have projects, but the scope of the project is usually limited to
the boundaries of the function. On the other hand, a PBO structure is more vertical,
the main organisational unit is a project and organisational resources are involved in
the project activities. Furthermore, projects work independently, hence there is
limited coordination across project lines, and in effect the learning process is
interrupted causing ‗learning closure‘ (Hobday, 2000). Moreover, the scale of
responsibility of a functional manager differs significantly from that of a PM. A
manager in a functional organisation supervises and is responsible for a group,
department or a function. PMs within a PBO typically have high status and direct
control over business functions, personnel and other resources (Hobday, 2000). They
play a role as connectors between projects and the organisation, and across projects
(Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Loo, 2002), having authority and independence in
managing the project. The PM is responsible for the delivery of a project from its
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
26
beginning to the end and is engaged in the processes of initiating, planning,
executing, monitoring, controlling and closing of a project.
For the reason that projects are time-orientated, people tend to focus on project
activities rather than KS activities (Davenport, De Long, & Beers, 1998; Kotnour,
1999; Loo, 2002). The temporary character of a project defines the end date from the
very beginning of its existence (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Ngoasong & Manfredi,
2007). For functional organisations, time is generally regarded as a limited resource
and is often referred to in terms such as ‗time is money‘ (Lundin & Söderholm,
1995). However, in projects, the handling of time is more complicated since their
time is literally limited. Therefore, the time is always running out because the life
span of project is agreed and calculated predicted from the beginning. Functional
organisations are survival- rather than time-orientated; they perceive their future as
eternal (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995).
Processes in PBOs are flexible and staged, whereas in functional organisations,
processes are continuous and stable. Stable functions are well defined because both
the work of the functions and the intermediate products which pass between them,
are well established and unchanging (Mintzberg, 1979) In functional organisations,
people specialise in performing certain duties and normally remain in their positions,
which encourages the development of expertise. Whereas, a PBO is weak in
coordinating processes, resources and capabilities across projects, because projects
act almost like separate organisations (Hobday, 2000). Moreover, in PBOs when a
project finishes, people reassign to their previous positions or start working on new
projects. Members of the disbanded team often have little time and motivation to
reflect on their experience and document transferable knowledge for recycling in the
future (Brady & Davies, 2004). Thus, as each new project starts there is a tendency
to reinvent the process rather than learn from the experiences of previous projects
(Prusak, 1997). Furthermore, in functional organisations, people working in a
department are usually co-located. In some PBOs, geographical dispersion of
projects reduces the amount of social communication occurring during projects,
resulting in limited KS activities. Table 2.3 summarises the differences between
PBOs and functional organisations that have been discussed above. These
dissimilarities between PBOs and functional organisations are suggested to shape KS
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
27
practices in both organisational settings. Within functional organisations there are
established departments and branches in which knowledge and experiences are
acquired and stored. The situation is different in PBOs where project team members
are the main carriers of project knowledge and experiences of daily work (Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008). Furthermore, the finite character of projects causes PMs to bear in
mind time pressures and so they become primarily focused on a product or service
delivery, rather than on KS activities. This hinders the transfer of best practices,
causing a lack of cross-project learning and communication. Moreover, projects are
often geographically dispersed, which impedes frequent face-to-face interaction.
Table 2-3: PBO versus functional organisation
CHARACTERISTICS PBO FUNCTIONAL
ORGANISATION
Organisational Structure
Horizontal Vertical
Main Unit – Project Main Unit – Function, Department, and/or Division
Project manager is a chief executive of a temporary organisation
Manager of function reports to senior manager who further reports to executive manager in a chain of command
Viewpoint on Time
Finite character — the end date of the project is known from the outset
Future is perceived as eternal with no end time identified a priori
Time-orientated Survival- (continue existence) orientated
Time is existence Time is money
Processes Flexible and staged Stable and continuous
Employees’ Mobility
People move from several areas of the organisation to work on a project and are formed temporarily around the project
People remain in their positions and stay within a function
Geographical Proximity
Often distributed Usually co-located
Project versus Function
Project activities: unique, novel, transient and dynamic
Function activities: repetitive, routine, ongoing and less dynamic
Subject to change and uncertainty
High inertia to change
In the ideal case, project management processes should enable transfer of best
practices between projects. However, this ideal scenario is often far from reality. In
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
28
reality, project experiences are captured and shared infrequently (Ajmal & Koskinen,
2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Newell, et al., 2006; Turner, et al., 2000).
2.6.2. Knowledge Sharing Practices in a Project
Context
KS on the project level takes place as social communication between project
stakeholders and through different explicit information channels such as project
documents (Arenius, Artto, Lahti, & Meklin, 2003). Accumulated knowledge
throughout the project, if not effectively shared, can be irretrievably lost. Thus, the
risk of a knowledge loss at a project‘s end is a serious problem for organisations.
Considerable costs resulting from redundant work and the repetition of mistakes can
be avoided if companies master the project learning cycle (Schindler & Eppler,
2003).
According to PMBoK (Project Management Institute, 2004, 2008), historical
information from past projects can facilitate knowledge transfer at the early stage of
the project, and can be especially helpful in identifying potential risks. According to
PMBoK, historical information represents an input to following project management
processes including Project Plan Development, Scope Definition, Activity
Definition, Activity Duration Estimating, Resource Planning, Cost Estimating, and
Risk Identification. The available historical information about what actually
happened on previous projects, when accessible and verified during the project
planning, can provide useful knowledge for future and ongoing projects.
Furthermore, PMBoK distinguished several tools and techniques that can offer
valuable knowledge during project management processes; they include (1) expert
judgement, (2) analogous estimating, (3) benchmarking, (4) quality audit, and (5)
interviewing. According to PMBoK, expert judgement can be available from other
units within the organisation, consultants, professional and technical associations,
industry groups, and communities of practice (CoP). The use of expert judgement
can potentially minimise uncertainty and risky situations in projects. Analogous
estimating helps in producing process outcome by estimating the activity duration of
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
29
similar previous activities from other projects as the basis for estimating the duration
for future activities. Here, past project records are invaluable source for project
planning, time and cost estimation. Risk-orientated interviews with various
stakeholders or experts from outside the project may help to identify risks not
recognised during normal planning activities. Benchmarking can be used in the
Quality Planning process, it involves comparing actual or planned project practices
to those of other projects in order to generate ideas for improvement and provide a
standard by which to measure performance. A quality audit is a method used for
quality assurance, which is a structured review of other quality management
activities. The objective of a quality audit is to identify lessons learned that can
improve the performance of a current project or of other projects within the
performing organisation. Quality audits can be carried out in-house or by third party
auditors. Also, there are a range of quality strategies including error detection,
process control, measurement that can potentially facilitate inter-project knowledge
sharing. Additionally, product development literature proposes a range of mechanism
that could be used for I-PKS, they include concurrent design transfer strategy, where
inter-project learning activities take place during communications and interactions
and sequential design transfer strategy, where the transfer of technical knowledge
occurs either before or after the base project has completed its design phase
(Nobeoka, 1995).
Nevertheless, literature showed that in PBOs lessons learned are the predominant
mechanism used to transfer project knowledge (Carrillo, 2005; Purdon, 2008; Rose,
2007; Sharif, et al., 2005). Furthermore, recent literature focused on the role of
project management office (PMO) in knowledge sharing in project environment (Dai
& Wells, 2004; Desouza & Evaristo, 2006; Liu & Yetton, 2007; Walker &
Christenson, 2005). Therefore, among a range of processes and techniques used to
capture and share project knowledge, this research focuses on two techniques — LL
and PMO — both of which are recognised by leading project management
methodologies, PMBoK and PRINCE2 and acknowledged in the existing literature.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
30
2.6.2.1 Project Management Tools and Techniques for
Inter-project Knowledge Sharing
One way to master this learning cycle is to capture and transfer LL beyond the
project. LL are defined as key project experiences, which have certain general
business relevance for future projects. Validated and reviewed by a project team, LL
represent a consensus on key issues that should be considered in future projects
(Project Management Institute, 2004). The aim for LL is to capture the positive and
negative aspects of projects in order to learn from the experiences (Kotnour, 1999).
As a result, LL constitute an essential part of project knowledge that can be utilised
by other projects during their planning phases (Kotnour, 1999). Leading project
management methodologies like PMBoK and PRINCE2 have already acknowledged
the importance of the transfer of LL by identifying project management processes
during which the transfer of LL should occur (Office of Government Commerce UK,
2005; Project Management Institute, 2004).
Ideally, the past lessons should provide practical learnings that assist in the planning
of new projects, preventing PMs from repeating mistakes, and ultimately assisting
business areas associated with the project to improve their operations (Purdon, 2008).
Unfortunately, this process only partly occurs or does not occur at all, as pointed out
by Purdon. The LL are not documented until the project is in the closure phase,
where each lesson is only documented as a simple statement, and the process stops
when the project closes. Furthermore, Newell, et al. (2006) found that end-of-project
reviews, which were supposed to reflect and capture lessons for the future, were not
performing effectively. Constant time pressures caused project team members to
focus primarily on deliverables rather than concentrate on storing LL.
Some empirical studies have been conducted stressing the importance of the transfer
of lessons beyond the project. Kotnour (1999) proposed a plan-do-study-act (PDSA)
cycle from quality management that can be used to define the learning process that
occurs within and between projects, while Schindler and Eppler (2003) focused
mainly on the importance of the review of LL documents. However, neither studies
focused on the access to LL beyond the project as a form of knowledge repository.
Purdon (2008) proposed a more comprehensive approach to the transfer of LL, yet
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
31
his study shows best practices from only one organisation. Therefore, more empirical
evidence needs to be gathered in that area. It has to be clear who is responsible for
transferring LL, as well as how and to whom LL have to be transferred.
2.6.2.2 Project Management Office
As previously noted, PBOs are inherently weak in coordinating processes, resources
and capabilities across the organisation (Hobday, 2000). Advanced (matured) PBOs
embody PMOs, known also as Centres of Excellence, designed to coordinate project
work and provide a formal link between top management and project management.
However, not many PBOs have established such a mechanism and those that have,
have done so only recently.
PMOs can vary widely in terms of size, structure and accountability. The most
effective are those that continuously drive project teams to improve on their
performance. One role of the PMO is to manage a project‘s knowledge by leveraging
the project‘s best practices and managing LL. This knowledge is further fed to other
projects or areas of the organisation, including engineering, research and
development, and product development to improve the products and services of the
organisation (Desouza & Evaristo, 2006). PMOs play the role of knowledge broker
in the organisation, establishing connections between communities. According to
Julian (2008) PMOs span at least three or more communities of practice: upper
management, project teams and the PMO personnel. In this role, PMOs develop and
maintain a set of standards and methods (Dai & Wells, 2004) by providing
centralised archives of systematically collected and stored project knowledge in the
form of LL and project templates. In addition, PMOs also provide project
administrative support, project management consulting and mentoring, as well as
arranging project management training.
Desouza and Evaristo (2006) categorised PMOs along two dimensions:
administrative and knowledge-intensive. Administrative PMOs provide PMs with
administrative support. Knowledge-intensive PMOs, on the other hand, take an
active role in managing the best practices of project management, learning from
projects (both failures and successes), and improving the maturity of project
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
32
management in the organisation. According to Desouza and Evaristo (2006),
choosing the right PMO is not a straightforward task. The choice of PMO archetype
depends on the maturity level of the organisation‘s project management practices.
Administrative PMOs are often found in organisations where project management is
comparatively immature and where the organisation has difficulty integrating multi-
functional projects with its management hierarchy; the perceived solution is to limit
the powers of the PMO to avoid internal conflict. Knowledge-intensive PMOs are
suitable for organisations that have developed mature project management practices.
This allows PMs enough flexibility for innovation, while the PMO continues to
coordinate and drive focused improvement in project management. Knowledge-
intensive PMOs (‗corporate project management office‘ as per Walker and
Christenson‘s (2005) classification), provide services to the entire company and
focus on strategic and corporate activities to coordinate and improve project
management within the organisation. They move towards the concept of a centre of
excellence in project management by creating an environment to deliver a continuous
stream of successfully managed projects (Kerzner, 2003; Walker & Christenson,
2005).
Although a great deal of research has been conducted on PMOs, there is still a lack
of empirical evidence on how PMOs facilitate I-PKS and what are the best practices
in KS in PBOs from the perspective of different PMO archetypes. Accordingly, this
research aims to empirically examine how these project management exclusive
endeavours support I-PKS practices.
2.6.3. Barriers in Inter-project Knowledge
Sharing
The main problem in unsuccessful KT within PBOs is that the knowledge acquired
during one project is not effectively transferred and utilised by other projects. As
each new project starts, there is a tendency to reinvent the process rather than learn
from the experiences of previous projects (Prusak, 1997), resulting in unnecessary
rework, errors and time wastage.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
33
Two studies investigated I-PKS practices (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Newell, et al.,
2006). Newell, et al. (2006) investigated inter-project KT practices of 13 unrelated
projects across six organisations in the United Kingdom (UK). While Eskerod and
Skriver (2007) conducted a single experimental case study to find out the problems
and challenges related to KS between five full-time PMs within a project-based
company. The results of the two studies showed that KS between projects and from
project teams to the rest of their respective organisations was generally poor. There
was limited evidence of knowledge creation and learning at the project-level.
Findings of these and similar studies revealed a range of barriers that prevented
successful KS within and between projects. These are summarised in Table 2.4
presented below.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
34
Table 2-4: Barriers to effecting KS within and between projects
BARRIERS
RELATED TO THE
CAPTURE AND
TRANSFER OF
DOCUMENTED
LESSONS
LEARNED
Transfer of LL is fragmented (Purdon, 2008):
o Lessons are focused on what was achieved by a project team (product knowledge) rather than how this had been achieved or why it worked or did not work (process knowledge) (Newell, et al., 2006).
LL are not included in the project scope and/or budget (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008).
End-of-project reviews do not effectively capture lessons for the future:
o Team members are focused on deliverables or start working on new projects rather than reflecting on LL (Newell, et al., 2006).
Lack of LL repositories (Newell, et al., 2006).
Lack of time to produce and review LL (Brady & Davies, 2004; Davenport, et al., 1998; Kotnour, 1999; Parker & Craig, 2008).
BARRIERS
RELATED TO
ORGANISATIONAL
FACTORS
Integration of KM strategies into the company goals is missing or unclear (Riege, 2005)
Existing OC does not provide sufficient support for sharing practices (Riege, 2005).
Lack of awareness of the importance of KT (Walker, 2004).
Lack of time for meetings and communication (Riege, 2005).
Time pressure in general (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Riege, 2005).
Closed office design does not encourage KS (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).
Weak communication links between geographically dispersed projects hinders KS (Hobday, 2000).
Project plans do not explicitly assign sufficient time and resources to KM activities (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Brady & Davies, 2004).
RELATIONAL
BARRIERS
Lack of trust (Foos, et al., 2006; Levin & Cross, 2004).
Lack of honesty and open analysis of failures and mistakes (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008).
Lack of social networks (Newell, et al., 2006).
Lack of individual motivation to document LL (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Brady & Davies, 2004).
BARRIERS
RELATED TO
KNOWLEDGE
SHARING
MECHANISMS
Shortage of appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing practices (Riege, 2005).
Lack of integration of IT systems (Newell, et al., 2006).
Lack of knowledge on how to use IT applications, lack of training to familiarise with systems, and lack of communication and demonstration of all advantages of the new or existing systems (Newell, et al., 2006).
BARRIERS
RELATED TO
PROJECT
MANAGERS
PMs‘ values do not encourage KS:
o PMs are highly independent individuals, and do not rely heavily on colleagues (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).
o PMs expose masculine cultural values, they are focused on accomplishing tasks, dealing with challenges, meeting personal deadlines; while the feminine values, such as teamwork, collaboration, openness and discussion, are those that support KT (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
35
2.7. SUMMARY
This chapter reviewed two broad fields of KM and project management, focusing on
KS practices in organisations engaging in project management. This review showed
that PBOs cannot entirely leverage KS practices from functional organisations.
Apparent dissimilarities between PBOs and functional organisations have been
identified, including organisational structure, duration of processes, viewpoint of
time, complexity and uniqueness of tasks and activities, as well as the mobility of
people. Furthermore, the literature review showed that some existing project
management processes, applicable solely in a project management context, have
been developed to facilitate I-PKS, including the process of LL, end-of-project
reviews, tools and techniques for KS, and deployment of PMOs. Nevertheless, these
distinct project processes are insufficiently utilised. A range of barriers have been
identified, which hinder I-PKS and these can be grouped into barriers related to: the
capture and transfer of documented LL, organisational factors, mechanisms to share
knowledge, PMs, and relational barriers.
This chapter demonstrated that there is still limited research in the area of KS
between projects. Existing literature on project management primarily focuses on
post project reviews and LL as the source of knowledge for future projects.
Preliminary research on the role of PMOs in I-PKS is minimal, and only recent
studies emphasise the importance of soft, human-related factors including OC.
The following chapter investigates the three factors that influence KS activities,
including trust, knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) and OC from a range of
literature within and outside the project management discipline.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
36
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
37
3.
Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
3.1. INTRODUCTION
The discipline of KM is relatively new and stems from a variety of fields including
project management, general management, IT, construction management,
psychology, social capital and organisational learning. Examination of these
interrelationships identified three factors: trust, knowledge sharing mechanisms
(KSM) and organisational culture (OC) that appear to influence inter-project
knowledge sharing (I-PKS). The primary objectives of this chapter are to synthesise
literature related to these factors, and to propose a framework that provides the scope
of this research.
Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM include social
perspective (culture, structure, and people) and technological perspective (IT)
(Davenport, et al., 1998; Lee & Choi, 2003). The knowledge sharing literature
outside project management field focuses on OC (Alavi, et al., 2006; Bhagat, Kedia,
Harveston, & Triandis, 2002; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Keskin, Akgun, Gunsel, &
Imamoglu, 2005; Triandis, 2002; Yang, 2007), trust (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, &
Levin, 2003; Holste & Fields, 2010; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Kotlarsky & Oshri,
2005; Levin & Cross, 2004; Renzl, 2008), and technology (Garcia-Perez & Ayres,
2009; Jasimuddin, 2008; Newell, et al., 2006; Shu, et al., 2009) as enablers
influencing knowledge sharing behaviours. To some extent, these factors were also
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
38
investigated in the field of construction management and project management (Ajmal
& Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Foos, et al., 2006; Issa & Haddad,
2008; Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Sharif, et al., 2005). This is further discussed in this
chapter. Accordingly, this research focused its inquiry on the role of culture, trust
and knowledge sharing mechanisms in inter-project knowledge sharing. Outlined in
Figure 3.1 framework demonstrates the scope of this study.
Figure 3-1: I-PKS Framework
Section 3.2 examines trust, and is followed by a comparison of relational,
technology, and project management related KSM. An investigation of OC, outlined
in Section 3.4, concludes the literature review. The final section, Section 3.5
proposes an I-PKS Framework that integrates the three factors and sets the scope for
the empirical investigation.
ABILITY TRUST
BEEVOLENCE TRUST
ITEGRITY TRUST
ABILITY TRUST
BENEVOLENCE TRUST
INTEGRITY TRUST
RELATIONALMECHANISMS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RELATED MECHANISMS
TECHNOLOGY
I-PKS
CLAN ADHOCRACY
HIERARCHY MARKET
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
39
3.2. TRUST
This section examines the literature on KS related to trust. Trust in the last decade
has gained attention among researchers in the fields of social science and
psychology. Mayer and Davis (1999) measured employees' perception of top
management trustworthiness and found that ability, benevolence and integrity
mediated the relationship between perceptions of the appraisal system and trust. A
similar study conducted by Becerra and Gupta (2003) examined the moderating role
of communication frequency on the perceived trustworthiness between top managers.
Findings from this study showed that as communication frequency increases,
employee contexts within the organisation, including organisational tenure and
decision-making autonomy, become important determinants of perceived
trustworthiness, while the trustor's general attitudinal predisposition towards peers
becomes less important. Trust has also been researched in the context of virtual
communities. Kasper-Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (2001) theorised that appropriate
information technologies facilitate the building of trust in inter-organisational virtual
communities. While Ridings et al. (2002) examined antecedents and explored the
effect of trust on information exchange in virtual communities, their empirical
findings revealed that trust is a significant predictor of virtual community members‘
desire to exchange and obtain information. Furthermore, in a broader field of social
science, trust has been found to improve KS (Ding, et al., 2007; Foos, et al., 2006;
Holste & Fields, 2010; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004). Nevertheless,
project management literature provides limited evidence on the role of trust in KM.
The next section examines literature related to trust and evaluates research from a
range of disciplines including IT, social capital, general management, KM,
construction management and project management.
3.2.1. The Nature of Trust
There are many attempts to define trust in the current literature and the three most
commonly cited definitions have been proposed by McAllister (1995), Mayer et al.
(1995), and Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998). According to McAllister
(1995) interpersonal trust is ―the extent to which a person is confident in, and willing
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
40
to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another‖ (p. 25). Mayer, et
al. (1995) defined trust as ―the willingness of a party to be vulnerable‖, and
Rousseau, et al. (1998) concluded that ―trust is a psychological state comprising the
intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or
behaviour of another‖ (p. 395). Smyth (2006) went further to propose a definition of
trust in a project setting, based on Rousseau. According to Smyth ―trust is a
disposition and attitude concerning the willingness to rely upon the actions of or be
vulnerable towards another party, under circumstances of contractual and social
obligations, with the potential for collaboration‖ (p. 84).
All four definitions agree that trust arises from a situation of vulnerability; where
being vulnerable implies there is something of importance to be lost, and risk is the
perceived probability of loss. Therefore, making oneself vulnerable is taking a risk
(Mayer, et al., 1995). Furthermore, Mayer et al. (1995) exemplified that trust is not
taking the risk per se, but rather the willingness to take that risk. That is, there is no
risk taken in the willingness to be vulnerable, to trust, but that risk is inbuilt in the
behavioural manifestation of the willingness to be vulnerable. One does not need to
risk anything in order to trust; however, one must take a risk in order to engage in
any action of trust (Mayer, et al., 1995).
Additionally, Inkpen and Tsang (2005) stated that trust is based on social judgments,
for example assessment of the other party‘s benevolence or competence. Smyth,
Gustafsson and Ganskau (2010) however criticised this view, arguing that trust is
assessed intuitively; it is not a calculation or a rational cognitive process, but rather a
‗gut feel‘. The trustor is not always fully aware that such judgment about
trustworthiness is being made (Smyth, et al., 2010).
3.2.2. Trust Dimensions
Previous research highlighted that trust is multidimensional (Bhattacherjee, 2002;
Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Mayer, et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Sako, 1992). In the
literature, there is a range of trust typologies. Mayer et al. (1995) categorised trust in
the three domains of ability, benevolence and integrity. Ability trust includes skills,
competencies and characteristics that allow a person, group or organisation to have
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
41
influence within some area (Mayer & Davis, 1999). It is rooted in the perception that
another party is knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of skills (Mayer, et al.,
1995) and answers the question, ―can you do the work?‖ (Pinto, Slevin, & English,
2009). Ability is domain-specific, in that the trustee can be highly proficient in one
area, but viewed as having little experience in other areas. For instance, engineers are
trusted with engineering tasks, but not with administrative skills. Benevolence trust
is the extent to which a trustee is believed to look for the best interest of the trustor,
aside from an egocentric profit motive, and suggests the trustee has some specific
attachment to the trustor and will keep the best interests of the trustor at heart (Mayer
& Davis, 1999). A benevolent trustee is one who selflessly helps the trustor, without
expectation to be rewarded. Benevolence introduces faith and altruism in a
relationship, which reduces uncertainty and the inclination to guard against
opportunistic behaviours (Bhattacherjee, 2002). Benevolence trust answers the
question, ―will you consistently look after my interests?‖ (Pinto, et al., 2009).
According to Blomqvist (2009) the signs of benevolence, that is moral responsibility
and positive intentions towards the trustee, are necessary for the trustor to be able to
accept a potentially vulnerable position. One example of benevolence trust is when
an employee turns for advice to a colleague because they trust that person‘s good
intentions and willingness to help beyond their own profit motive. The colleague is
seen as having benevolence for the employee. The third trust domain is integrity
trust. It is a trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the
trustor finds acceptable (Mayer, et al., 1995). Perceived integrity instils the trustor's
confidence in trustee behaviour, and so reduces the perceptions of risk
(Bhattacherjee, 2002). Integrity answers the question, ―will your behaviour always be
ethical?‖ As noted by Bhattacherjee (2002) integrity is similar to honesty, fairness,
credibility, consistency, predictability, reliability and dependability. Evidence of
integrity is when the employee is known to be credible and honest; they are seen to
have a high level of integrity.
According to Blomqvist (1997), trust in a business context is an expectation of the
other party's competence (i.e., technical capabilities, skills and know-how) and
goodwill (moral responsibility and positive intentions towards the other). Blomqvist
(1997) concludes that these two forms, competence and goodwill, are critical in a
business context, and in her model competence trust is similar to ability trust as
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
42
proposed by Mayer et al. (1995), whereas goodwill refers to moral responsibility and
positive intentions, and it is similar to benevolence and integrity trusts combined. In
her latest research,
Another trust typology was introduced by McAllister (1995) who developed and
empirically tested two forms of trust: affect-based and cognition-based, concluding
that both forms represent distinct forms of interpersonal trust. Affect-based trust is
grounded in mutual care and concern between workers. It involves emotional
elements and social skills of the trustee, and describes close social relationships
(Akgün, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005). Cognition-based trust, on the
other hand, is evident in a cognitive choice of whom and when to trust, and is based
on good reasons and evidence for trust (Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 970). Cognition-
based trust processes are grounded in analytical evaluation providing a rational basis
for trust (Blomqvist, 2009).
Of the range of trust models presented in the literature, the model proposed by Mayer
et al. (1995) is the most suitable for this study. Firstly, because it can be applied to a
business environment; secondly, because it has been validated and used by scholars
to examine relationships in organisational settings (Becerra & Gupta, 2003;
Bhattacherjee, 2002; Mayer & Davis, 1999), including the context of project
management (Pinto, et al., 2009) and finally, because it has been used to investigate
trust in relation to KS (Levin & Cross, 2004). Consistent with other research (e.g.
Pinto 2009) this research refers to ‗trust dimensions‘ and ‗trust forms‘
interchangeably.
3.2.3. Current Research on Trust In Project
Management and Knowledge Management
Literature
The project management literature identified that trust has a positive impact on the
success of new product development projects (Akgün, et al., 2005) and is a predictor
of positive working relationships between project stakeholders, increasing the
willingness of various project stakeholders to cooperate (Pinto, et al., 2009).
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
43
However, trust has received limited attention within the field to date (Maurer, 2010).
Wong, Then, and Skitmore (2000) examined antecedents of trust within construction
project management teams. Their findings were consistent with those proposed
earlier by Shaw (1997), and demonstrated a correlation between trust and the three
antecedents of trust, ‗achieving results‘, ‗acting with integrity‘, and ‗demonstrating
concern‘. Similarly Ding et al. (2007) interviewed nine architects and identified four
factors influencing interpersonal trust and willingness to share knowledge including
‗team member‘s attitude towards work‘, ‗team member‘s ability with regard to
work‘, ‗team member‘s personality‘, and ‗team member‘s social interaction‘.
Furthermore, Akgun et al., (2005) found that team interpersonal trust had a positive
impact on the Transactive Memory System, team learning, and product success in
new product development projects. Pinto, et al. (2009) later examined the effects of
competence and integrity trust on enhanced owner/contractor satisfaction of working
relationships and project success. Their findings revealed that for project owners,
both integrity and competence trust were necessary predictors of positive working
relationships, while for contractors only integrity trust was important. Maurer‘s
(2010) research examined both outcomes and antecedents of trust in inter-
organisational projects. These findings showed that trust between project team
members working on an inter-organisational project impacts positively on the
acquisition of external knowledge.
The literature related to KM also identified trust as an important factor for
successful KS (Ding, et al., 2007; Foos, et al., 2006; Holste & Fields, 2010; Inkpen
& Tsang, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004). Koskinen et al. (2003) noted that the greater
the level of trust, the greater the level of people accessibility, and the greater the
chance knowledge is shared in the team. Furthermore, Inkpen and Tsang (2005)
agreed that an atmosphere of trust contributes to the free exchange of knowledge,
because people do not feel they have to protect themselves from others‘ opportunistic
behaviours. Abrams et al., (2003) interviewed personnel in 20 organisations to
examine how interpersonal trust develops in a KS context from the perspective of
employee trust in managers. They recognised that trust in another person‘s
benevolence allows one to query a colleague in depth without fear of damage to self-
esteem or reputation. Additionally, people must also trust that the person they turn to
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
44
for knowledge has sufficient expertise to offer solutions. Abrams, et al. (2003)
concluded that ability and benevolence trusts are essential in KS. Levin and Cross
(2004) studied the link between strong ties and the receipt of useful knowledge,
examining the mediating role of competence- and benevolence-based trust from the
knowledge seeker perspective. They found that benevolence- and competence-based
trust mediate the link between strong ties and the receipt of useful knowledge. Their
analyses also revealed that benevolence-based trust consistently matters in
knowledge exchange and that competence-based trust matters most when the
exchange involves tacit knowledge.
The empirical studies of Foos et al. (2006) were based on interviews and
questionnaires which provided evidence that trust was critical in the perceived
success of the transfer of tacit knowledge. However, the limitation of this research
was that authors measured trust as a one-dimensional concept. A similar study was
conducted by Holste and Fields (2010) who examined the impact of affect-based and
cognition-based trust of co-workers on the willingness of professionals to share and
use tacit knowledge. Their findings revealed that both affect-based and cognition-
based trusts are positively related to a person‘s willingness to share and use tacit
knowledge. Affect-based trust had a greater influence on willingness to share tacit
knowledge, while cognition-based trust impacted more significantly on willingness
to use tacit knowledge.
The social science literature focuses on both the antecedents of trust (Ding, et al.,
2007; Ridings, et al., 2002; Wong, et al., 2000), and their outcomes including on KS
(Levin & Cross, 2004), Transactive Memory Systems (Akgün, et al., 2005) and
positive working relationships (Pinto, et al., 2009).
Mayer and Davis (1999) and Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) examined ability, benevolence
and integrity as additive antecedents of trustworthiness. Scholars in more recent
literature have investigated trust dimensions and their direct influence on knowledge
transfer (Levin & Cross, 2004) or on relationships between contractors and owners
(Pinto, et al., 2009). Additionally, Mayer et al. (1995) imply that the three
dimensions, though related to each other, are separable, and in some situations one
trust dimension can be more dominant than the other two. Mayer et al. (1995)
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
45
explain that if ability, benevolence and integrity were all perceived to be high, the
trustee would be ―deemed quite trustworthy‖. In addition, trustworthiness should be
perceived as a continuum, rather than the trustee being either trustworthy or not
trustworthy. Therefore, each of the three trust dimensions can vary along a scale.
3.2.4. Research Gap
The research conducted on trust in projects identified that trust is a part of the human
dimension of project management: it is one of the most important determinants of
project success (Hoffman, Kinlaw, & Kinlaw, 2001), it is positively related to the
development of project teams (Akgün, et al., 2005) and improves the strength of
working relationships (Pinto, et al., 2009). However, project management literature
focuses primarily on trust within projects (Kadefors, 2004; Pinto, et al., 2009; Smyth,
et al., 2010) examining trust as a one-dimensional concept (Foos, et al., 2006; Issa &
Haddad, 2008; Kadefors, 2004), whereas research from other fields found that there
are in fact many trust dimensions (Bhattacherjee, 2002; Mayer, et al., 1995;
McAllister, 1995; Sako, 1992). Furthermore, there is only limited research available
on the impact of different dimensions of trust on KS in a project environment (Ding,
et al., 2007; Koskinen, et al., 2003; Maurer, 2010). Drawing this data together means
that to date, trust dimensions have not been adequately investigated in an I-PKS
context, and only limited research has been conducted relating to trust dimensions in
the project management context. Ultimately, this study investigated how the three
trust dimensions of (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and (iii) integrity trusts influence I-
PKS, explored which of these trust dimensions is perceived to be superior in I-PKS,
and most importantly, how they interrelate with each other. Table 3.3 summarises the
current research on trust.
3.3. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS
One element of the KT process is the existence and richness of transmission channels
(Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000), referred to here as knowledge mechanisms. The
channel is the medium used to transmit the signal from transmitter to receiver
(Shannon, 2001). The channels can be wireless and wired, and can take many forms
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
46
including face-to-face contacts, staff meetings, policy statements, memos, e-mails,
telephone conversations, intranet, wikis and other electronic tools. One stream of
research signifies the importance of social networks, emphasising the need for face-
to-face mechanisms (Cook & Brown, 1999; Foos, et al., 2006; Liebowitz, 2005;
Newell, et al., 2006), while the other argues that advanced technology is essential for
organisational KS (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Sharp, 2003). Fong and Kwok (2009)
investigated knowledge flow at project and organisational levels and found that both
strategies personal interactions and technology means were equally utilised by
practitioners in the construction industry.
Table 3-1: Summary of the research on trust
Field Author Finding Type of
research Research focus
PR
OJE
CT
MA
NA
GE
ME
NT
Wong, Then & Skitmore (2000)
There are three antecedents of trust: achieving results, acting with integrity and demonstrating concern in construction teams.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined antecedents of trust within construction project management teams.
Koskinen et al. (2003)
Factors of mutual trust and proximity affect the use and level of tacit knowledge in project work.
Conceptual paper
Investigated what kind of social engagements allow for tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing to take place.
Akgün et al. (2005)
Interpersonal trust had a positive impact on the Transactive Memory System, team learning and new product success.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined new product development teams to determine the antecedents and consequences of the Transactive Memory System.
Ding et al. (2007)
Four factors influence interpersonal trust and willingness to share knowledge within a design team: team members‘ ‗attitude towards work‘, ‗ability with regard to work‘, ‗personality‘ and ‗social interaction‘.
Empirical, Interviews
Examined antecedents of trust.
Pinto, et al. (2009)
Integrity and competence trust are important determinants of healthy relationships for owners, but only integrity trust is a predictor of positive working relationships for contractors.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined the impact of integrity and competence trust on satisfaction with working relationships between owner and contractor.
Smyth (2010) Trust provides an important resource for creating greater probability and certainty, hence building operational and dyadic confidence.
Conceptual paper
Investigated the value of trust in the project management context.
Maurer (2010) Trust between project team members working on an inter-organisational project positively impacts on the acquisition of external knowledge.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined both outcomes and antecedents of trust in inter-organisational projects.
Field Author Finding Type of
research Research focus
OT
HE
R D
ISC
IPLIN
ES
Mayer & Davis, (1999)
Ability, benevolence and integrity mediated the relationship between perceptions of the appraisal system and trust.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Measured employee perception of top management trustworthiness and the appraisal system.
Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy (2001)
Appropriate ICT facilitates communication of trustworthiness and trust building in the virtual organisation.
Conceptual paper
Examined trust in virtual communities.
Ridings et al. (2002)
Trust is a significant predictor of a virtual community member‘s desire to exchange information, and especially to obtain information.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Explored the relationship between trust and information exchange in virtual communities.
Becerra & Gupta (2003)
Communication frequency, organisational tenure and decision-making autonomy are important determinants of perceived trustworthiness.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined moderating role of communication frequency on the perceived trustworthiness between top managers. The study was conducted within one organisation only.
Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin (2003)
Proposed a list of managerial behaviours that promote interpersonal trust.
Empirical, Interviews
Conducted interviews to identify how interpersonal trust develops in a KS context.
Levin & Cross (2004)
Benevolence- and competence-based trusts mediate the link between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined the link between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge and the mediating role of competence- and benevolence-based trust from the knowledge seeker perspective.
Foos, et al. (2006)
Trust was critical in the perceived success of the transfer of tacit knowledge.
Empirical, Interviews and questionnaire
Examined factors that influence the transfer of tacit knowledge between two product development partners. Examined only one trust dimension.
Holste & Fields (2010)
Affect- and cognition-based trusts are positively related to a person‘s willingness to share and use tacit knowledge.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined the impact of affect- and cognition-based trust of co-workers on the willingness of professionals to share and use tacit knowledge. Surveyed staff in only one organisation.
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
49
3.3.1. Existing Research on Relational,
Technology and Project Management Related
Mechanisms
Existing research found that social networks such as informal meetings, coffee
breaks and workshops are essential for effective KS (Abrams, et al., 2003; Cook &
Brown, 1999; Foos, et al., 2006; Liebowitz, 2005; Newell, et al., 2006). Databases
have grown to large proportions, but are often underutilised as employees are much
more likely to turn to peers and colleagues than to impersonal sources for necessary
knowledge (Abrams, et al., 2003). Additionally, Mintzberg (1973) indicated that
people prefer to turn to other people rather than documents for information. More
recently, the same tendency has been found even for people with ready access to the
Internet and their firm‘s IT-based knowledge repository (Cross, Parker, & Borgatti,
2000). Newell et al. (2008) recognised that social networks and informal dialogue are
more efficient than IT techniques and that IT should only complement social
networks in KS activities. However, people work under pressure and often have no
time for social interaction. Moreover, specific characteristics of projects such as tight
schedules and geographical dispersion of projects reduce the amount of direct
communication which can take place during projects. When this social
communication is missing, the project must develop specific means to increase it
(Arenius, et al., 2003). Furthermore, Irani, Sharif, & Love (2009) argue that in
project-based organisations (PBOs) IT mechanisms have been unable to deliver the
essence of tacit knowledge that is often required to meet organisational deliverables.
Firms are increasingly using information and communication technologies as
strategic enablers of KM initiatives. These knowledge management systems (KMS)
incorporate various technologies (for example information repositories, data
warehouses, intranets, search engines, data filters, collaboration tools, intelligent
agents) to facilitate the creation, storage, transfer and sharing of knowledge both
within and outside the firm‘s boundaries (Alavi, et al., 2006). The use of KMS tools
leads to enhanced communication and increases the level of participation among staff
members, ultimately improving project team performance (Alavi, et al., 2006; Alavi
& Leidner, 1999). These mechanisms facilitate the transfer of explicit knowledge
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
50
that can be generalised to other contexts. Computer networks create forums that
facilitate contact between the person seeking knowledge and those who may have
access to that knowledge. For example, this may be accomplished by posting a
question in the form of ‗does anybody know‘ or ‗request for help‘ in the virtual
discussion group. Corporate directories may enable individuals to rapidly locate the
person with the knowledge who may help solve a current problem (Alavi & Leidner,
2001).
Alavi et al. (2006) investigated how culture influences the use of KM technologies
and the outcomes of such use. They found that certain cultural values shared by a
community influence the way in which they use KM technology. Furthermore,
Siakas, Georgiadou and Balstrup (2010) suggests that in the multinational projects
the cultural awareness and the use of collaborative tools, such as web 2.0, are factors
supporting knowledge sharing. Garcia-Perez and Ayres (2009) conducted an
experiment implementing wikis into the workplace. Initially the implementation was
very successful with a significant number of researchers contributing to the wiki and
making use of it. However, its use declined over time and attempts to stimulate
interest by providing incentives for contributions were unsuccessful. One year after
the launch it was found that the use of wikis was minimal. Further study determined
that a lack of time (for reading and contributing to wiki entries), unsatisfactory
content (people felt that the wiki did not have much to offer to those who had been in
the organisation for more than two years), and accessibility (lack of a direct link to
the wiki on their computer desktop or the home page of the intranet hindered its use)
were the three main reasons for the ‗wiki failure‘.
Along with social networks and IT tools, there are mechanisms specific to the project
management context, which can facilitate I-PKS. These mechanisms are discussed in
details in Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.2.2. Furthermore, a study conducted by Liu
and Yetton (2007) revealed benefits from deploying a project management office
(PMO) that include facilitating KM through exposure to multiple projects, leveraging
previous solutions and sharing of good practices. Liu and Yetton (2007) recognised
that PMOs support other projects by providing knowledge of project tasks and
processes, ultimately improving project performance in ‗a high-task-uncertainty
environment‘.
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
51
The study conducted by Turner et al. (2000) observed different types of KS practices
on inter-project levels including the use of internal project management procedures
(Ericsson‘s procedure PROPS or the UK government‘s procedure PRINCE2), end-
of-project reviews, benchmarking, project management self-support groups or
conferences, use of the intranet and employee rotation. Their findings revealed that
some KS methods were more effective than others and that end-of-project reviews
played a vital part in capturing experience within organisations. Nevertheless, as
Turner et al. (2000) found, these practices simply became a meaningless box-ticking
exercise. Furthermore, Love et al. (2011) suggested that Communities of Practice
(CoP) can create and sustain learning in projects. However, they also found that
although PBOs have been informally using CoP for many years, they are often
reluctant to formally recognise and adopt these new management approaches.
3.3.2. Research Gap
In PBOs, geographical dispersion of projects and frequent employee mobility means
that face-to-face interaction is not always possible or recommended. Furthermore,
very high employee turnover means that individuals subsequently take their
knowledge out of the organisation when they leave (Turner, et al., 2000). Ideally,
knowledge repositories containing lessons learned (LL) documents, reports, memos
and other project documents allow a project to apply its collective intellect to any
problem, regardless of time or geographical location (Koskinen, et al., 2003).While
these repositories serve to support knowledge capture and dissemination for
distributed projects, they only complement the personal networks (Koskinen, et al.,
2003). As stated earlier, employees prefer to turn to their peers for knowledge rather
than engaging in an extensive search through a company‘s knowledge repositories.
They use databases only when colleagues direct them to a specific point in the
database (Koskinen, et al., 2003).
PBOs are facing the challenge of how to effectively leverage the two mechanisms —
face-to-face encounters and technology — to facilitate KS and enhance knowledge
creation. The literature disputes the types of mechanisms to be used to transfer
knowledge: soft by using personal, formal or informal channels; or hard by using
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
52
impersonal, formal or informal channels. Document exchange is a highly effective
and efficient mechanism for sharing codified knowledge. It is often highly
ineffective for transmitting tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In contrast,
conversations and the transfer of people are relatively inefficient mechanisms for
sharing codified knowledge, but for tacit knowledge, they may be the only effective
way of sharing (Jasimuddin, 2008). There are also KSM applicable solely in the
specific context of project management, including the capture and transfer of LL and
PMOs. One stream of research suggests that IT plays a central role in the transfer of
organisational knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). However, other authors argue
that soft mechanisms are more effective (Cook & Brown, 1999; Foos, et al., 2006;
Liebowitz, 2005; Newell, et al., 2006). The third view proposes a hybrid approach as
the most robust for transferring knowledge (Bhatt, 2001; Jasimuddin, 2008),
stressing that both tacit and explicit organisational knowledge complement each
other. This research categorised KSM into relational (including all types of face-to-
face social networks), technology (including IntellectWeb Tools referred to as
collaborative tools and Enterprise Repositories) and project management tools and
processes (including the transfer of LL and PMOs), to investigate which mechanisms
are the most appropriate to use for I-PKS, and how they can improve I-PKS.
3.4. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
An organisation's culture consists of practices, symbols, values and assumptions that
the members of the organisation share with regard to appropriate behaviour (Schein,
1990). Schein (1990) distinguished three fundamental levels within which OC exists:
observable artefacts, values and basic underlying assumptions. The artefacts can
include physical layout, the dress code, the manner in which people address each
other and the overall feel of the place, to the more permanent such as archival
records, products, statements and annual reports. Values are organisational norms,
ideologies, charters and philosophies. Basic underlying assumptions are based on an
organisation‘s historical events that determine perceptions, thought processes,
feelings and behaviour (Martin & Meyerson in Schein, 1990). The basic underlying
assumptions are least apparent, but much more influential on behaviour than
espoused artefacts and values (Schein,1992).
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
53
3.4.1. Organisational Culture and Knowledge
Management
OC influences KS behaviour by providing norms regarding what is ‗right‘ and
‗wrong‘ (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008), and by establishing the organisational context
for social interaction (De Long & Fahey, 2000). It represents rules and practices used
by an organisation including meeting formats, appropriate use of e-mail, voice mail
and dress code. According to De Long and Fahey (2000) these rules and practices
determine the environment within which people communicate by establishing ground
rules as to how people interact and exchange knowledge. Therefore knowledge, as a
product of social interaction, is shaped by cultural context. Literature provides
evidence that OC influences KS behaviour (De Long & Fahey, 2000; Friesl,
Sackmann, & Kremser, 2011; Gray & Densten, 2005; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Keskin,
et al., 2005) in the same way that some cultures encourage the sharing of knowledge,
other can hoard it. Furthermore, different cultures understand knowledge and its
value differently (Anantatmula, 2010). Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston and Triandis (2002)
investigated cross border transfer of organisational knowledge in dissimilar cultural
contexts. Authors suggest that awareness of where the organisation sits culturally
according to four cultural patterns of individualism versus collectivism, and
verticalness versus horizontalness tells us how organisations are likely to transfer and
absorb organisational knowledge (Bhagat, et al., 2002). Moreover, in project
management field, Fong and Kwok (2009) suggest that different organisational
culture types may require different KM strategies, and imply that identifying this
need is an important step towards developing the theory, but much research is still
needed in this area.
Among scholars, there is still disagreement related to culture and KM. Some authors
argue that a change in OC needs to occur prior to introducing a KM approach (e.g.
Bhatt, 2001). Others state that KMS need to be adapted and embodied into existing
culture (e.g. Liebowitz, 2008). Bhatt (2001) provides argument, supported by
example from Ernst & Young Co., that effective implementation of KM requires a
change in organisational culture. Thus, only by changing OC, can an organisation
gradually change the pattern of KS behaviours (Bhatt 2001). Similarly, Eskerod and
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
54
Skriver (2007) stated that OC must change first in order to apply effective KM.
Liebowitz (2008) proposed a contrasting view that companies should introduce a KM
application that is in alignment with the existing OC. He explained that because it
can take many years to change an overall culture into an organisational setting, KMS
that fit the OC will evoke organisational transformation.
Furthermore, some research attempts to make a connection between OC, trust, KSM
and KS outcomes (Alavi, et al., 2006; Fong & Kwok, 2009; Issa & Haddad, 2008;
Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Whitener et al. (1998) theorised that
some cultural values like risk taking, inclusiveness, open communication and valuing
people, are likely to engage in trustworthy behaviours. Alavi et al. (2006) found that
differences in cultural values will lead to divergent practices related to the use of
Knowledge Management Systems. The presence of multiple cultures within a firm
suggests that both formalised and organic approaches to KM may occur
simultaneously within the same firm. In comparison, Fong and Kwok (2009) found
that KM success is more greatly impacted by organisational culture types, then by
the use of technology. Issa and Haddad (2008) suggest that ‗proper organisational
culture‘ comprised of motivation, incentives and meetings will lead to knowledge
sharing, and enhance mutual trust in the organisation.
3.4.2. Organisational Culture and Knowledge
Sharing in Project-based Organisations
The view of culture in a project management context is rather complex because a
project involves a number of experts from various fields, backgrounds and
professions, who typically have their own cultures and ways of working, which are
not necessarily in harmony with one another or with the prevailing culture of the
whole project (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008). Ajmal and Kosikien (2008) advise that
PMs must merge several different organisational and professional cultures into one
project culture to promote effective KM. In the I-PKS context, Eskerod and Skriver
(2007) investigated how the organisational subculture explains the reluctance in KT
activities between PMs. Their research found that organising by projects restrains KT
because a project orientation facilitates knowledge silos and ‗lonely cowboys‘.
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
55
According to De Long and Fahey (2000) culture shapes patterns and qualities of
interactions needed to leverage knowledge among individuals. Furthermore, different
cultural fundamentals will influence KS on horizontal and on vertical levels (De
Long & Fahey, 2000). Structure, in fact, has an impact on KS approaches (Friesl, et
al., 2011). PBOs, in contrast to functionally driven organisations, are more horizontal
in their structure and projects operate on similar hierarchical levels. Therefore
knowledge between projects is also typically transferred horizontally. De Long and
Fahey (2000) distinguished three cultural fundamentals influencing KS on the
horizontal level: (i) the volume of interaction, (ii) level of collaboration and
collective responsibility, and (iii) orientation to seek out expertise or knowledge. For
example, culture determines the value of formal and informal interactions, thus
leading to different knowledge sharing patterns (De Long & Fahey, 2000). Also,
collaboration and collective responsibility leads employees to go that extra mile to
avoid letting colleagues down. Finally, cultures that reward individuals for sharing
behaviours and encourage the use of existing knowledge would create different KS
patterns than cultures that do not promote such activities (De Long & Fahey, 2000).
Literature provides a range of different OC frameworks including those proposed by
Cameron & Quinn (2005), Denison and Spreitzer (1991), Hofstede (1984), and
Schein (1990). Bhagat et al. (2002) investigated KT in relation to four cultural
dimensions individualism versus collectivism, and verticalness versus horizontalness.
However, they research examined KT between organisations located in dissimilar
national contexts. Similarly, cultural framework proposed by Hofstede (1984)
involves examination of culture in terms of national characteristics. However, this
research focuses on organisational, not national culture. Therefore, the Competing
Values Framework (CVF) proposed by Cameron and Quinn (2005) appeared the
most suitable for this research. CVF provides a holistic view of OC, it was validated
in the Australian context (Lamond, 2003) and investigated from the KM perspective
(Fong & Kwok, 2009; Gray & Densten, 2005; Keskin, et al., 2005).
The CVF allows assessing company‘s dominant culture across six key characteristics
of a corporate culture: Dominant Characteristics, Organisational Leadership,
Management of Employees, Organisational Glue, Strategic Emphasis and Criteria of
Success. The CVF explains the complex nature of OC according to two dimensions:
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
56
internal/external focus, and stability/flexibility structure. These two dimensions
create four quadrants, which represent four OC types; Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy,
and Marketing. Table 3.2 shows the attributes characterising the four cultural types,
according to Cameron & Quinn (2005).
Gray and Densten (2005) proposed Organisational Knowledge Management Model
that integrates knowledge creation and conversion model (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995) with the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2005) as a means
to understand how organisational culture drives or enhances the development of
organisational knowledge. Following this approach, different dominant values may
therefore lead to different KS behaviours.
Table 3-2: Attributes of Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market cultures
CLAN
Mentoring Extended Family, Nurturing Participation Teamwork Employee Involvement Corporate commitment to employees Rewards based on teams not individuals Commitment, Loyalty Informality Job rotation Consensus
ADHOCRACY
Dynamic Entrepreneurial Risk-taking Values innovation Temporary structure Innovative product Rapid change Power is not centralised, it flows from individual to individual or team to team Creativity, innovation Sometimes exist in large organisations that have dominant culture of different type
HIERARCHY
Structure Control Coordination Efficiency Stability Procedures govern what people do Formal rules and policies
MARKET
Result oriented Gets job done Values competition and achievement Focus on transaction with external suppliers, customers, contractors Productivity Tough and demanding leaders Emphasis on winning Success is defined in terms of market share and penetration
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
57
Organisations are seldom characterised by a single cultural type; they tend to develop
a dominant OC over time as they adapt and respond to the challenges and changes in
the environment (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). Clan culture has an emphasis on
developing shared understanding and commitment instead of formalised
communication process. Typical characteristics of Clan cultures are teamwork and
employee involvement programs, while the core values represent participation,
loyalty and commitment (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). Adhocracy culture, referred to
as the open systems perspective, gives importance to flexibility and external
competitive position. It emphasises creativeness, entrepreneurship and adaptability
(Keskin, et al., 2005). Hierarchy culture is characterised by predictability and an
internal focus. The emphasis is on information management, documentation,
stability, routines, centralisation, continuity and control (Keskin, et al., 2005). In a
Hierarchy culture, members are bonded together through internal controls and are
governed by procedures. The principles of stability, formal rules and policies hold
the organisation together (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). Market culture is referred to as
the rational goal perspective, and is characterised by stability and an external focus
(Keskin, et al., 2005). It is oriented towards the external environment, instead of
internal affairs (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). These Market type organisations value
competitiveness, productivity, goal clarity, efficiency and accomplishment (Cameron
& Quinn, 2005; Gray & Densten, 2005), bounding members together through goal
orientation and competition.
3.4.3. Research Gap
Based on the literature reviewed above, it can be stated that the current research
established that OC influences KM efforts (Alavi, et al., 2006; De Long & Fahey,
2000; Gray & Densten, 2005; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Sveiby & Simons, 2002), and it
is one of the most important factor that influences KS behaviours (Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Issa & Haddad, 2008). Nevertheless, only
recently has the research on project management focused its interest on OC in the I-
PKS context, and some preliminary theoretical (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008) and
empirical (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007) studies have been conducted. Furthermore, the
awareness of how culture influences KS behaviours in inter-project knowledge
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
58
sharing context still appears to be limited. The complexity and context dependency
of these two concepts, OC and KS, mean that there is still limited empirical evidence
stating the relationships between them. Therefore, this research aims to explore how
OC influences I-PKS behaviours, and investigate which cultural values are more
likely to drive this KS to occur. This research conceptualise organisational culture
primarily in terms of values. This is because values are more easily studied than
basic underlying assumptions, which are invisible, and values provide rich
understanding of social norms that define the rules or context for social interaction
through which people act and communicate (Alavi, et al., 2006; Schein, 1990). Also,
the use of CVF allows investigation of organisational culture in terms of values
(Cameron & Quinn, 2005).
3.5. SUMMARY
Based on the literature reviewed in this chapter, the three factors of trust, KSM and
OC are integrated in the I-PKS Framework to set the scope for the empirical
investigation. Figure 3.2 illustrates the reminder of the Framework.
As this chapter and the previous chapter revealed, KS research at an inter-project
level is still immature, lacking a comprehensive approach that will guide members
from one project to share knowledge with members of another. Current research in
the project management field focuses primarily on KSM including post project
reviews and LL as the source of knowledge for future projects, and only preliminary
research has been undertaken on the aspects of PMOs and culture. Presented in this
chapter, literature outside the project management area concentrates on other factors
that influence KS including trust and OC. It is therefore unlikely that effective I-PKS
is simply a matter of better post project reviews and LL. Overall, this chapter
provided an extensive review of the current research trends in KS across a range of
disciplines, focusing on OC, trust, and KSM. Based on that, the I-PKS Framework
emerged.
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
59
Figure 3-2: I-PKS Framework (repeated from Figure 3.1)
This literature review, although comprehensive, is not without limitations. While
considerable efforts were put into selecting the most relevant and high quality
articles, time limitations did not allow reviewing all sources. Furthermore, to achieve
a manageable research scope this research focuses on three factors that appear the
most relevant for I-PKS. The proposed methodology for this study is discussed in the
next chapter.
ABILITY TRUST
BEEVOLENCE TRUST
ITEGRITY TRUST
ABILITY TRUST
BENEVOLENCE TRUST
INTEGRITY TRUST
RELATIONALMECHANISMS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RELATED MECHANISMS
TECHNOLOGY
I-PKS
CLAN ADHOCRACY
HIERARCHY MARKET
Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework
60
Chapter 4 | Methodology
61
4. Methodology
4.1. INTRODUCTION
The previous chapter demonstrated that there are links between the factors identified
in the I-PKS Framework and KS, but some of those findings were based solely on
supposition or limited empirical evidence, especially in relation to an inter-project
context. Furthermore, Chapter 3 (I-PKS Framework) concluded that the current
literature on KS is generally limited to individual, project or organisational contexts;
an understanding of KS endeavours in the inter-project context, supported by
empirical evidence, is still lacking.
This chapter discusses the inductive theory building approach used in this study to
illuminate the central question of how organisational culture (OC), trust and
knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) influence inter-project knowledge sharing (I-
PKS) behaviours. Pursuing the inductive theory building approach allowed
investigation of the factors of the I-PKS Framework in their natural environment.
This helped to better understand the reality under investigation, including the impact
of culture and the role of trust in I-PKS. Furthermore, using this approach enabled
exploration of a range of mechanisms facilitating I-PKS in the complex context of
project management.
Section 4.2 provides explanation on epistemological stand chosen for this research.
In Section 4.3, a snap shot of the research flow is presented together with the
research aim and questions. Subsection 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 discuss the appropriateness of
Chapter 4 | Methodology
62
choosing the inductive theory building approach, its strengths and limitations. The
following section, Section 4.4, outlines a case study method applied in this research,
demonstrating its strengths and limitations, further illustrating the detailed design of
the case study including the development of a protocol and the use of multiple
sources of evidence. Section 4.6 focuses on how data were analysed, addressing both
within- and cross-case analyses, as well as presenting a range of analytical
techniques used in this study. The chapter concludes with a discussion on how
reliability, validity and analytical generalisability were maintained throughout the
study.
4.2. PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION
Prior to the attempt of conducting a research one should be aware of different
philosophical positions that influence the way of how the research will proceed.
Among the main four schools of thoughts positivism, post-positivism, critical theory,
and constructivism outlined by Guba and Lincoln (1994) this research follows a post-
positivist paradigm, labelled as a critical realism, where the reality is viewed as
complex and needs to be investigated by multiple measures, as none of them is
perfect. Post-positivism situates itself between positivism and interpretativism
paradigms, in a sense that there are some overlapping characteristics between these
paradigms. Accordingly, this research displays some degree of positivist and
interpretativist views.
This research aims to uncover the true reality of inter-project knowledge sharing
behaviours; uncovering truth and comparing this to hypotheses or propositions is a
goal of both post-positivist and positivist research (Gephart, 2004). Both paradigms,
positivist and post-positivist need a convincing argument that the findings are valid
(Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This research achieved that
by combining techniques from Eisenhardt‘s inductive theory building approach
(1989) and Yin‘s case study approach (2003, 2009), and applying a range of quality
measures to ensure rigour and thoroughness of the research process, and validity of
the findings; which is discussed in greater details in next sections.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
63
Having said that, there are clear differences between post-positivist and positivist
paradigms. Positivism assumes that reality exists and it is driven by natural laws and
mechanisms that are absolute, where the knowledge is described in the forms of
time-free and context-free generalizations. Post-positivist approach, on the other
hand, states that reality may exist and rejects the idea proclaimed by positivist
researchers that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994). Post-positivism believes that we are all biased and all of our
observations are affected by our cultural experiences and world views. In its
perception of the reality as a complex, post-positivism is similar to interpretativism
(Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekeran, 2001; Guba & Lincoln, 1994), which believes that
people experience physical and social reality in different ways (Cavana, et al., 2001).
This research investigates a complex, contemporary and socially based problem of
inter-project knowledge sharing in a specific, project-based environment. The
examination of the phenomenon in its context allowed gaining a better understanding
of the problem and generating practical solutions to the problem. Propositions put
forward in the later Chapters suggest relationships between factors affecting inter-
project knowledge sharing, but are not absolute.
Despite the research complexity and close interaction with the problem under
investigation, to get closer to the reality and achieve objectivity the researcher
followed post-positivist view emphasising the importance of multiple measures and
observations. According to this view, each of the measures possess different types of
errors, with the need to use triangulation to achieve a better perspective on what
happens in reality (William Trochim, 2006). Therefore, to capture as much of reality
as possible (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) and to achieve a better and truthful perspective
on what happens in reality (William Trochim, 2006) this research relied on multiple
sources of evidence including interviews with a number of respondents across four
cases, review of documents and questionnaire.
4.3. RESEARCH FLOW
The central research problem was the lack of effective KS across projects resulting in
knowledge being irretrievably lost. Research on KS in the project management field
Chapter 4 | Methodology
64
appeared to be insufficient to solve this problem. In view of the research problem and
rationale, an extensive literature review across a range of fields was conducted in a
search for factors that influence KS and could be relevant for an inter-project
context. As a result, three factors were identified and captured in the I-PKS
Framework (OC, trust and KSM) that shaped the scope of this research. Accordingly,
the aim of this research was to investigate how these factors influence I-PKS
behaviours. In order to achieve the aim, this research sought to answer the following
research questions:
1. How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
2. How does the existence of the three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)
benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
3. How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project
management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours?
4. How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational
culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve inter-project
knowledge sharing?
a. What are the relationships between the three factors?
b. What is the best fit for given cases to ensure more effective inter-
project knowledge sharing?
Presented in Chapter 3, the literature review demonstrated that the existing research
related to these three factors is still inadequate to address the research questions by
applying a theory testing approach. The conflicting answers to some of the major
questions relating to KSM, the limited empirical research on the role of different
trust dimensions and OC in KS, as well as insufficient research on KS in an inter-
project context led to an inductive study. Furthermore, this research investigated this
complex phenomenon of I-PKS, in a specific, project-based environment. For this
reason, this research employed a qualitative investigation applying the inductive
theory building approach proposed by Eisenhardt (1989) to obtain rich data about the
phenomenon within the everyday context. This allowed a better understanding of the
problem and the generation of practical solutions to the problem. Subsequent
Chapter 4 | Methodology
65
sections, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, report on the inductive theory building approach
undertaken in this research.
4.3.1. Research Reasoning
There are two major ways of reasoning when conducting research, deductive and
inductive (Cavana, et al., 2001; Sutrisna, 2009). Deduction is the process by which
the researcher begins with theoretical propositions and then moves towards concrete
empirical evidence (Cavana, et al., 2001). Induction, on the other hand, is the process
where the researcher begins with detailed observation of the world and moves
towards more theoretical generalisations and ideas (Cavana, et al., 2001). Induction
is the opposite process to deduction. Deductive research composes hypotheses based
on the current body of knowledge, while inductive research investigates the
phenomena, keeping an ‗open mind‘ to any possible result (Sutrisna, 2009) by asking
the questions ‗how‘ and ‗why‘ to gain richer and deeper information.
A mix of inductive and deductive approaches have been advocated by Eisenhardt
(1989), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Perry (1998). Perry (1998) advises that
starting from a blank theoretical slate is neither practical nor preferred.
Consequently, a pure inductive approach was not applied because it would not be
practical to ignore the past body of knowledge already generated in the area. Pure
induction could prevent the researcher from benefiting from existing theory, just as
pure deduction could prevent the development of new and useful theory (Perry,
1998). In this research, prior theory had a pivotal function in the development of the
I-PKS Framework, data collection process and design of the case study.
Nevertheless, evidence from the literature presented in Chapters 2 and 3 revealed that
current research is not capable of addressing the research problem by using a theory
testing approach. As a result, this study includes some deduction based on prior
theory, although inductive theory building is more prominent.
Another reason for using primarily inductive reasoning is the contemporary and pre-
pragmatic nature of this research, in which the factors outlined in the I-PKS
Framework are still too complex to be fully understood and well defined. Perry
(1998) recommends the use of an inductive approach for research in which accepted
Chapter 4 | Methodology
66
principles and constructs have not yet been established or are inadequate. Therefore,
in this complex and not fully understood environment a purely deductive approach
would not be suitable.
4.3.2. Research Approach — Inductive Theory
Building
Section 4.2.1 discussed two ways of research reasoning, inductive and deductive.
Accordingly, there are two major approaches to theory development, deductive
theory testing and inductive theory building (Cavana, et al., 2001; Perry, 1998). The
approach used in this research is inductive theory building, using a multiple case
study method proposed by Eisenhardt (1989). This approach involves using one or
more cases to create theoretical constructs, propositions or midrange theory and is
appropriate to apply when little is known about a phenomenon or when current
perspectives conflict with each other (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548).
In theory building, cases are used to develop theory inductively. The theory is
emergent in the sense that it is situated in, and developed by, recognising patterns of
relationships among constructs within and across cases and their underlying logical
arguments (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). A theory building approach increases the
likelihood of generating a novel theory and improves testability and empirical
validity.
There were several reasons for using an inductive theory building approach. Firstly,
there has been limited empirical research in the area of KS in the inter-project
context. Literature reviewed in Chapter 2 revealed that current studies focus
primarily on LL and post project reviews (Kotnour, 1999; Office of Government
Commerce UK, 2005; Project Management Institute, 2008; Purdon, 2008; Schindler
& Eppler, 2003; Sharif et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2000), and only some research has
been conducted on the aspect of culture in I-PKS (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008). However, the existing literature outside the project management
area focuses on other elements that influence KS, including trust and strong ties. It is
therefore unlikely that effective inter-project KS is simply a matter of better post
Chapter 4 | Methodology
67
project reviews and LL. Therefore, the inductive theory building approach that seeks
to uncover the complexity of the phenomenon appeared to be more suitable for this
research. Furthermore, there is a plethora of real life evidence reporting project
failures or even disasters caused by a lack of or ineffective KS (for example the
Challenger Disaster outlined in Chapter 1), suggesting that I-PKS is crucial for
project-based organisations (PBOs). This means that the answers to the research
questions are relevant for both organisations and theory.
Secondly, the current body of knowledge was still not sufficient to apply a deductive
theory testing approach to investigate the complex and socially constructed factors of
the I-PKS Framework. For example, Sackmann (1991) recommends examining
culture in its organisational context using inductive reasoning that provides valuable
insights into the nature of this complex phenomenon. Similarly, in relation to trust,
the project management literature focuses primarily on trust in projects (Kadefors,
2004; Pinto, et al., 2009; Smyth, et al., 2010), examining trust as a one-dimensional
concept (Foos, et al., 2006; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Kadefors, 2004), whereas research
outside the project management field (Bhattacherjee, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995;
McAllister, 1995; Sako, 1992) found that there are in fact many trust dimensions.
Accordingly, there is only limited research available on the impact of different trust
dimensions on KS in a project environment. Thus, it is clear that trust needs further
exploration, which can be achieved by applying an inductive approach.
Thirdly, theory building is appropriate to use when current perspectives conflict with
each other (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548). The literature review found that there is still
disagreement on the choice of mechanisms used for effective KS. Thus a theory
building approach appeared the most suitable to use in resolving this disagreement.
Nevertheless, there are limitations to the theory building approach. According to
Dyer and Wilkins (1991) one limitation of building theory from cases is the use of
multiple case studies, which are able to provide fairly ‗thin‘ descriptions focusing on
surface data rather than deeper social dynamics, which can be achieved only in single
case studies that are able to produce better stories. In fact, one step in the theory
building approach is to conduct within-case analysis, which indeed provides rich and
deep contexts, and which, as stated by Eisenhardt (1991), is often not reported in
Chapter 4 | Methodology
68
journal articles. Furthermore, the theoretical insights of case studies arise from
methodological rigor and multiple-case comparative logic, which allow
strengthening the findings.
Another risk of applying theory building approach from multiple case studies is that
the richness of data to deal with, which is often in a form of words, rather than
numbers can introduce additional complexity and confusion. However, as advised by
Fernández (2004) it is a normal state and researcher should trust in emerging
findings; if principles of the method are rigorously followed, the data itself will
provide justification.
As stated by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) some researchers who work on large-
scale, hypothesis testing research may misunderstand the method or regard their own
methods as superior. However, deductive theory testing and inductive theory
building complement each other. Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) stated that
―inductive and deductive logics are mirrors of one another, with inductive theory
building from cases producing new theory from data and deductive theory testing
completing the cycle by using data to test theory‖. Accordingly, this research
complements the mainstream deductive theory testing approach by generating
propositions based on empirical evidence that can be tested by future deductive
research.
4.4. RESEARCH METHOD
The case study research method was used to investigate the problem of a lack of I-
PKS. A case study is an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group or event
within their real-life context (Yin, 2009), where the phenomenon is not isolated from
its context, but the investigation focuses on how the phenomenon is influenced by
the context or influences the context (Hartley, 2004, p. 323).
Chapter 4 | Methodology
69
4.4.1. The Rationale for Using a Case Study
Method
According to Evans (1995), researchers often fail when they focus only on describing
the chosen research methods without providing the rationale behind the choice.
Therefore, the reasons for choosing a case study as a research method are described
as follows.
The case study method offers a range of advantages including the opportunity to ask
penetrating questions and to capture the richness of organisational behaviour (Gable,
1994). The case study method helps explain complex causal links in real-life
interventions while retaining the holistic and meaningful characteristics of the reality
under investigation (Yin, 2009), hence providing a richness and depth of explorations
and descriptions. Furthermore, Perry (1998) and Yin (2009) suggest that a case study
method is appropriate when researching complex and contemporary events over
which the investigator has little or no control. Furthermore, Proverbs and Gameson
(2008) stated that case study research appears to be highly relevant to an industry
that is project driven and made up of many different types of organisations and
businesses. In this research, the adoption of a case study allowed the researcher to
investigate the existing and multifaceted problem of I-PKS in its natural setting. The
complexity of processes involved during KS practices in the industries driven by
projects and the contemporary type of problem under investigation implied that the
case study method was the most appropriate for this research.
A case study was also chosen because of the type of research questions. These were
mainly the ‗how‘ questions, which involved a deeper probing of issues. According to
Yin (2009), these types of research questions suggest that a case study approach is
preferable, as opposed to ‗what‘, ‗where‘ or ‗how many‘ questions, which favour
survey methods. Figure 4.1 outlines what methods and sources of evidence were
used to answer the research questions.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
70
Figure 4-1: Research questions and methods used to approach them
For instance, research question two (RQ2) investigated the sensitive issue of trust.
Previous studies conducted by Borgatti and Cross (2003) showed survey respondents
were uncomfortable answering questions related to trust. Therefore, using qualitative
face-to-face interviews during the case study seemed more suitable. A questionnaire
was used only to measure the existence of the three forms of trust in the organisation,
while face-to-face interviews helped in establishing a closer relationship between the
interviewer and respondent, and allowed the respondent to feel more comfortable in
answering questions relating to trust. In addition, most of the existing research on
trust focuses on confirming stated hypothesis on the importance of trust in a range of
different situations (Foos, et al., 2006; Holste & Fields, 2010; Issa & Haddad, 2008;
Levin & Cross, 2004; Pinto, et al., 2009) using surveys with only closed-type
questions. However, in this research the use of semi-structured interviews allowed a
potentially richer insight into the complex issue of trust. The investigator initially
asked each respondent to indicate how important ability, benevolence and integrity
trusts were for I-PKS (confirmatory stage). Respondents then were asked to further
elaborate on their choice (exploratory stage), thus providing valuable comments and
insight. The trust indicators were adopted from Mayer and Davis (1999) and also
1) How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
2) How does the existence of the three types of trust — (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
3) How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours?
4) How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?
a) What are the relationships between the factors? b) What is the best fit for given cases to ensure more
effective inter-project knowledge sharing?
CASE STUDIES Interviews Questionnaire Review of
Documents
CASE STUDIES Interviews Questionnaire
CASE STUDIES Interviews Review of
Documents
Within and cross-case analyses
Chapter 4 | Methodology
71
used in (Akgün, et al., 2005; Becerra & Gupta, 2003; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002;
Levin & Cross, 2004; Pinto, et al., 2009). A case study also appeared the most
suitable method to answer the research question related to OC (RQ1). Using a case
study method allowed in-depth investigation of underlying basic assumptions and
values that impact I-PKS. A survey itself would not have been able to provide such
an insight into cultural dimensions. In fact, Sackmann (1991) recommends
examining culture in its organisational context and many authors in the field of social
science use the case study method to do so (Alavi, et al., 2006; Eskerod & Skriver,
2007; Sackmann, 1991).
4.4.2. The Use of Multiple Case Studies
This research used multiple case studies to develop the theory, which gave the
possibility to compare data from a number of related cases and generate more
compelling results, offering greater potential for explanation. Single-case studies
provide a rich description of the phenomenon and its context (Dyer & Wilkins,
1991), while multiple-case studies provide a stronger base for theory building (Yin,
2009, pp. 54-60), allowing a broader exploration of research questions and
theoretical elaboration (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Therefore, the theory that
emerges from multiple case studies is better grounded, more accurate and more
generalisable than single-case research (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007). Furthermore, Gable (1994) and Proverbs, and Gameson (2008)
recommended using multiple case studies to improve the consistency of the results.
The case study method applied in this research was both exploratory (exploring and
examining the relationships between the elements of the Framework) and
explanatory (explaining the relationships between the elements). The exploratory
stage of the case studies helped to assess the specification of the I-PKS Framework
and gain a deeper understanding of the investigated problem. The explanatory stage
assisted in demonstrating how the individual factors contribute to I-PKS as well as
the determined relationships between them. Ultimately, the goals of case studies
were to:
examine elements of the I-PKS Framework
Chapter 4 | Methodology
72
identify relationships between these elements
develop testable propositions for future research
aid in developing a practical application for PBOs to better manage their
knowledge.
Although the case study method has many advantages, there are also some
limitations in using this approach. There is a danger of subjectivity during data
collection that can compromise the validity of findings (Amaratunga & Baldry,
2001). The most often cited limitation of the case study method is the difficulty to
generalise findings to different settings (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Gable, 1994;
Yin, 2009). However, the aim of this research is not to obtain global findings or
claims, but propositions that can be further tested on a broader population. Section
4.6 (Research Quality) reports how this research dealt with these limitations.
4.5. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH
METHOD
This section discusses the implementation process of the case study method, focusing
on unit of analysis and case selection, design of case study protocol, and the use of
multiple sources of evidence.
4.5.1. Unit of Analysis and Case Selection
An important step in research design is to define a unit of analysis. The unit of
analysis is the level of aggregation of the data collected. It can be individuals, dyads,
groups, divisions, industries or even countries (Cavana, et al., 2001). The unit of
investigation in this research was a Project Management Department. This study
examined KS practices that occurred between projects as well as relationships
between PMs of Project Management Departments in participating cases.
Identifying and selecting the cases is also important. The selection of cases was
purposeful, and as advised by Eisenhardt (1989), Perry (1998) and Yin (2009), it
Chapter 4 | Methodology
73
followed a replication logic. Replication logic ―refers to two or more cases in the
same study where the investigator is looking for congruence that indicates increased
confidence in the overall findings‖ (Aita & Mcllvain, 1999, p. 258). Replication
logic is different to sampling logic commonly used in surveys, but similar to that
used in multiple experiments; each case must be carefully selected and treated as an
experiment (Yin, 2009, pp. 54-55). To ensure a replication logic, Eisenhardt (1989)
recommends choosing a specific population for the case study. This helps to
constrain irrelevant variation and sharpen external validity (Yin, 2003). Furthermore,
the purpose of the research was to develop theory, not to test it, and so theoretical
(not random) sampling was chosen. Theoretical sampling means that cases are
selected because they are particularly suitable for illuminating and extending
relationships and logic among constructs (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
The selected cases were large PBOs, which according to PMBoK (2004) are the
organisations that have adopted management by projects and have management
systems structured to facilitate project management. Four large PBOs from a range of
industries were chosen for this research, three were government owned, and one was
initially government owned and privatised in the 1980s. All cases had either a strong
or balanced matrix structure, which means that in all cases the PMs‘ authority, role,
resource availability and the responsibility of project management administrative
staff were similar. Furthermore, the selection of specific sectors — Heavy
Engineering, Telecommunication, Communication Services and Research — allowed
to control environmental variations. The focus on large PBOs constrained variation
due to size differences among the companies as well as allowed the capturing of
complexity of the investigated phenomenon. In addition, taking into account a range
of project types, such as geographically dispersed projects versus co-located projects,
helped to establish how these project characteristics change I-PKS behaviours.
Figure 4.2 illustrates dimensions based on which cases were selected.
The number of cases for this research is four. Eisenhardt (1989) recommends that
cases should be added until ‗theoretical saturation‘ is reached, which means
incremental learning is minimal because the researcher is observing phenomena seen
before (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Furthermore, the number of cases for this research
is adequate for the time given to conduct the research. Pettigrew (1990) recommends
Chapter 4 | Methodology
74
that a full time researcher should conduct no more than 4–6 cases over a three-year
period. Although there is no ideal number of cases, Eisenhardt (1989) states that 4–
10 cases usually works well. The purposeful choice of cases made the research more
manageable and theoretical saturation was reached as the forth case did not introduce
much novelty into the research findings and similar responses were obtained to those
in previous cases.
4.5.2. Case Study Protocol
Another issue to be reflected in the implementation of the case study method is the
protocol. The case study protocol was developed to increase the consistency of the
research (Yin, 2009). The elements of the I-PKS Framework informed the interview
protocol that was used for data collection in all four cases. The protocol contained
the instruments and procedures to be followed during the conduct of the case studies.
It guided the data collection process, keeping the researcher focused on the topic. A
copy of the protocol which included an introduction to the case study, case study
questions and data collection procedures is attached in Appendix B.
Pure PBO
Matrix
Functional
Large
Beta Alpha Delta Gamma
Co-located Co-located
and Distributed
Distributed
ORGANISATION SIZE
PROJECT MANAGERS LOCATION
PB
O S
TR
UC
TU
RE
Figure 4-2: Cases selection
Chapter 4 | Methodology
75
4.5.3. Entering the Field
Entering the field includes preparation work such as negotiating and obtaining access
to the case, contacting participants and gaining their consent (Fernández, 2004). Prior
to interviews, a key contact person from each organisation was approached and asked
to identify the potential respondents and inform them about the interview. After that,
an e-mail was sent by the investigator to state the purpose of the study, and to
arrange the date, time and place for the interview. Appendix C provides templates of
e-mails sent to key contact persons and respondents.
Interviews occurred mainly with PMs as centres of project knowledge directly
involved in the KS process, as well as with other parties including program
managers, senior management, project officers and project management office
(PMO) personnel who provided a broader perspective on project-based KS and
practices. In addition, prior to conducting the interviews, each respondent was
reassured about the confidentiality of the interview — that in no way would it be
apparent that responses came from them. Finally, each respondent was asked their
permission to use a recorder to record the interview. Everyone agreed to do so.
Furthermore, prior to conducting the interviews, respondents were asked to sign the
Consent Form and indicate that they agreed to participate in the project and had read
and understood the information regarding this project. The Consent Form was
prepared as a part of Ethical Clearance granted prior to data collection (Ethics No:
0900000432). The Consent Form included a short description of the study, expected
benefits of the participation, the promise that organisations‘ and participants‘ names
would not be included in any reports or publications unless approval is obtained from
the relevant participants. The information that participation in this project was
voluntary and the respondent could withdraw from the research at any time during
the project without comment or penalty was also included in the form. A copy of the
Consent Form is provided in Appendix D.
The interview commenced with an explanation of the key concepts used in the study
including KS, I-PKS and KSM. Interview questions were focused on the elements
identified in the I-PKS Framework and were prepared earlier. The interviews
Chapter 4 | Methodology
76
investigated matters related to KSM, types of knowledge, the role of trust and OC in
an I-PKS context, as well as best practices in the transfer of LL beyond the project.
Often additional questions were asked during interviews, for example when the
interviewee revealed some extra information or extended the conversation relating to
the study focus. Also, the questions directed to PMO personnel, who did not directly
work on projects but assisted in project processes, were related more to the functions
and roles of the PMO in I-PKS, as well as to the organisational processes that
facilitate this I-PKS. Each interview lasted for about one hour. The interview was
guided by the protocol and the pre-prepared questions. All interviews were recorded
and later transcribed.
4.5.4. Sources of Evidence
The major strength of a case study data collection is the opportunity to use many
different sources of evidence (Yin, 2009). Consequently, this research used multiple
sources of evidence to collect empirical data including a review of documents,
focused interviews and the questionnaire, all presented below. Using this approach
allowed attention to a broader range of cues.
4.5.4.1. Review of Documents
According to Yin (2009) documents are helpful in verifying correct spelling, titles or
names and can provide specific details to support evidence from other sources, such
as interviews. In this research, the data collection process in each company started
with the review of documents, including the review of organisational charts, project
management methodology, company objectives and its core purpose. After reviewing
the documents and gaining a better understanding of each company‘s profile and
structure, the interviews commenced. In addition, review of the companies‘
collaborative tools such as intranet sites and corporate wikis helped gain better
understanding of each company‘s technological solutions facilitating interaction and
KS practices. Three main reasons for choosing the review of documents as case
study evidence were to:
Chapter 4 | Methodology
77
i. better understand the companies‘ objectives and core purpose
ii. identify the organisational structure
iii. examine project management methodologies followed by the
participating organisations and other organisational processes that
regulated I-PKS.
4.5.4.2. Focused Interviews
A number of face-to-face focused interviews were conducted in each case (the
number of interviewees in each case is presented in Chapter 5). Interviews explored
how the factors identified in Chapter 3 and illustrated in the I-PKS Framework
influence KS. The use of interviews provided a richer insight into the complex issues
of trust and OC. Furthermore, interviews revealed respondents‘ preferences for
mechanisms used to exchange knowledge as well as assisted in uncovering some
significant relationships between the factors of the I-PKS Framework.
The reason for choosing focused interviews over open-ended interviews, was that
some prior knowledge on the factors influencing I-PKS already existed and had been
outlined in the I-PKS Framework. This framework informed the case study protocol
helping to define the study focus. Nevertheless, focused interviews can still remain
somehow open-ended, but they are more likely to follow a certain set of questions
derived from a case study protocol allowing for focused, conversational, two-way
communication (Yin, 2003). Moreover, conducting face-to-face focused interviews
helped clarify the responses as well as facilitated respondents in providing valuable
comments and feedback. In addition, using face-to-face interviews, as advised by
Cavana et al. (2001, p. 150), allowed the investigator to pick up non-verbal cues
from the respondents, aiding understanding of the problem and providing useful
insights into the progress of the interview.
4.5.4.3. Questionnaire
A short questionnaire conducted after the interviews assisted in obtaining
quantitative data on OC and the three forms of trust. Questions were adopted from
existing measures. The trust indicators were borrowed from Mayer and Davis (1999)
Chapter 4 | Methodology
78
and were also used in Becerra and Gupta (2003). The questionnaire investigated the
presence of three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. Respondents were asked
to focus on the person from whom they sought knowledge the most and indicate how
much they agreed or disagreed with following statements in relation to that person.
The scale used ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5
strong agreement. The average scores for items measuring each form of trust were
calculated to examine the presence of ability, benevolence and integrity trusts during
I-PKS. Small cases that resulted in a lower sample size for the questionnaire were the
reason why questionnaire results were mainly descriptive.
OC was examined by applying the Competing Values Framework (CVF) proposed
by Cameron and Quinn (2005) to assess each company‘s dominant culture across six
key characteristics of a corporate culture: Dominant Characteristics, Organisational
Leadership, Management of Employees, Organisational Glue, Strategic Emphasis
and Criteria of Success. From a range of culture models, including those proposed by
Cameron and Quinn (2005), Denison and Spreitzer (1991), Hofstede (1984), and
Schein (1990), the CVF (Cameron & Quinn, 2005) appeared the most suitable for
this research. CVF provides a holistic view of OC, it was validated in the Australian
context (Lamond, 2003) and investigated from the KM perspective (Gray & Densten,
2005; Keskin, et al., 2005).
The CVF explains the complex nature of OC according to two dimensions:
internal/external focus, and stability/flexibility structure. These two dimensions
create four quadrants, which represent four OC types; Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy,
and Marketing. Organisations are seldom characterised by a single cultural type; they
tend to develop a dominant OC over time as the organisation adapts and responds to
the challenges and changes in the environment (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). The CVF
was used to assess culture in participating organisations. The questionnaire regarding
OC and trust can be found in Appendix E – The Data Collection Process.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
79
4.6. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH
The analysis of case study evidence is one of the least developed and most difficult
aspects of doing case studies (Yin, 2009, p. 127). Data analysis consists of
examining, categorising, tabulating, testing, or recombining quantitative and
qualitative evidence to address the initial inquiries of a study (Yin, 2003, p. 109).
According to Proverbs and Gameson (2008) and Yin (2009) the best way to start the
analysis is to focus on objectives or research questions that determine and guide the
case study analysis; well defined research questions help focus attention on certain
data and ignore other data. In this study, the research questions, reflected in the I-
PKS Framework, guided data collection and analysis.
As advised by Yin (2009), the use of both qualitative and quantitative data helped to
strengthen the findings and to illustrate them in a clearer manner. In addition, to
achieve a better quality of analysis every element of the Framework was analysed in
a way to demonstrate all evidence, including the rival interpretations. For instance,
when analysing benevolence trust, in some cases the number of advocates and
opponents, stating the relevance of benevolence trust, was almost the same. Analyses
were performed in a way to identify, examine and exemplify both perspectives.
4.6.1. The Use of NVivo in Data Coding and
Analysis
Data analysis consists of three activities: (1) data reduction, (2) data display, and (3)
conclusion drawing and verification (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These first two
activities, data reduction and display, were performed with the help of NVivo
package, which assisted in categorising, recombining and examining the data.
Firstly, transcribed interviews were uploaded into NVivo, and then were followed by
coding process. Coding in NVivo is based on storing passages of data in nodes and
tree nodes, which are much like designating files for each topic (Bazeley, 2007), with
this difference that nodes store reference to the segments of data without interrupting
the original data, thus source always remains intact. Furthermore, NVivo allows the
Chapter 4 | Methodology
80
same passages to be coded at multiple nodes. Accordingly, data from interviews
were arranged into nodes and tree nodes starting the coding process. There were
three phases of the coding process: open coding, building the tree nodes structure,
and review of nodes.
4.6.1.1. First Phase – Open Coding
Typically, coding process in theory building research starts with open coding, which
involves analysing the data to extract a set of categories (Fernández, 2004).
However, in this research some predetermined general nodes were created around the
Framework elements and the research questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994); in result
three parent nodes and six tree (child) nodes were created representing the elements
of the I-PKS Framework, as seen in Figure 4.3. Additional nodes were created when
new concepts emerged from the data.
A ‗case node‘ is created to gather all sources about a given case in one space
(Richards, 2006). Accordingly, during this phase every source was also coded into a
case node. In result, four case nodes were created, each representing participating
organisation. This was done primarily to gather data related to one case in a separate
node folder and be able to narrow down queries to that specific case.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
81
4.6.1.2. Second Phase – Building More Comprehensive
Tree Nodes Structure with Parent and Child Nodes
The aim of this phase was to investigate each node separately, finding patterns
between nodes and categorising general nodes into a more meaningful smaller
subcategories, resulting with a comprehensive tree node structure with parent and
child nodes. Child nodes allowed for better understanding of the phenomenon.
During this phase annotations, memos, and relationships were also created, which
were later used for within and cross case analysis. Figure 4.4 illustrates a fragment of
the tree node structure with parent and child nodes.
Parent Nodes Tree Nodes
D A T A
TRUST
ORGANISATIONAL
CULTURE
KNOWLEDGE SHARING
MECHANISMS
ABILITY TRUST
BENEVOLENCE TRUST
INTEGRITY TRUST
RELATIONAL MECHANISMS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RELATED MECHANISMS
TECHNOLOGY
“they’ve got to be good, they’ve
got to know what the job is...”
“I don’t want someone who’s got good intentions but is going to give me the wrong information....”
“it invalidates the whole point of
seeking knowledge if people are not going to be honest in the information that they provide you. It makes it impossible to do the job that you
do....”
“people are pretty vocal and most people you know, like to share their pain as much as their pleasures....”
“I mean there’s lots of issues with people not wanting to share information because for them that’s power...”
Passage from data
Passage from data
Passage from data
Figure 4-3: Example of first phase coding process
Chapter 4 | Methodology
82
4.6.1.3. Third Phase – Review of Nodes
This phase focused primarily on reviewing nodes, their content, hierarchical position,
and name. For instance, in this phase some nodes needed to be merged with other
nodes (because the content described the same phenomenon or idea), or to be further
split into child nodes. This process helped to create a tree node structure that was
easier to work with and analyse. Some of the child nodes were merged together as
the content was similar, describing the same matter. After the data was arranged into
the nodes and reviewed, and the coding structure was tightly established, within-case
analysis began.
4.6.2. Within-case Analysis
Within-case analysis helped the investigator to cope with the complexity and
richness of the data (Eisenhardt, 1989). As suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin
(2009), the aim of within case analysis is to become intimately familiar with each
case as a stand-alone entity before the cross-case analysis begins. Consequently, in
this research, within-case analysis involved detailed case study write-ups for each
site. This stage allowed unique patterns and relationships, related to the elements of
I-PKS Framework to emerge, exclusive only to a specific case. Results from within-
case analysis are presented in Chapter 5, in which pattern matching analysis, along
with a range of NVivo queries were used to assist in data analysis (see also Section
4.5.4).
Chapter 4 | Methodology
83
Figure 4-4: A fragment of tree nodes structure with parent nodes and child nodes
CHILD NODES
Ability trust
Benevolence trust
Integrity trust
Relational Mechanisms
Technology
Project Management Related Mechanisms
Important
Moderate
Not Important
Child Node
Wiki
Child Node
Child Node
Perception
Ownership
Design
Content
Usability
Leadership Engagement
Child Node
Child Node
Child Node
Child Node
Orientation to existing knowledge
Willingness to share
Collaboration
Child Node
Child Node
Child node
Child Node
Child Node
Organisational Culture
Trust
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
Strengths
Weaknesses
Opportunities
Threats
PARENT NODES
Chapter 4 | Methodology
84
4.6.3. Cross-case Analysis
Applying cross-case analysis is likely to bring more robust outcomes, and help to
strengthen the findings (Yin, 2003). In this research, cross-case analysis aimed to
look for similarities and differences between cases by comparing several categories
at once, and looking for within-group similarities and intergroup differences.
According to Yin (2009), one way of performing cross-case synthesis is to create
tables that display the data from the individual cases according to a uniform
framework. Eisenhardt (1989) warns that the danger of doing cross-case analysis is
that the investigator reaches premature or even false conclusions. One way to avoid
this is to look at the data in many divergent ways. The use of NVivo queries enabled
data from all four cases to be categorised in a range of different ways. For example
matrix queries allowed comparing several categories of data at once. A range of
other analytical techniques and queries were used in this phase, which are further
discussed in the next section.
4.6.4. Analytical Techniques
A range of analytical techniques and queries were used during the within- and cross-
case analyses, including pattern-matching logic, numerical counts analyses and
explanation building. These are presented in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4-5: The use of analytical techniques and queries for within and cross-case
analyses
•Pattern-matching logic
•Numerical counts analysis
•NVivo Queries
•Outcome Detail case study write-ups for each site
WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS
•Pattern-matching logic
•Explanation building technique
•NVivo Queries
CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS
PROPOSITIONS
Chapter 4 | Methodology
85
4.6.4.1. Pattern-matching Logic
According to Yin (2009) one of the most desirable techniques for case study analysis
is pattern-matching logic, where an empirically based pattern is compared with a
predicted one. If the patterns match, the results can help a case study to strengthen its
internal validity (W. Trochim, 1989). Pattern-matching logic was used in both
within-case and cross-case analyses. To perform pattern-matching analysis, the
predictions illustrated in the I-PKS Framework were compared with the empirical
findings. For example, the framework suggested that ability trust impacts I-PKS.
Empirical data from all four cases confirmed that prediction, suggesting that all
indicators of ability trust improve I-PKS, and the empirical data did not show any
alternative explanations. This means that there is a strong relationship between
ability trust and I-PKS.
Using this technique of pattern-matching also allowed the researcher to compare
cases and to determine similarities and differences between them for the purpose of
building and strengthening the theory from cases (Eisenhardt, 1989). The following
steps were undertaken to perform pattern-matching between cases: looking for
similarities and differences between cases, comparing several categories at one using
a matrix query, looking for within-group similarities and intergroup differences, and
looking what cause the differences.
4.6.4.2. Numerical Counts Analysis
Numerical counts analysis was used as a proxy indicator to estimate the importance
and frequency of elements. The numerical counts analysis counts the number of
times an issue was raised as important or not important, or having strengths or
weaknesses or simply counting the number of people raising it (Bazeley, 2007, p.
200). It is also sometimes referred to as quasi-statistics, as it counts the number of
times something is mentioned in field notes as a very rough estimate of frequency.
This technique was broadly used in this study to assess the importance of the three
trust dimensions, to examine the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face versus
technological tools, and to perform SWOT analysis on wikis, presented in detail in
Chapter 6 (Cross-Case Analysis).
Chapter 4 | Methodology
86
4.6.4.3. Explanation Building
Explanation-building analysis is considered a form of pattern-matching, in which the
analysis of the case study is carried out by building an explanation of the case. This
technique is particularly useful in explanatory case studies (Tellis, 1997; Yin, 2003).
This type of analysis is highly iterative and requires referring to the literature. It
involves five steps: examine case study evidence, revise theoretical positions,
examine cases from a new perspective, develop plausible explanations, and repeat
the process as many times as is needed (Yin, 2003). Figure 4.6 shows the process of
the explanation building technique. This technique was primarily used in the cross-
case analysis and assisted in the explanatory stage of the study outlined in Chapter 8
(Discussions and Practical Implications). Using this technique helped in recognising
relationships between OC, trust, and KSM as well as assisted in understanding ‗how‘
and ‗why‘ certain events occurred; thus, providing a rich understanding and
explanation of events that emerged during cross-case analysis process.
Figure 4-6: The explanation building technique process
4.6.4.4. The Use of Nvivo Queries in Data Analysis
The use of queries in NVivo assisted in asking questions about the project and
enabled seeing data in a more apparent manner. Three types of queries were
frequently used during the case study analysis: matrix query, text search query,
annotations and memos.
Matrix coding queries create tables - matrices to compare multiple pairs of nodes.
Matrix queries can be used to assist in numerical count analysis, and to compare
Chapter 4 | Methodology
87
multiple pairs of items restricted to a specific scope (Richards, 2006). The result of
the matrix coding query is ‗qualitative cross-tabulation‘ whereby new nodes,
resulting from the combination of pairs, are created for each cell (Bazeley, 2007;
Richards, 2006). These new nodes can be opened and explored to add to analysis.
Using this query allowed data to be displayed in a coherent manner. For example
Using a matrix query allowed to see all three dimensions of trust separately, and their
level of importance across the four respective organisations. Matrix queries were was
also used to uncover issues with LL repositories, the impact of different cultural
dimensions in I-PKS, across four cases, as well as to assist in conducting a SWOT
analysis on wikis.
The investigator also used text search queries to search for specific words within the
text. The search query assisted in the coding process. The Boolean search, a method
of searching using terms such as 'and', 'not' and 'or' was used to achieve better results
(Richards, 2006). For example, text search queries were used to identify a range of
trust indicators within the text.
The use of annotations and memos assisted the researcher during the coding process.
Annotations are used to add comments to data without interrupting it (Richards,
2006). Memos are used to write up ideas and casual relationships between nodes
(Miles & Huberman, 1994; Bazeley, 2007). Memos work in a similar way to
annotations, although they can store a ‗bigger‘ idea or interpretation whose content
can be coded like that of any other source (Richards, 2006). The use of annotations
and memos was helpful in the early stage of the analysis as they allowed the
researcher to capture premature ideas or casual relationships during coding.
4.7. RESEARCH QUALITY
The quality tests are perceived differently in qualitative than in the quantitative
research (Sutrisna, 2009; Yin, 2009). Some qualitative researchers argue that the
concepts used for the evaluation of quantitative research, including validity,
reliability, and generalisability, are not generally applicable for qualitative research
(Stenbacka, 2001). As a result, many researchers have developed their own concepts
Chapter 4 | Methodology
88
to assess the quality of qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Whittemore,
Chase, & Mandle, 2001). For example Lincoln and Guba (1985) used truth value,
applicability, consistency, neutrality as validity criteria, whereas Yin (2009) refers
construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. Based on the
notion that this research has been grounded in the work of Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin
(2003, 2009), the quality measures used in this research look into validity,
consistency and trustworthiness, and analytical generalisability.
4.7.1. Validity
According to Sutrisna (2009) validity in qualitative research refers to whether the
findings actually produce the expected output, as well as the extent to which any
research findings can be generalised beyond the immediate research sample. Based
on that, a rage of actions were undertaken in this research to ensure its validity.
Firstly, this research used multiple sources of evidence in order achieve a better
perspective on what happens in reality and increase the validity of research (Yin,
2009). Triangulation is the rationale for using multiple sources of evidence (Yin,
2009, p. 116) . According to Tellis (1997) the need for triangulation arises from the
ethical need to confirm the validity of the processes. The use of triangulation ensures
greater rigour and integration of the study (Yin, 2003). This research applied two
forms of triangulation, data and methodological triangulation (Yin, 2003). Data
triangulation was achieved by collecting information from multiple sources, with the
aim to corroborate the same fact or phenomenon. Methodological triangulation was
achieved by applying a multi-method approach, including interviews, the
questionnaire and review of documents to examine I-PKS practices. For example the
use of interviews and the questionnaire in the cross examination of trust and OC
allowed the researcher to achieve a better perspective on what happens in reality,
improving the validity of the findings.
To reduce the likelihood of false reporting and increase validity, Yin (2009)
recommends to have the draft report reviewed not only by peers, but also by the case
study participants. Accordingly, report was sent to the case study participants to seek
Chapter 4 | Methodology
89
their feedback on the findings. Consideration and reflection on their feedback
improved the quality of the findings.
Internal validity is a concern for the explanatory stage when the investigator is trying
to explain how and why event x led to event y (Yin, 2009, p. 42). Attention was paid
to validity of this stage through the careful use of analytical tactics including pattern
matching, explanation building and addressing rival explanations to explain how the
elements relate to each other.
Furthermore, in using replication logic for cross-case analysis, cases which confirm
emergent relationships enhance confidence in the validity of the relationships
(Eisenhardt, 1989). The use of replication logic, executed by replicating the findings
to a second, third, and forth case assisted in ensuring the validity of emerging
relationships between Framework elements.
4.7.2. Reliability versus Consistency and
Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, reliability refers to the consistency of results obtained in the
research (Sutrisna, 2009; Yin, 2009, p. 45) and demonstrates that the operations of a
study can be repeated with the same results if the same instruments, and data
collection procedures are used (Yin, 2009, p. 40). However, the use of reliability in
qualitative research seems problematic, and according to Stenbacka (2001) it is
misleading. She states that the basic distinction that makes reliability irrelevant is the
notion of measurement, which is not relevant in qualitative research (Stenbacka,
2001, p. 552). Sutrisna (2009) noted that in qualitative research, the reliability of the
findings is demonstrated through rigour and thoroughness of the research design and
method adopted to answer the research questions. Aware of this debate, this research
refers to Yin‘s (2009) and Eisenhardt‘s (1989) recommendations for improving the
consistency of the findings and ensuring rigour and thoroughness of the research
process and results.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
90
According to Yin (2009) case study protocol enhances the reliability of the research.
In this study the development of a comprehensive case study protocol provided clear
guidance for the data collection process ensuring the consistency of the study. Other
effort undertaken to ensure greater rigour and thoroughness was to maintain a case
study database, recommended by Yin (2009, p. 120). In this study, the data was
organised and stored to allow for later retrieval. All transcriptions were kept in one
folder making it possible to inspect the raw data at any time. Several copies were
made for protection. Furthermore, each case had a separate folder to store hard copy
documents including organisational charts and copies of other supporting documents
used as evidence in this study.
Also, the use of existing questions, as advised by (Yin, 2003), ensured the
consistency of the findings. For example the trust indicators were adopted from
Mayer and Davis (1999) and also used in Becerra & Gupta (2003). OC was
examined by focusing on the behaviours of the company that drive effective KS,
proposed by Gamble and Blackwell (2001) and De Long and Fahey (2000). As
suggested by Eisenhardt (1989), to ensure greater consistency of the findings, this
research followed the purposeful choice of informants, including PMs, program
managers, project officers, and PMO personnel that had experience in managing
projects and were directly involved in KS activities. Furthermore, to ensure greater
reliability of this research, two rounds of analysis were conducted in a span of a few
months. No significant changes were found between the first and the second analysis.
This procedure of reanalysing interviews, suggested by Sackmann (1991) and
Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988), ensured the objectivity of the findings.
4.7.3. Analytical Generalisability
Generalisability refers to the applicability of the research findings in one
organisational setting to other settings (Cavana, et al., 2001). Quantitative research
relies on statistical generalisation, whereas qualitative case studies rely on analytical
generalisation. In analytical generalisation the investigator is striving to generalise a
set of results to a broader theory (Yin, 2009, p. 43). Stenbacka (2001) concludes that
analytical generalisation in qualitative research is obtained by the strategic choice of
Chapter 4 | Methodology
91
informants. Furthermore, according to Cavana et al. (2001) most applied research is
conducted within a particular area in which the problem arises, and at best the results
are generalisable only to other identical situations and settings. Such limited
applicability does not decrease its scientific value.
Analytical generalisability was achieved through the careful comparison of the
emergent theory to existing literature. According to Eisenhardt (1989) tying the
emergent theory to existing literature enhances generalisability and theoretical level
of theory building. The comparison of findings with the literature discussing similar
findings ties together underlying similarities in phenomena, increasing the level of
generalisability. As recommended by Eisenhardt (1989), this research reviewed both
views, conflicting literature and literature that confirms research findings, by
following that approach it ensured analytical generalisability (Eisenhardt, 1989) and
increased external validity (Yin, 2009).
4.8. SUMMARY
The primary goal of this chapter was to outline the research approach and method
used. This chapter firstly introduced the research strategy and reasoning. Next, it
discussed the rationale of the choice of the inductive theory building approach as
well as common weaknesses of this approach. A detailed discussion on the case
study method, including the argument of the choice of case study for this research
and the strengths and limitations of this method were presented. Section 4.4
discussed the implementation of the case study method, addressing the purposeful
choice of cases, the protocol and providing a detailed description of the sources of
evidence used. After that, the analytical approach, including within- and cross-case
analysis was presented as well as the range of analytical techniques such as pattern-
matching logic, numerical counts analysis, explanation building, causal analysis and
the use of NVivo queries. This chapter concluded with the discussion on the research
quality and outlined steps that were undertaken to ensure greater validity,
consistency, trustworthiness and analytical generalisability of this research. The next
chapter (Chapter 5) presents the within-case analysis of the four participating
organisations.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
92
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
93
5.
Within-case Analysis
5.1. INTRODUCTION
Two types of case study analyses were undertaken in this research, within- and cross-
case; this chapter reports on the findings from the within-case analysis. Accordingly,
the aim of this chapter is to analyse the data of the four cases and answer the related
research questions, previewed in Chapter 1 and posed in Chapter 4. In analysing the
data, the main interest is in the factors that influence inter-project knowledge sharing
(I-PKS) behaviours, illustrated in the I-PKS Framework. The I-PKS Framework
contains seven elements grouped into three main factors: organisational culture
(OC), trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM). The relationships between
these elements and I-PKS behaviours are the central focus of the within-case
analysis. Definitions of the Framework elements can be found on pages xiv–xv.
This chapter consists of four sections in the same format, each representing the
analysis of one case. Each section starts with a case description, followed by an
analysis of OC, trust and KSM. At the end of each section a summary is presented.
This within-case investigation aimed to look for associations, relationships and
logical reasoning processes between the elements of the study and I-PKS behaviours.
The relationship patterns occurring across all four cases are presented in the
subsequent Chapter 7 — Cross-Case Analysis.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
94
5.2. WITHIN-CASE PROCEDURES
The within-case analysis procedures are presented in this section. Firstly, the
investigation began with the analysis of organisational culture. Data on OC was
obtained during interviews focusing on the companies‘ behaviours that drive
effective knowledge exchange, proposed by De Long and Fahey (2000) and Gamble
and Blackwell (2001), they include the volume of interaction, level of collaboration,
orientation to seek out knowledge, presence of silos, and willingness to share
knowledge. In addition to the interviews, the Competing Values Framework (CVF)
proposed by Cameron and Quinn (2005) was used in the questionnaire to assess each
company‘s dominant culture across six dimensions: Dominant Characteristics,
Organisational Leadership, Management of Employees, Organisational Glue,
Strategic Emphasis and Criteria of Success. Interview questions regarding OC can be
found in Appendix B — The Case Study Protocol. In two cases, Alpha and Delta,
PMs were both co-located and geographically dispersed. Therefore, the qualitative
investigation of cultural differences between dispersed PMs was also undertaken.
The qualitative analysis of the three forms of trust — ability, benevolence and
integrity — examined the importance of each form in cross-project KS. The
questionnaire investigated the presence of three forms of trust during I-PKS
endeavours. Respondents were asked to focus on the person from whom they sought
knowledge the most and indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with the
statements provided in relation to that person. The items measuring the three trust
dimensions were adopted from Mayer and Davis (1999) and were also used in
Becerra and Gupta (2003). The scale used ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated
strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement. The average scores for items measuring
each form of trust were calculated to examine the presence of ability, benevolence
and integrity during I-PKS.
The analysis of knowledge sharing mechanisms determined which mechanisms are
the most appropriate for I-PKS considering the geographical location of PMs. Figure
5.1 outlines the remainder of the I-PKS Framework, on which the data analysed in
this chapter was based.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
95
Figure 5-1: I-PKS Framework (repeated from Chapter 3, Figure 3.1)
5.3. ALPHA
5.3.1. Alpha’s Profile
Alpha is a large, strong matrix-type company in the heavy engineering and building
industry. Alpha has signed a multi-billion dollar contract with the federal
government to deliver a number of projects. The company was established in 1985
and employs over 1,500 personnel, including over 300 engineering and technical
specialists. Its vision is focused on high quality performance. Alpha prioritises
safety, and other company values include performance through excellence,
commitment to customers‘ outcomes, and relentless improvement and learning. Two
of these values — performance through excellence and relentless improvement and
ABILITY TRUST
BEEVOLENCE TRUST
ITEGRITY TRUST
ABILITY TRUST
BENEVOLENCE TRUST
INTEGRITY TRUST
RELATIONALMECHANISMS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RELATED MECHANISMS
TECHNOLOGY
I-PKS
CLAN ADHOCRACY
HIERARCHY MARKET
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
96
learning — are strongly aligned with team collaboration and KS. The organisation
emphasises working with integrity and collaboration achieved through commitment
to improving processes, skills and knowledge: ‗we are never too old or too good to
learn and try new ideas‘. Alpha undertakes three types of projects: development,
maintenance and process improvement projects. Projects at Alpha are large, with
AUD$3–$15m budgets, up to 180 people working on a project, and durations from
approximately two months to three years.
This study investigated I-PKS practices of the Project Management Department
(PMD), whose personnel were located at two sites, South Australia (SA) and a
smaller team in Western Australia (WA). There were 34 personnel working in the
SA PMD and five working in the WA PMD.
The team from SA delivers two types of projects: development and maintenance.
PMs from development projects, referred to as SA Development Projects, were co-
located in an open plan office. Those from maintenance projects (SA Maintenance
Projects) were normally located on different construction sites and office buildings.
The team from the WA site, referred to as WA Maintenance Projects, was smaller
and delivered maintenance projects. Alpha employs seven schedulers who are now
centralised under the new project management office (PMO). All together there were
eight case study informants from company Alpha and their IDs are coded from A1–
A8 respectively. The demographics of Alpha and the case study informants are
shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.2 provides a snapshot of the company‘s profile.
Table 5-1: Demographics of Project Management Department in SA and WA site
Site SA Maintenance
Projects SA Development
Projects PMO
WA Maintenance
Projects Number of personnel
11 12 4 + 7
schedulers 5
Number of informants
Interviews – 8
Questionnaire – 7
A5 - Project Engineer
A3 - PMD manager
A8 - Project Manager
A2 - PMO Manager A4 - PMO
Officer
A1 - Project Manager
A6 - Project Manager
A7 - Senior Project Manager
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
97
Table 5-2: Summary of Alpha’s profile
ALPHA
INDUSTRY Heavy Engineering and Building
SECTOR Government Owned Corporation (GOC)
DESCRIPTION Contract with government to deliver heavy engineering projects
CASE Project Management Department
INVESTIGATED SITES SA Development Projects SA Maintenance Projects WA Maintenance Projects
PROJECT SIZE Budget: AUD$3–$15m No of people: up to 180 Duration: 2 months to 3 years
PROJECT MANAGERS’ GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION Co-located and Distributed
5.3.2. Organisational Culture
This section reports on findings on how OC contributes to I-PKS and discusses the
cultural differences between dispersed PMs. Firstly, this section discusses findings
from the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) proposed by
Cameron and Quinn (2005). Out of 39 personnel working in the PMD at Alpha,
seven participated in the questionnaire assessing the dominant culture type. Evidence
from the questionnaire revealed that two types of culture are dominant — Hierarchy
and Market — suggesting that the culture is focused on stability and control. Data
from the interviews provided support for these findings. Figure 5.2 illustrates the
PMD‘s profile at Alpha.
Data indicated that Hierarchy culture was prevalent in two categories: Dominant
Characteristic and Criteria of Success. These results, together with the interview
responses, indicate that respondents perceive the organisation as a very controlled
and structured environment in which formal procedures govern what people do, and
smooth scheduling is essential. There were also remarks suggesting that some PMs at
Alpha trust processes and follow them without questioning their relevance for
projects. A PMO officer commented, you hear lots of stories about that there are
some activities that people are doing, and you ask them why you doing that, and you
got respond – we have always done it [this way] (A4).
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
98
Figure 5-2: Culture profile of Alpha
It was reported that some personnel at Alpha are conservative and reluctant to
change. People follow old processes without questioning their relevance to projects,
and one project officer added, ―we suffer a lot from culture here because we‘ve got a
lot of people who have been here a long time and don‘t like change, don‘t like
improvement, they‘re comfortable [with] the way things are and they become
roadblocks‖ (A5). It was also reported that those staff who are motivated and try to
change the culture often experience resistance: ―all we find is we try, we try, we try
and all we get is can‘t do this for some stupid reason and that motivation goes and
people leave or they become like the rest of them‖ (A5).
Market culture dominated in three categories, Organisational Leadership,
Management of Employees, and Organisational Glue. Based on that, it would appear
that the leadership in Alpha is results-oriented and the management style exemplifies
competitiveness, high demands and achievement. In fact Alpha‘s values —
performance through excellence and commitment to customers‘ outcomes — suggest
a Market focus.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
Clan
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
99
Existence of silos and collaboration
Data from interviews revealed that status differences existed between employees,
signifying the dominance of a Hierarchy culture. During the interviews people often
used a term ‗us and them‘ referring to colleagues from other departments or
locations. One respondent stated: ―They think they‘re just better than us, and then we
think we‘re better than them‖. This statement seems to be repeated in this, or a
similar, way by a number of respondents. There was a clear distinction between
white collar and blue collar workers as well as between geographical locations. Some
respondents reported that there are also differences and conflicting views between
new employees and personnel who have been in the company for a long time.
According to one project officer, those who have been in the organisation for a long
time do not want changes or innovations. Newer employees do not have enough
power to break the silos.
Interview data provided evidence that top management did not discourage, but it also
did not actively support, collaboration and KS endeavours and analysis revealed that
there was less collaboration and KS between dispersed PMs. ―They [top
management] encourage it [knowledge sharing between projects] because they say
it‘s a good thing. There‘s no real initiative that‘s taking place that encourages
project managers to talk to each other‖ (A5). Nevertheless, it was reported that the
change of a leader who has recognised the need for collaboration and better KS
between projects, has helped shift the organisation‘s routines towards better KS
practices. Due to those recent changes in management, four respondents sensed that
the silo is starting to break down. One of them stated that before the leadership
change there was a ―very stove piped approach‖ for I-PKS. ―But with having [new
PMD manager] sitting at the top, he‘s actually drawn them all together and we‘re
actually getting some really good communication between all the departments so it‘s
broken down a lot of barriers‖ (A8). The recent initiatives to establish a PMO and
wiki, supported by the new leader, are aimed at improving KS between projects and
making projects more visible and processes more integrated. When asked if the
organisation encourages collaboration and communication across projects,
respondents answered, ―I would say four months ago no, now definitely, but now
we‘re actually getting some really good communication‖ (A8). Another stated:
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
100
―there‘s not too many examples where we have that close collaboration to achieve
project goals. It‘s something I don‘t think we do too well, I think we‘re getting better
but there‘s a long way to go‖ (A5).
Willingness to share knowledge
Analysis showed that at Alpha, some PMs are willing to share knowledge with their
colleagues, but some are very protective and believe that knowledge is power. They
are more reluctant to share and believe that keeping knowledge to themselves
sustains their position of importance. Some leaders are unwilling to share their
project‘s pitfalls because ―they like to be portrayed as [a] kind of perfect project
manager‖ (A7). Another respondent criticised that ―there‘s lots of issues with people
not wanting to share information because for them that‘s power or whatever and it‘s
those roles that make a difference to my job where I can‘t get the information or
they‘re trying to stop for whatever reason‖ (A5). It was reported that some people
view project shortcomings as signs of weakness or even failure; therefore, admitting
they did something wrong in their projects could potentially threaten their strong
position in the company.
Differences between co-located and dispersed PMs
The frequency of KS between co-located and dispersed PMs differed tremendously.
PMs commented that it is easier to communicate when people are co-located. Co-
located PMs from SA Development Projects reported that they exchange knowledge
often; similarly, the small co-located team of PMs from WA Maintenance Projects
worked closely together. Data provided evidence that PMs from these two locations
shared expertise frequently among their closely located colleagues, knew about their
projects‘ shortcomings and followed the same project processes. However, it was
reported that there is not much knowledge exchange between staff from SA
Maintenance Projects, where people‘s offices are spread across different buildings,
and PMs often work on a project site.
Data from interviews provided evidence that geographical dispersion affects
transparency in conducting projects, interaction frequency, as well as the strength of
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
101
relationships between PMs. Furthermore, data revealed that dispersed PMs followed
different project management processes, there is inconsistency in conducting
projects, and PMs from different locations manage projects in their own way.
According to a PMO manager (A2), project management in co-located SA
Development Projects is more mature than that of SA Maintenance Projects. Also,
the respondent from SA Maintenance Projects reported that PMs encounter the same
issues in their ongoing projects as in their past projects.
The volume of interaction
Data provided strong evidence that those PMs who were co-located maintained close
working relationships; however, the relationships between geographically dispersed
teams were rather distant. PMs from WA Maintenance projects (A6 and A7)
commented that interactions between the team from WA is very frequent, ―daily‖,
but not as frequent with the SA site; ―rarely, monthly, monthly maybe‖. One of them
further commented on the relationships between WA and SA, saying ―not a good
relationship. No that‘s the wrong choice of words. Not an established [relationship]‖
(A7). There was a clear distinction between ‗us and them‘ in relation to the WA and
SA sites. It was also reported that PMs from the WA site felt excluded from the
information flow, and as a smaller team they felt belittled. This appeared to be the
reason silos emerged. For example, PMs from the WA site were not aware that a
PMO had been established, even though it had already been in operation for four
months and was supposed to play an important role in improving KS and
collaboration between different sites.
The importance of KS between WA and SA
At least three (A1, A6, A7) PMs from both locations (SA and WA) acknowledged
that better communication and knowledge exchange between sites would surely help
them with conducting projects, and that this collaboration could be fruitful for both
sides. A PM (A6) and a senior PM from WA (A7) reported that the project
management approach should be common for both sites. The senior PM from WA
commented:
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
102
―We [WA and SA sites] essentially all work for the same process. There
are some individual characteristics of work in WA which means we do
have to work differently. But in the main, the project management
approach should be a common approach and one of the benefits of
having a common approach is that the other stakeholders, the other
functional groups that support you, you know there‘s no surprises‖ (A7).
Although the importance of sharing knowledge between WA and SA projects was
apparent, the lack of common approaches and practices, not well established
relationships, and status differences appeared to constrain the occurrence of KS.
5.3.3. Trust
Data from the questionnaire and interviews were used to analyse the influence of
trust during I-PKS endeavours. Seven respondents participated in the questionnaire
and provided answers relating to the presence of the three forms of trust during I-
PKS. The findings indicate that all three forms of trust were present, all showing
mean values above the midpoint (3.00). However, it was the ability and integrity
trusts that were related the most, reporting similar mean values (ability trust mean =
4.21, integrity trust = 4.25), and benevolence contributed the least. Table 5.3 reports
on mean and standard deviation values, measured in a scale from 1 to 5, where 1
indicated strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement, and 3 is a scale midpoint.
Table 5-3: The presence of three forms of trust during knowledge sharing endeavours
ALPHA N=7
Trust Dimensions Mean SD
ABILITY TRUST 4.21 0.59
BENEVOLENCE TRUST 3.57 0.71
INTEGRITY TRUST 4.25 0.61
As discussed in Chapter 4 — Methodology, small cases that resulted in a lower
sample size for the questionnaire were the reason why questionnaire results were
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
103
mainly descriptive. Nevertheless, the small standard deviations presented in Table
5.3 imply reasonable consensus.
In relation to the qualitative data from the interviews, the pattern-matching analysis
also confirmed that all three trust dimensions — ability, benevolence and integrity —
play an important role in KS activities for employees in Alpha. No respondent
reported that trust was needless. Qualitative evidence in relation to each of these is
reported below.
Ability trust
According to at least five Alpha respondents (A1, A3, A4, A5, A6), ability, which
refers to the trustor‘s perception of the trustee‘s competence, skills and experience
increases knowledge exchange. The majority of respondents hold the knowledge
source‘s ability in high regard. Most respondents agreed that trust in the knowledge
source‘s competence is a major factor in turning to that person for advice. One
respondent concluded, ―what I would look for you know, is that this person‘s done
this ten times before and they‘ve got so much experience‖ (A5). This idea was
reinforced by another respondent who stated:
―I hold competence in high regard and if I‘m going to ask for advice or
guidance from another project manager or indeed senior manager, I
would ensure at least in my own mind that it was within their field of
competence and they could give you that level of guidance you are
looking for‖ (A6).
No Alpha respondent reported ability trust unnecessary, signifying its
important value during KS endeavours.
Integrity trust
Five respondents (A1, A4, A5, A7, A8) reported that integrity is important when
they seek expertise from a person in another project. It was also reported by three
respondents (A2, A5, A8) that when ability exists it is the integrity that reinforces KS
behaviours, because the person‘s competence and skills are expected regardless of
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
104
the position he or she is holding, but it is the integrity that drives the KS. It was
reported that:
―[Competence and professionalism] are beneficial and it‘s nice to have
those things but I think it‘s more critical that when I‘m asking someone a
question or asking for some information that I know that they‘re telling
me the truth [are honest with me]. I would expect that if someone is
working in the organisation, they are competent, the company has
deemed them [to be]...they wouldn‘t have been in that position if they
were not competent in their job‖ (A8).
―if someone‘s not trustworthy then they‘re probably not being very
professional. So if you‘re trying to glean knowledge off them you‘d
probably question the reliability of that knowledge and whether it‘s any
good or not. You know I think it really does go hand in hand and
certainly people need to be trustworthy if you‘re going to value their
knowledge‖ (A2).
Similar to ability trust, no respondents reported on integrity trust as being trivial,
with the majority perceiving knowledge source honesty and credibility in high
regard. This would suggest that in this instance integrity trust was highly regarded by
participants as key to I-PKS outcomes.
Benevolence trust
Benevolence trust was also perceived to be valuable; at least four respondents (A1,
A2, A3, A4) stated its importance for I-PKS, and no one stated that benevolence is
unnecessary. One PM (A3) reported that it is important to approach the person who
will be helpful and willing to reveal their knowledge. Furthermore, at Alpha there is
an awareness that people need to be willing to share and be helpful, although it was
recognised that there are some people who have a wealth of experience but protect
their expertise as an asset of importance, and would not go out of their way to help
others or to share their experience.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
105
The relationship between trust and OC
Analysis provided evidence of a relationship between culture and trusting
behaviours. Interviews revealed that all three trust dimensions were important for
respondents, as was the case with benevolence trust, there was an awareness that
people need to be helpful and willing to share. One respondent stated, ―there are
things that I would expect in our organisation, I would expect that if someone is
working in the organisation, they are competent‖ (A8). He added, ―and positive
intention again that probably links up with professionalism, it‘s just an expectation
that I would have, I would expect people to have those qualities. But I‘ve met people
with those qualities that aren‘t honest and from previous experience aren‘t
necessarily credible‖ (A8). This means that respondents from Alpha were aware that
some PMs are reluctant to share their knowledge. Therefore, they sought knowledge
only from those they trust, and it was reported, ―if I go to a project manager for
advice and that particular person tells me something I base how much I believe of
that based on past credibility, whether I trust that person and if they‘re competent in
their job‖ (A5). Earlier analysis revealed that the culture at Alpha is based on
stability and control and there are some individuals unwilling to share knowledge.
Data presented above suggests that PMs would seek knowledge mainly from those
whom they trust and know are willing to share knowledge.
5.3.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
There was a range of KSM available for Alpha employees including face-to-face
formal and informal interactions, wikis, lessons learned (LL) repositories, the newly
established PMO, and other tools (such as e-mails, intranet and shared-drive). Table
5.4 summarises findings on the use of KSM among Alpha employees. It indicates the
number of respondents stating which of the available means are important and/or
primarily used for inter-project knowledge exchange. Seven people reported that
face-to-face informal meetings are important and/or primarily used to transfer
knowledge between projects. One respondent commented: ―I think a lot of it
[knowledge sharing] happens, you know, just project manager to project manager,
informal communications and talking and sharing experiences. I don‘t think often
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
106
they will go back and look through the lessons learned or the document that was
written‖ (A3).
Table 5-4: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Alpha respondents
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ALPHA
(n=8)
Relational Mechanisms
Face-to-face Informal 7
Face-to-face Formal 5
Project Management Tools
and Processes
i.e. LL databases, post project reports
4
PMO 3
Technology Mechanisms
IntellectWeb Tools (i.e. wiki)
6
Enterprise Repositories (i.e. intranet, shared-drive)
5
Project Management Tools and Processes were less valued than other means.
However, there were multiple comments stating the importance of a newly
established wiki for KS. The company had recently introduced the wiki, and the
software is currently on a trial period. So far, the wiki serves multiple purposes
including a LL repository, space for storing static information such as contact
numbers, general information about the project, and the organisation of social events.
A person responsible for setting up the wiki reported, ―we do a monthly off site
lunch, so we‘ve actually been using the wiki to organise the lunch…. So it‘s a way of
getting people familiar with sort of the basics of it and so anyone who wants to go to
lunch has to get into the wiki and edit the page [choose the menu] and so forth‖
(A4).
Project management related tools and processes
In relation to project management related tools and processes, Alpha uses the
principles of PMBoK as a leading project management methodology. Recently,
efforts were put into implementing the CMMI (Capability and Maturity Model
Integration).
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
107
Lessons Learned
As a part of the project management methodology, Alpha employees are required to
capture and store project knowledge in the form of LL. Most of the respondents
recognised these lessons as an important source of useful information, and a way to
avoid repeating the same mistakes in their projects. However, respondents reported
that they were often reluctant to produce and review existing LL documents, mostly
due to their lack of consistency, visibility and uniformity guidelines. It was reported
that each project had a separate folder in which LL were filed, but no one would
search these folders. Analysis showed that PMs exchange their lessons mainly during
informal communication: they seldom search through LL documents because they
are not in a precise location, and it is hard to find relevant information on the intranet
or shared-drive. One respondent reported, ―I‘ve found some documentation that‘s
highlighted areas of concern, but it‘s not been very, it‘s not really been all of the
requirements pulled together in a concise location. So normally I‘ll refer to
discussions with the other PMs‖ (A1). The LL spreadsheet consisted of several
columns including the description of lessons, recommendations for improvement,
and action taken. A review of this spreadsheet clarified that only a few LL have been
actioned. This could indicate that LL are only stored because of the formal
requirement. However, they do not serve the purpose of benefitting present or future
projects, and recommendations for improvement are often ignored. This was further
confirmed by respondents who reported that, during the wash up meetings, many
good ideas were presented but nobody was responsible for documenting the LL,
analysing or developing them further to initiate the change. Respondents recognised
a range of problems related to LL, including:
a lack of consistency and clear uniform guidelines in the LL process
the LL spreadsheet is too long
most LL have not been actioned
LL are not in a precise location
LL are not captured throughout the project, as a result they are forgotten.
A manager of the two project management departments SA and WA (A3) identified
the wiki as a potential tool for capturing the LL earlier in the project and improving
their visibility. He stated that, before introducing the wiki, much valuable knowledge
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
108
was lost because experienced people had moved on and were unavailable or had
forgotten their learning. Before the wiki was introduced, each project had its own
folder and LL were captured and stored in the project files where no one would look:
―when knowledge landed in the document it was stuck in the document, or a lessons
learned register somewhere, it wasn‘t really communicated to everybody else...
[lessons learned] were all quite isolated so you wouldn‘t get a sharing‖ (A4). Now
each project type has its own space on the wiki for the storage of LL. Since the wiki
was introduced, there is more interactive collaboration and KS, ―everything is in a
shared location that everyone can edit‖, and LL are more transparent.
Project Management Office
At the time of data collection, Alpha was in the process of setting up a PMO, which
started in 2009. The PMO manager recognised that there was still a long way to go:
―we are looking at probably a year to get something set up and then probably two
years before it comes, we mature because we‘re probably going to need more
people, full time people‖ (A1). The main reason for establishing the PMO was to
improve efficiency and achieve better consistency in processes across projects. The
role of the newly established PMO within Alpha is to:
provide scheduling and value management support to the projects
standardise processes
become the repository for LL and KM
facilitate more informal social interaction between PMs
establish responsibility of the certification and training of PMs.
Respondents expected to gain much benefit from the PMO on their projects. One
respondent commented that she hopes that the PMO will ―dictate to us how we do
things … and guides project managers in how we report ... what numbers we use …
at the moment we can pick and choose what we want to report on and I don‘t think
that‘s right in terms of the company and for our customers it‘s not right.... if you
don‘t have that consistency in that process and that big brother watching you and
making sure you‘re abiding by those things you can do whatever you want‖ (A5).
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
109
Other PMs had similar expectations of the newly established PMO. Respondents
expected the PMO to be responsible for:
maintaining the repository for LL and KM
facilitating more informal social interaction between PMs
maintaining project standards and processes
certifying and training of PMs
establishing common processes and approaches across projects
providing project management tools and training
providing scheduling and value management support to the projects
ensuring consistency across project management departments.
Upper level management commented that the main problem in the company is the
inconsistency in conducting projects; each unit manages projects in their own way.
Introducing the PMO was supposed to assist in achieving better consistency between
projects in terms of reporting and managing project processes.
5.3.5. Summary of the Alpha Case
The above analysis has identified KS behaviours at Alpha taking into account OC,
trust and KSM. This section provides a summary of the I-PKS behaviours at Alpha
focusing on answering the research questions.
RQ1: How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge
sharing?
The examination of culture at Alpha revealed that it has strong dominance of
Hierarchy and Market type and emphasise on control, structure, achievement,
demanding leaders, unwillingness to change, and competition. These cultural values
appear to affect the willingness to share knowledge. Data provided evidence that
some PMs are willing to share knowledge with their colleagues; however, some are
very protective and believe that knowledge helps them to sustain a position of
expertise. Others believe that revealing project pitfalls is a sign of failure and puts
their position of a perfect PM at risk. Fong and Wong (2009) found that those who
perceive knowledge gained as a personal asset, which can enhance their
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
110
employability in the job market or help them attain promotion within their companies
are not willing to share knowledge. De Long & Fahey (2000) argue that cultures
emphasising individual power and competition among firm members will lead to
knowledge hoarding behaviours. This can suggest that at Alpha the presence of
values characteristic to the Market type culture may lead to knowledge hording.
Furthermore, interviews at Alpha demonstrated that cultural differences exist
between dispersed PMs, these cultural differences appear to affect KS behaviours.
Newell, David, and Chand (2007) found that an ‗us versus them‘ attitude prevails
among distributed sites, impeding effective KS. Data from Alpha provided evidence
that co-located PMs from the SA Development Projects and the WA Maintenance
Projects share knowledge more frequently among their colleagues than do those who
are not collocated. This was despite the fact that the latter recognised that KS
between dispersed projects could be fruitful. For example, data provided evidence
that there is less KS between PMs from SA Maintenance Projects where project
members and managers are physically isolated working on project sites, and minimal
KS between sites in WA and SA. Co-located PMs interact with each other
frequently, they know about their projects shortcomings and follow the same project
processes. On the other hand, dispersed PMs follow different project management
processes, managing projects in their own way. The evidence suggests that cultural
differences and silos exist between dispersed PMs. Consequently, there is little
collaboration between geographically dispersed PMs and the relationships between
the two sites are not well established, causing barriers for open KS.
RQ2: How does the existence of three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)
benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
Case data suggest that at Alpha all three forms of trust were perceived to contribute
positively to I-PKS within the organisation. Nevertheless, the data also indicated that
the influence of ability and integrity trusts appeared to be more substantial than the
influence of benevolence trust.
In a study related to the effect of trust on working relationships, Pinto (2009) found
that integrity trust has stronger potential than the competence trust (referred in this
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
111
research to ability trust), to affect satisfaction of working relationships. The
interview data from Alpha suggested that PMs will seek knowledge from a person
whose ability they value, but KS would only occur if integrity trust between the two
parties was also present. Based on that, it would appear that even if a person has a
wealth of expertise, others would be reluctant to seek knowledge from him/her if
they do not believe in this person‘s credibility and honesty. This finding implies a
tremendous value of integrity trust in KS behaviours.
RQ3: How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project
management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours?
From the overall analysis it is observed that at Alpha much I-PKS occurs during
informal face-to-face interaction and it is triggered by employees‘ own initiative.
Although there is a requirement to produce LL from past projects, and respondents
reflected to understand the need for storing project expertise, most do not utilise
these project management related mechanisms. Alpha‘s respondents reported several
problems associated with the poor capture and use of LL, including a lack of
consistency and clear uniform guidelines on how lessons should be produced. It was
also reported that LL are not stored in a precise location and the LL spreadsheet is
too long, making it hard to find relevant information. These findings suggest that this
poor quality and lack of consistency in the capturing and storing of LL documents
means that PMs exchange their LL mainly during informal communication, one
result being those who left the company took valuable knowledge with them and
others needed to re-learn the lessons. In the past, before introducing the wiki, each
project had its own folder and LL were stored in that folder. Normally, no one would
go looking for the information because it was isolated and hard to find in the piles of
project documentation. Since the wiki was established, all recent LL have been
stored on the wiki site. The newly established PMO is expected to improve
efficiency and achieve better consistency and transparency in processes across
projects. Nevertheless, despite establishing a PMO and introducing more interactive
way of sharing LL through a wiki, problems with visibility appear to exist at Alpha.
Many respondents are still unaware of LL being stored on the wiki and the WA site
was not aware of a PMO being established.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
112
RQ4: How do the relationships between these three factors of OC, trust and
KSM improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?
Analysis provided evidence that at Alpha, culture influences trusting behaviours.
Data suggested that PMs perceive trust as an important antecedent to KS and expect
their colleagues to be competent and benevolent; however they also knew that some
are protective and not willing to share knowledge. In effect they search for
knowledge only from those whom they trust.
Data provided evidence that PMs share project knowledge with each other on their
own initiative. It also showed that only recently a new leader has endorsed the
initiatives to establish a PMO and wiki aimed at improving KS between projects, and
making projects more visible and processes more integrated. Respondents
commented that since that change occurred, the collaboration between dispersed
PMs has improved. Furthermore, they were enthusiastic about the perceived potential
of the newly established wiki. This provides some evidence suggesting that
leadership‘s active engagement influences the use of KSM within Alpha.
Accordingly, the lack of active leadership engagement in facilitating the use of these
collaborative mechanisms could potentially explain why KS endeavours between
geographical locations were minimal.
5.4. BETA
5.4.1. Beta’s Profile
Beta specialises in a broad range of communication services to businesses delivering
small, medium and large projects with the budget range of AUD$20,000–$1m and
more. The company has sites in major Australian cities including Brisbane, Sydney
and Melbourne and most projects are distributed, located on customer sites. Table
5.5 provides a snapshot of the company‘s profile.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
113
Table 5-5: Summary of Beta’s profile
BETA
INDUSTRY Telecommunication
SECTOR Private
DESCRIPTION Provide telecommunication services to businesses
CASE Project Departments
INVESTIGATED
DEPARTMENTS BIP TCP
NR OF INFORMANTS Interviews: 6 Questionnaire: 7
PROJECT SIZE Budget: AUD$20k–$1mil No of people: up to 5-200 Duration: few months to 1 year
PROJECT MANAGERS’ GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION Co-located
This study conducted interviews in a major capital city site where PMs were co-
located in one open plan office area. Six respondents from two Project Departments,
Business Improvement Projects (BIP) and Transition and Customer Projects (TCP),
participated in the interviews (two from BIP and four from TCP), and their IDs are
coded from B1–B6.
5.4.2. Organisational Culture
This section reports on findings of how OC influenced I-PKS at Beta. Seven
respondents participated in the questionnaire assessing the culture type. Evidence
from the questionnaire revealed that Market type is the dominant culture in Beta,
suggesting that culture is result-oriented, focused on achievement and transactions
with external customers. Figure 5.3 demonstrates the profile of Beta.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
114
Figure 5-3: Culture profile of Beta
Data acquired during interviews supported findings from the questionnaire,
indicating that Beta is typically viewed as a controlled and structured place, where
the main concern is getting the job done. It is characterised by a competitive and
achievement-oriented environment, where formal procedures govern what people do.
Interviews found that at Beta, employees follow formal rules and policies, and the
company‘s focus is on providing good customer service. One project leader stated,
―because the market has changed measurably, we cannot be complacent about how
we treat the customer. We have to differentiate ourselves in the market by customer
service‖ (B4). Furthermore, findings from the questionnaire showed that Hierarchy
and Market types had the same high scores in Dominant Characteristics and
Organisational Glue categories, suggesting that formal rules and policies, as well as
the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment are those dominant within
Beta. This was also supported by the interviews, which revealed that Beta is driven
by well defined processes, labour efficiencies, rigour and discipline and the
company‘s values are focused on measurement, error detection, process control and
the use of quality tools. It was reported, ―when it cannot be measured it is not worth
doing it‖ (B1). People are happy to talk, but information is really valuable when hard
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
Clan
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
115
coded and documented. ―When we later discuss things with [the] director, there is a
need for data, for supporting evidence.‖
Collaboration and willingness to share knowledge
Data showed that Beta‘s upper level management encourages, but does not actively
contribute to facilitating I-PKS. Although open plan office architecture was found to
enable frequent communication and KS, there was some evidence that PMs are
unwilling to reveal their projects‘ pitfalls. At least two respondents (B2, B3) reported
that there are PMs reluctant to share, they are focused on their career and perceive
knowledge as a power and a way to promotion, and one PM commented, ―we have
some people that have been in the organisation for ten years and believe that they
should be a general manager, so I think there‘s a little bit of well if I share too much
with you you‘ll get the heads up on me‖ (B3). It was also reported that people have a
tendency to be defensive and not necessarily want to provide the information about
their project pitfalls, instead sometimes they try to blame others for project failures.
They believe that admitting the failure puts at risk their position in the organisation.
The volume of interaction
In Beta, open plan office architecture encourages frequent KS, ―I think that open
plan really facilitates a lot more communication and transfer of knowledge I guess in
informal ways‖ (B3). There are also specially designed ‗cages‘, which allow for
business related informal chats. Data provided support that interaction between PMs
is frequent and well established. It was also reported that Beta implemented some
tools that help build rapport. There was some evidence from Beta respondents (B3,
B5) that they have close working relationships with their peers, ―we have a great
team and I think that helps when it comes to knowledge sharing, having a good team
spirit, and good relationship with staff‖ (B5). However, it has been noted that KS
between different geographical locations is minimal. For example, at least two PMs
(B3, B6) explained that it‘s very difficult to do a KS between Sydney and Brisbane.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
116
5.4.3. Trust
Seven respondents participated in the questionnaire and provided answers related to
the presence of three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. The findings indicate
that the knowledge source possessed a high level of the three forms of trust —
ability, integrity and benevolence — reporting mean values above the midpoint.
Nevertheless, ability and integrity trusts show similar mean values, higher than
benevolence trust (mean = 4.04). Table 5.6 reports on mean and standard deviation
values.
Table 5-6: The presence of three forms of trust during knowledge sharing endeavours (mean and standard deviation values)
BETA n=7
Trust Dimensions Mean SD
ABILITY TRUST 4.57 0.63
BENEVOLENCE TRUST 4.04 0.94
INTEGRITY TRUST 4.47 0.84
Nevertheless, during the interviews there were limited comments on the importance
of trust from Beta respondents and where it was mentioned only ability trust was
regarded as important. Qualitative evidence in relation to each of these is reported in
the next paragraphs.
Ability trust
At least three Beta respondents (B2, B4, B6) provided evidence that ability trust is
important for I-PKS, and one (B3) stated it is moderate. A project officer
commented,
―you always turn to them when the person has certain IP [intellectual
property]. Someone can be your colleague and you know him well, but he
will not provide you with the info you need. You don‘t want to approach
person who spends half an hour explaining something that can take two
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
117
sec. you got to be careful there. If you are busy and you know that other
person can provide you the same but quick answer then you turn to this
person for knowledge‖ (B2).
Another PM confirmed this, ―I would tend to be asking people questions that, where
I need their experience. Other things I can manage myself‖ (B4). Data provided
strong support suggesting that ability trust is perceived to be important among Beta
personnel.
Benevolence and integrity trust
Beta respondents did not reflect on benevolence or integrity as a having significant
impact on KS at all, and one project leader commented, ―nobody within our team
would be dishonest in the information sharing because it‘s black and white, the type
of information [we share]. So the environment I work in defines that is a low
priority‖ (B4). At least two commented (B2 and B4) that there‘s no personal gain in
being dishonest with the information their share. Data from interviews suggested that
personnel at Beta do not see much value in the presence of integrity and benevolence
during KS endeavours.
Overall, data from questionnaire show that the three forms of trust were present
during knowledge sharing behaviours. However, feedback from the interviews
suggests that PMs at Beta value primarily ability trust, and do not perceive
benevolence and integrity as important drivers for I-PKS.
5.4.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
Beta employees used two types of relational mechanisms to share knowledge
between projects, informal and formal. Informal mechanisms included lunch breaks,
coffee breaks, specially designed places for informal interaction — ‗cages‘, ‗around
the water cooler‘ breaks and informal communication in the office. Formal relational
mechanisms during which I-PKS occurred included weekly meetings and LL forums.
A range of technological tools were available for Beta employees, including e-mail,
LL database, blogs, shared drive, tele- or video-conferencing, and a wiki. Table 5.7
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
118
summarises findings on the use of KSM among Beta employees. From the Table, it
is apparent that PMs at Beta primarily rely on non-organic mechanisms including
formal meetings, hard coded knowledge, and static information acquired from
enterprise repositories.
At Beta, the use of relational approaches to share knowledge varied in degrees of
success and frequency. At least three participants indicated that the main advantage
of face-to-face interactions was that it allowed the transfer of rich content, and tacit
(embodied) knowledge. One team leader stated ―from my personal experience you
cannot beat face-to-face communication, because if you send an e-mail it can be
misconstrued, you cannot have a tone in an e-mail, you don‘t get facial expressions‖
(B6).
Table 5-7: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Beta respondents
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms BETA
(n=6)
Relational Mechanisms
Face-to-face Informal 2
Face-to-face Formal 5
Project Management Tools
and Processes
i.e. LL databases, post project reports
0
PMO 2
Technology Mechanisms
IntellectWeb Tools (i.e. wiki)
1
Enterprise Repositories (i.e. intranet, shared-drive)
3
To achieve more collaborative KS Beta implemented wikis several years ago.
However, according to the majority of respondents, wikis are too formalised and
controlled. For most people in Beta a wiki is used as a database to capture static info,
not as an interactive tool to exchange knowledge. They do not fully utilise the wiki‘s
capability and only rarely use its space for collaboration and tacit knowledge
exchange. Respondents also commented on the poor quality of wiki entries, ―there is
also another aspect of the quality of info that is put on, you don‘t want to search
through thousands of information just to find info you look for‖.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
119
Project management related tools and processes
In relation to project management related tools and processes, two respondents
highlighted the LL forum as the best practice for I-PKS. The main advantage of the
forum, indicated by the interview data is that it allows discussion about project issues
across the organisation. Furthermore, a review of project closure documents and
discussions about problems that occurred during other projects were perceived to be
a valuable knowledge source. One interviewee said, ―when there are problems and
difficulties with a specific project, a manager will come over and give a brief
presentation and we will store that information on the server and anyone can refer to
it when they have a similar project coming‖ (B5).
Beta employees are required to capture project knowledge in the form of LL.
However, the data indicated that only a few PMs searched through these past
documents. The interviews revealed some weaknesses associated with the sharing of
LL. There were remarks stating that LL are not done effectively, ―the lessons learned
are usually done at such a high level that they don‘t filter down. They don‘t
necessarily come across all divisions‖ (B6). A PM commented, ―you can put all the
stuff [lessons learned] in document, file your document in the folder and file away, so
you can ticked [sic] that you have done your lessons learned, but you never see it
again‖ (B2). Respondents revealed that LL are not stored in a concise location, some
can be found on a shared drive, some on wikis. In addition, LL are captured in a
word document and transferred to the server. This, according to respondents, is not
conducive to sharing and makes it hard to find relevant information. It was reported
that the reason for poor producing and sharing of LL is a lack of time:
―… is that everyone‘s too busy, they‘ve moved onto the next one, there‘s
another customer waiting and we‘re already late so we‘re constantly
moving on, moving on, moving on and nobody actually stops and looks
back, [it was noted] and it‘s not that we haven‘t got the tools to do it
because we do, we just don‘t have the people and the time‖ (B6).
Respondents recognised a range of issues related to LL, including:
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
120
LL are stored in a different locations (blogs, wikis)
only some PMs search through LL documents
LL are captured and stored in way that is not conducive to sharing — it is
hard to find relevant information
Lack of LL ownership — there is no one person or group responsible for
implementing changes and following up
lack of formal processes to review and share LL.
Project Management Office
Beta‘s PMO has recently gone through the transition to a Project Portfolio Office
(PPO). The reason for this change was the double-up in roles in the company. Beta
aims to make the organisation more horizontal to improve its efficiency, and
establishing a PPO is supposed to help in achieving this goal. The former PMO was
mostly administrative, while the new PPO has more control over the projects,
monitors project budgets and is populated by senior people who have experience in
running projects. The functions of the newly established PPO will include:
managing LL
identifying, registering and prioritising projects
ensuring projects have proper allocation and resources provided
providing mentoring and training
organising, measuring and implementing project processes.
PMs expect the new PPO to be the avenue for LL; they expect the PPO to actively
manage the knowledge of other projects‘ LL.
5.4.5. Summary of the Beta Case
Section 5.4 explored how OC, trust and KSM influence I-PKS at Beta. A summary
of this investigation follows.
RQ1: How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge
sharing?
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
121
Beta‘s dominant culture is Market. Beta‘s emphasis is on achievement and goal
accomplishment, formal rules, policies and use of quality tools. People are happy to
talk, but information is really considered valuable when hard coded and documented.
Furthermore, analysis indicated that at Beta some PMs are open and willing to share
knowledge; however, some are reluctant. Data provided evidence that those
unwilling to share are focussed on progressing their career, or do not want to reveal
their project pitfalls and lose a position of importance in the company. This suggests
that Market type culture at Beta means that some PMs are reluctant to share
knowledge, hence lead to limited I-PKS behaviours.
RQ2: How does the existence of three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)
benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
The questionnaire revealed that the three forms of trust were identified by
participants during KS behaviours. However, evidence from interviews showed that
only ability trust was referred to as important, and respondents did not reflect on
benevolence and integrity as having any significant value for I-PKS. This suggests
that although the tree forms of trust are present during KS endeavours, PMs at Beta
explicitly value only ability trust as important driver of I-PKS.
RQ3: How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project
management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours?
Although personnel at Beta use a range of relational and technology mechanisms to
share knowledge, PMs primarily value hard coded knowledge, formal meetings and
static information. Also, data indicated that LL forums are one of the most effective
ways for I-PKS. The main advantage of the LL forum is that it allows discussion
about project issues across the organisation. However, the interviews brought to light
that there were weaknesses associated with capturing, storing and sharing LL
documents. Respondents recognised that there is a lack of consistency in the way LL
are produced and stored, which hamper I-PKS. At Beta, the newly established PPO is
expected to manage project knowledge in a way that it is more transparent across the
organisation. Some of the PPO functions, including implementing uniform project
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
122
processes, management of LL and mentoring and training of PMs, could potentially
lead to the improvement of I-PKS. Beta expects the PPO to have a level of control
over projects; have the authority to identify, register and prioritise projects; and
ensure projects have proper allocation and resources provided. The implementation
of a new knowledge-based PPO is supposed to improve the integration and visibility
of projects by providing access to the project status from all over the country, ―we
will know better what is nationally going on‖ (B5).
RQ4: How do the relationships between these three factors of OC, trust and
knowledge sharing mechanisms improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?
Based on the data it would appear that Beta‘s culture influences trusting behaviours.
Analysis revealed that Beta‘s culture is evidence-based, characterised by
measurement, process control and the use of quality tools. Knowledge is mainly
acquired from databases where everything is ‗black and white‘. Formal meetings are
valued more than informal interaction and people are happy to talk, but knowledge is
really valued when is hard coded and documented, and when discussing issues with
colleagues there is a need for supporting evidence. In relation to trust, no one
commented that benevolence or integrity are important, only ability trust was
regarded highly. Trust essentially involves the assumption of risk (a probability of
loss). In Beta, there is not much perceived risk involved in KS because people do not
rely on each other while searching for knowledge; instead they codify data into
databases in which input is reviewed and controlled. In this situation knowledge
seekers are confident that the information they acquire comes from reliable sources.
Trust is a willingness to take risk and it is critical in uncertain and risky situations.
Therefore, this environment, where knowledge is reviewed and controlled, does not
create risky conditions and trust is not perceived as important, which is why
benevolence and integrity are low priorities.
The control-focus culture appears to also affect the use of KSM. The need for
evidence means that Beta stores information in documents, but these appear not to be
utilised; PMs are not searching though these documents because it is time
consuming. Even the wiki which is collaborative in nature is not exploited to its
fullest extent and used only to store mostly static knowledge. As a result, Beta relies
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
123
heavily on explicit rather than tacit knowledge, which is highly personal and difficult
to formalise, but has great value for the organisation and constitutes a critical
component for successful project management efforts (Johannessen, et al., 2001;
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Gray and Densten (2005) suggest that Market type culture recognises the importance
of disseminating knowledge through the conversion of explicit to explicit
knowledge. This process is reaffered to combination and involves creation of new
explicit knowledge by emerging, categorising, reclassifying, and synthesising
existing explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Jasimuddin (2008) stated
that document exchange is a highly effective and efficient mechanism for sharing
explicit knowledge. This can explanin why Beta rely primarily on explicit
knowledge, and valued non-organic mechanisms, such as hard coded knowledge,
formal meetings and static information, to share that knowledge.
5.5. GAMMA
5.5.1. Gamma’s Profile
Gamma was established in 1999 and is a large, government owned organisation
based in Brisbane. Gamma is a leader in providing communication services to
government agencies by setting up phone numbers, websites or integrated service
counters for an ongoing or time-specific period. The organisation delivers small to
medium, service-type projects to government agencies, its objective is to deliver
value for money and its strategic agenda focuses on:
maximising efficiency and service delivery outcomes
improving strong economic performance
improving and consolidating ICT platforms and systems, and introducing
new channels and technologies
establishing new and strengthened existing relationships with agencies,
service clusters, benchmarking partners and other third party service
providers.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
124
Gamma is a strong matrix type organisation where full time PMs recruit people from
other units to participate in projects. The study participants were personnel of the
Project Management Branch (Branch). In the Branch there are five program
managers, 22 PMs and PMO personnel. The PMO has recently gone through a
transition to PPO; at the time of the study PPO personnel included a manager and
three project officers, and there were two additional vacant positions. Overall, 16
respondents participated in the study, coded G1–G16. Table 5.8 provides an
overview of the informants and Table 5.9 outlines a snapshot of the company‘s
profile.
Table 5-8: Overview of Gamma informants
GAMMA INFORMANTS
Interviews: 16 - 9 project managers (G2, G3, G6, G7, G8, G10, G13, G14,
G15) - 3 program managers (G4, G5, G12) - 2 PPO officers (G1, G11) - 1 team member from the IT department (G9) - 1 managing director of the branch (G10)
Questionnaire: 16
Table 5-9: Summary of Gamma’s profile
GAMMA
INDUSTRY Communication Services
SECTOR Government Owned Corporation
DESCRIPTION Provide communication services to government agencies
CASE Project Management Branch
INVESTIGATED SITES Project Management Branch
NR OF INFORMANTS Interviews: 16 Questionnaire: 16
PROJECT SIZE Budget: Few thousand–$1.5mil No of people: up to 4–10 Duration: few hours to 2 years
PROJECT MANAGERS’ GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION Co-located
PMs at Gamma at follow the PRINCE2 project management methodology. The
Branch is structured around four types of projects: (1) internet, (2) phone, (3)
counters, and (4) disaster services and campaign projects. Gamma also delivers
internal process improvement projects. Tasks within the projects are highly
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
125
repeatable and all projects follow similar processes. Project budgets range from a
few thousand dollars to 1.5 million dollars. Projects last from a few hours to two
years. During the data collection process all PMs were co-located in one open plan
office. Other departments, including Finance, Marketing and IT were located in the
same or adjacent building.
5.5.2. Organisational Culture
This section reports on findings on how OC influences I-PKS at Gamma. Out of 39
personnel working in the Branch at Gamma, 16 participated in the questionnaire
assessing cultural dominant type. Evidence from the questionnaire, presented in
Figure 5.4, revealed that the culture profile at Gamma was balanced, with a slight
shift towards the Hierarchy type. However, the findings from interviews suggested
that Gamma‘s culture comprises principles of a Clan type, and are detailed below.
Figure 5-4: Culture profile of Gamma
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
Clan
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
126
Data from the interviews at Gamma strongly suggest that culture is focused on
teamwork, employee involvement and employee recognition. The organisation
provides mentoring sessions and job rotation is frequently practiced. Respondents
constantly reported that employees at Gamma work together, they are honest and
willing to help their colleagues, and Gamma‘s culture was described ―as a
supportive environment [where people] want to grow and get better in the project
management [field]‖ (G13). Two follow-up interviews conducted with a PM and a
PMO representative helped to identify the reasons why results from OCAI indicated
the Hierarchy type as being prevalent and not, as interviews suggested, the Clan type.
These interviews brought to light that the change of director, which happened around
the time the initial interviews were conducted, was the reason for the culture shift
from Clan to Hierarchy. Data from follow-up interviews indicated that the previous
director was more in the Clan quadrant. ―She was like, oh let‘s have some fun, you
are all my friends, we all go out socialising together‖ (G11). The culture shifted
more towards Hierarchy when the new director came, whose prime focus was more
around the processes and making sure PMs follow the correct procedures. ―[Previous
director] wasn‘t like that at all. If you skipped all of this processes, and unless you
have reached the outcome that was fine‖ (G11). When the new director came, the
organisation‘s focus shifted towards structure and control. PMs were not able to
make decisions and everything had to go through the director who wanted to ensure
that work was being done correctly. Another interviewee confirmed, ―now everything
is control by the top manager, procedures, formal rules, structure‖ (G15).
Nevertheless, both interviewees agreed that on the lower level, between PMs, there is
still a lot of informality and an open, Clan-like culture. The following section reports
on findings from the interviews, which took place before the leadership change.
Willingness to share knowledge
Analysis provided a strong indication that PMs are open and willing to share
knowledge. The culture in the organisation is not to create blame, but rather to
encourage learning from mistakes and recognise opportunities for improvement.
Many respondents commented that shortcomings in projects ―are not failures,
they‘re just opportunities to improve things‖. The attitude of sharing was endorsed
by the branch manager who declared, ―we certainly don‘t capture it [lessons learned]
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
127
in language like failure, so we always capture it in language of learnt and how could
we improve‖ (G10). PMs agreed, and one stated, ―people are pretty vocal and most
people you know, like to share their pain as much as their pleasures‖ (G3). Another
added, ―I‘m quite happy to identify my shortcomings because [if not] you‘re not
going to make it better next time‖ (G6). Analysis revealed that this culture of not
blaming and rewarding for sharing encouraged people to freely exchange their
knowledge, even if it was related to their project pitfalls.
Interaction and knowledge sharing between PMs
At Gamma all PMs and PPO staff were co-located in an open plan office. According
to the majority of respondents, the open plan enables frequent communication and
knowledge exchange between co-workers, as well as helps to establish trusting
relationships. Most respondents indicated that this open environment encourages
people to ―bounce ideas off each other‖. No one stated KS is rare. The advantages of
the open plan arrangement are reflected in the comments provided by PMs:
―we just walk up to the other program manager and have a bit of a chat
or see when they‘re free or you know, it‘s all very informal with our
managers, and we‘re all on the same level, on the same floor of the
building so it‘s easy‖ (G5).
Not only PMs but also PPO personnel commented on the benefits of a shared
location. The PPO officer reported:
―Some project teams aren‘t located on level three and you do forget
about them as well and I think they‘re probably missing out on that
interaction. So I think keeping the team all together is a good idea.
Because even just simple things like morning teas and things like that‖
(G1).
This idea was expanded by the PPO manager who added:
―Many conversations [sic] I can be drawn into is because I was walking
close [to] one of the pods and project manager[s] would be discussing
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
128
something and I might hear it or they will ask me to join the
conversation. And they talk about how each handled the similar problem
so… Our project managers are very good in bouncing ides off each
other‖ (G11).
Furthermore, there is a strong indication that this close proximity facilitates the
establishment of close relationships. At least five respondents (G1, G3, G5, G9, G10)
commented that they are very close to their colleagues and most agreed they
frequently interact with their peers. The following remarks provide evidence
supporting this:
―I am working in the channel with [xxx, xxx, xxx] we all sit in the pod
together so you know you‘ve also got that ability to just chat, work
something out, have a de-stress or something‖ (G3).
―With [xxx] I just stick my head up over the barrier and have a bit of a
chat or if she‘s looking a bit glum I‘ll say oh what‘s going on and that
sort of thing‖ (G5)
5.5.3. Trust
At Gamma, there were 14 valid questionnaire responses that provided answers
relating to the presence of the three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. Findings
indicate that the presence of ability trust contributed the most to KS, showing a high
mean value of 4.55. Least contributing was benevolence trust (mean = 3.81).
However, all three forms showed as having a positive effect on KS, reporting mean
values above 3.00. Table 5.10 outlines the presence of the three forms of trust during
KS endeavours and reports on mean and standard deviation values.
Interview data revealed that at Gamma, two trust dimensions, ability and integrity,
were perceived as necessary in KS. However, benevolence trust did not have strong
support.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
129
Table 5-10: The presence of three forms of trust during knowledge sharing endeavours (mean and standard deviation values)
GAMMA n=14
Trust Dimensions Mean SD
ABILITY TRUST 4.55 0.54
BENEVOLENCE TRUST 3.81 0.91
INTEGRITY TRUST 4.27 0.68
Ability trust
Overall, ability trust was perceived to be important in KS by at least 10 respondents.
Most of all, the competence was reported as critical. Respondents commented that if
a person is competent they trust that the information he/she provides is accurate and
they can act upon it and do the correct job. Competent people make the right
decisions and know how to use and work with the tools they have. While
competence has been perceived as critical by the majority of respondents, many
commented that experience plays a moderate role in I-PKS. It was reported,
―sometimes people who haven‘t got experience can see the wood, you know can see
the wood for the trees and can come up with some great ideas and suggestions
because they‘re not clouded by projects and have never seen it before and come up
with some good ideas‖ (G8). The PPO officer explained that ―experience is
beneficial, but you can get away without a lot of experience because sometimes it‘s
those fresh eyes that actually see things‖ (G11). Professionalism was perceived not
to be important. Four people commented that professionalism does not play any role
in effective KS and summarised that, just because someone is not professional, does
not mean that they do not have valuable points to make:
―If they have told me say, about the way something was done and was
achieved and it was an unprofessional way of doing it, I might think oh
okay so they did it that way. It wasn‘t the most professional way of doing
it but it was successful, then I might take some things from that and then
convert that into a more professional way of doing it but still achieve the
same outcome through a similar approach‖ (G5).
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
130
Overall, data suggested that although some perceived professionalism as needless,
the majority of Gamma personnel held other peoples‘ competence and skills in high
regard providing evidence to state that ability does matter for I-PKS.
Benevolence trust
Benevolence trust did not have many advocates and four respondents perceived
benevolence as unimportant in KS. One of them declared, ―I don‘t want someone
who‘s got good intentions but is going to give me the wrong information‖ (G10)
Another added, ―sometimes people get so passionate and want to do things and
basically they become more emotional than logical and I think that is risky‖ (G9).
During the interviews only one PM perceived benevolence trust as being important
in I-PKS, he commented, ―I have issues when people say I don‘t want to do that, it‘s
not my job or something like that because I know I spend a lot of time doing things
that technically maybe aren‘t my job... Because sometimes I go out of my way to do
something for another team so hopefully they can do something like that in return‖
(G14). Overall, at Gamma, data provided evidence suggesting that respondents did
not perceive the value of benevolence as contributing to KS.
Integrity trust
Evidence supports that integrity was highly regarded at Gamma‘s PM Branch and 10
respondents perceived integrity as important. At Gamma, one PM reported that even
if a PM has not been working on a particular project it does not mean that they do not
have a valid point to make or a credible opinion on it, he commented, ―if they have
credibility [it] would make me more comfortable in taking their advice or
knowledge‖ (G3). Another respondent admitted:
―I think sometimes you‘re looking for that frank and honest advice.
That‘s what I value from someone, being honest and frank with me. If I‘m
going down the wrong track I‘d rather that, than being nice and not
wanting to offend me and giving me wrong information‖ (G8).
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
131
The evidence suggests that employees in the Branch at Gamma are generally honest
with each other. It was reported that honesty and credibility ―is something I guess we
assume at our company‖ (G14).
Furthermore, four respondents (G1, G3, G5, G6) provided evidence that there is a
relationship between ability and integrity trust, stating that even though ability trust
exists, it is the integrity that reinforces KS behaviours. This can be seen in these two
remarks:
―Somebody would have to be competent for me to go and seek them out
to get information from them...and I would want to ensure that if they are
competent well they‘d need to be competent, that they‘d need to be
honest [and don‘t have] any hidden agendas or anything like that‖ (G2).
At Gamma the value of integrity trust in KS was apparent. No respondent
reported integrity trust to be needless, and the majority held knowledge source
credibility and honesty in high regard.
OC and trust
At Gamma it appears that there is a relationship between OC and trusting behaviours.
The majority of respondents reported that people are encouraged to talk amongst
themselves and that new ideas are welcomed. The organisation builds a culture that
supports newcomers and rewards those who have gone the extra mile to help another
team member. Moreover, employees of Gamma are supportive, and willing to help
each other. This type of environment appears to create trusting relationships,
suggesting that both benevolence and integrity are already expected in the
organisation, ―I guess maybe we take those things [honesty and credibility] for
granted if we have a good organisational culture...We assume that because someone
works here, generally get very reliable and very honest and it‘s more like when
there‘s an exception to that, it‘s only then that we actually think about that aspect‖
(G14). Data from Gamma respondents suggested that the friendly, supporting and
non-blaming culture means that willingness to help and caring is something that is
assumed in organisation, thus, not perceived as missing.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
132
5.5.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
Respondents listed the following KSM available to them at Gamma: face-to-face
formal and informal interactions, telephone, e-mails, an enterprise project
management system (a project management reporting tool), and a shared drive. Table
5.11 summarises findings on the use of KSM between PMs. Interview respondents
indicated that the most often used means were face-to-face formal and informal
interactions, but they rarely used the LL database.
All respondents rated face-to-face interactions as essential for I-PKS, consistently
stating face-to-face, both formal and informal, as the most critical factor in KS. Not
one participant perceived face-to-face interaction as unimportant.
Table 5-11: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Gamma respondents
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms GAMMA
(n=14)
Relational Mechanisms
Face-to-face Informal 9
Face-to-face Formal 11
Project Management Tools
and Processes
i.e. LL databases, post project reports
3
Project Management Office 5
Technology Mechanisms
IntellectWeb Tools (i.e. wiki)
4
Enterprise Repositories (i.e. intranet, shared-drive)
4
There are many networking opportunities for interaction between PMs. Gamma
organises PM forums, team meetings and other formal gatherings during which I-
PKS occurs. Team meetings with PMs happen generally every week. The monthly
project management forums require PMs to prepare a short presentation on the
challenges in their projects and what they did to overcome these.
Respondents reported that regardless of frequent and effective interaction with
people in the office, there is still poor KS with other departments. Although the
Branch does not have an established corporate Intellect Web Tool (only one software
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
133
design team used a wiki), some respondents saw significant potential in wikis to
overcome the inter-department KS needs, where ―the information is available to all
within the enterprise‖.
In 2006 there was an initiative to introduce a wiki. The intent was to create an
environment similar to that in Wikipedia and so a trial period was developed: ―That‘s
when we actually started sharing information, sharing knowledge and making sure
that was transferrable well and truly after someone has kind of moved on, either to
another project, another department or physically left the organisation‖ (G4). The
person who developed this internet channel strategy went on long service leave, and
his successor made the decision to not proceed with this initiative. After his return,
two and a half years later, he commented, ―learnings from earlier projects have not
been remembered or learned or utilised and the same mistakes were being made
over and over again‖ (G4). He concluded that this would not occur if wikis were
implemented. All together at least three respondents (G4, G5, G9) commented on
wikis‘ capability to share knowledge.
Project management related tools and processes
In relation to project management related mechanisms, respondents indicated that
knowledge is normally shared during formal meetings of project management
forums, or team meetings. The PM presentation is evaluated by meeting participants
based on issues including change processes and stakeholder management. However,
data indicated that only a few PMs searched through the LL documents. At Gamma,
LL were stored in a spreadsheet containing large amounts of historical information.
Respondents complained that this spreadsheet is too long, with over 120 LL making
it impossible to deal with. Everyone agreed that searching though it is time
consuming, and they prefer to talk to other PMs than refer to this database.
Furthermore, LL were focused primarily on process improvements and the feedback
given by PMs was used to improve processes. However, the results and actions taken
were not reported back to the managers leading to a breakdown in the loop learning
process. In this circumstance PMs did not see much value in LL, producing LL only
because it is was formally required, just ―to tick the box‖. Interviews revealed that
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
134
people did not properly document their LL throughout the project, which resulted in
poor quality LL reports and important LL being forgotten; one PM admitted:
―I would like to get better at it [capturing of LL]. So mostly a lot of it
[LL] is in my head and by the time, because the project you know, the
project might finish and you know, it all went okay that kind of thing but
then I might not get to do my end project report for another two months
or three months, depending on how busy things are so by that time you
really can only remember the big things‖ (B2).
Respondents agreed that poor capture and transfer of LL resulted in unhappy
customers, rework and overdue projects. Many PMs identified problems with the
lack of LL transparency. Overall, examination of the data revealed a lack of visibility
of how LL were progressing, who was taking ownership of them, and whether PMs‘
suggestions for improvements were considered.
Project Portfolio Office
Gamma has a mature PMO, which was recently transformed into a PPO to now
provide wider support for projects. They introduced a new tool, the enterprise project
management (EPM) system, to assist in project and program management. The
knowledge people seek from the PMO is generally procedural knowledge such as
where to find templates, reports to be completed and questions regarding the newly
established EPM system. Nevertheless, the PPO has not been a stable entity and
despite the recent structural changes there has been a high level of employee
turnover. One PPO officer commented, ―there‘s been no stability for some time. The
most consistent thing has been [xxx] and the poor girl, she just cannot get a team
and I hope she gets a bit of stability‖ (G1). Some respondents perceived the PPO as
unreliable and not a preferable source of information. One PM reported, ―they just
don‘t have the experience, they don‘t drive the methodology‖ (G2). One reason the
PPO has been unstable can be explained by the frequently changing structure and
personnel, with many people in that area moving on and the knowledge not being up
to date. The situation is starting to change ―now they [new PPO] have got knowledge,
experience and well trained staff in that area so I do go there now and I‘ll ask them
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
135
similar questions to what I‘d ask a project manager‖ (G7). PMs are slowly changing
their perceptions of the PPO and refer to its personnel when seeking for knowledge,
―I‘ll ask them similar questions to what I‘d ask a project manager. Whatever projects
are similar to mine or what risks and lessons they have come across that may be
similar to what I‘m about to undertake‖.
The previous PMO role was to provide internal training and to get everyone up to
speed with project management, ―initially it was set up, it was there to educate and
train and really to get everyone up to speed and that was certainly the focus that was
required at the time‖ (G5). Currently the PPO provides the support and structure
around project management. It is a source of information about risks and lessons
from past projects. However, its main focus is still to provide procedural knowledge,
one PM indicated, ―The PPO focus has now shifted to the EPM [Enterprise Project
Management System] and trying to get everything included in that and also on
reporting because reporting is quite a big thing‖ (G5). At Gamma, the main
functions of the PPO include:
developing templates
providing PMs with the necessary tools to undertake projects
providing training and individual consultations for PMs
checking project reports in terms of grammatical corrections and structure
organising monthly project management forums during which PMs prepare a
short presentation on the challenges they encountered in their projects and
how they resolved them
organising internal and external project methodology trainings for both PMs
and other areas who work on projects
following up on LL
preparing risks and issue reports
developing templates for reporting.
5.5.5. Summary of the Gamma Case
This section explored the I-PKS behaviours at Gamma. The findings are summarised
below.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
136
RQ1: How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge
sharing?
DeLong and Fahey (2000) argue that when collaboration and collective
responsibility exist employees are willing to go extra mile to avoid letting colleagues
down. Alavi et al. (2006) imply that collaboration leads to greater willingness among
firm members to share insights and expertise with each other. The evidence from the
data suggests that the open and collaborative atmosphere at Gamma creates the
foundation for frequent social interactions, and that these social gatherings, both
arranged and unintended, play an important role in facilitating cross-project KS.
Every respondent commented that PMs are open and willing to share knowledge and
data showed that the philosophy of collaboration and KS is endorsed by the unit
manager. According to Burgess (2005) rewards for knowledge sharing and low
perceived risk regarding sanctions positively influenced knowledge sharing. At
Gamma, project pitfalls are viewed as areas for improvement rather than failures.
This suggests that at Gamma, the non-blaming approach towards potential project
failures encourages PMs to share their knowledge. Based on data it would appear
that Gamma builds a nurturing culture focused on teamwork by providing support to
newcomers and rewarding those who have gone the extra mile to help others. The
rewards for good service and recognition schemes motivate people to share their
knowledge; KS practices embodied in the culture become a natural everyday
practice.
It also became apparent that a shared office creates many opportunities for
consultation, discussion about project problems, solutions and sharing of
experiences. Data suggested that co-located PMs tend to establish bounded
relationships, as a result a higher degree of KS takes place.
RQ2: How does the existence of three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)
benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
Results from the questionnaire provided support that all three forms of trust are
present during KS endeavours. Interviews provided strong evidence suggesting that
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
137
ability and integrity are essential for I-PKS. However, there was only moderate
evidence that benevolence trust is important. The reason for this might be the culture
of the organisation, which endorses positive intensions and willingness to help.
Therefore at Gamma, these qualities are simply assumed and considered lower
priority. Furthermore, data provided evidence suggesting that there is a relationship
between ability and integrity trust, this means that even though ability trust exists, it
is integrity trust that reinforces KS behaviours.
RQ3: How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project
management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours?
At Gamma, there is a strong indication that face-to-face interactions are central to I-
PKS. None of the respondents ever perceived face-to-face interactions as
unimportant.
Gamma respondents were rather reluctant in referring to the LL database when
searching for project knowledge. The evidence suggested that the lack of feedback
on how LL are progressing, and the length of the spreadsheet making it hard to
search through are the main reasons PMs do not see much value in producing LL,
and do it only to meet formal requirements. As a result, data suggests that knowledge
captured in the spreadsheet is of poor quality and not fully utilised for present and
future projects.
Technology mechanisms appeared to be less popular and PMs prefer to turn to
colleagues for help rather than use technological tools. However, although Gamma
does not have an established corporate Intellect Web Tool, most respondents
reflected they see a great potential in wikis for I-PKS and as an alternative tool for
LL database.
At Gamma there is a well established PMO that has recently gone through a
transition to PPO to now provide wider support for projects. The previous PMO role
was mostly administrative, the new PPO is slowly becoming knowledge-intensive,
with experts providing training and individual consultations for PMs. The PPO
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
138
facilitates I-PKS by ensuring a transparent reporting system, providing training and
individual consultations for PMs, organising project management forums and
managing LL.
RQ4: How do the relationships between these three factors of OC, trust and
KSM improve the I-PKS?
Data from interviews provided evidence that at Gamma, culture is focused on non-
blaming and collaboration, which means that PMs are happy to openly share
knowledge. This type of environment appears to create trusting relationships, and the
reason employees perceived benevolence trust as less important might be because it
already exists in the organisation and is embedded in the culture. This trusting
culture appears to create opportunities for more open I-PKS where peers are willing
to share knowledge informally and trust knowledge acquired from their colleagues.
5.6. DELTA
5.6.1. Delta’s Profile
Delta is a large, government owned project-based organisation (PBO) delivering
scientific projects and conducting studies in a range of disciplines. Delta was
established over 80 years ago and currently has over 6500 staff. It is one of the
largest and most diverse research agencies in the world and a powerhouse of ideas.
The company focuses on innovation and development. Delta‘s vision is aimed
towards providing innovative solutions achieved by teamwork.
The company has a number of sites throughout Australia and overseas. In 2005 the
organisation went through structural changes towards a more projectised, strong
matrix-type structure. The changes were made to ensure better coordination and
transparency across divisions, which are the business units of the company, as well
as to allow better collaboration between the company and other research agencies.
As a result, projects can now be formed across divisions. Most of the employees in
Delta have two roles: in a functional team and in a project team. Delta believes that
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
139
high project performance comes from crossing boundaries and pulling in the right
people from all areas of the organisation to form multidisciplinary teams, and as a
result ensuring flexibility in providing the right mix of skills and talent. Working in a
matrix structure facilitates this mission.
There are 19 divisions in the organisation. Inside each division, there are teams and,
underneath them, there are groups. In the past, divisions functioned separately as
silos and projects were formed only within a division. Recent structural changes
aimed to break down the silos to enabled the divisions to work more closely with
each other, which was supposed to provide more horizontal, rather than vertical,
integration. At Delta, there are no full time PM positions; a project leader is selected
from a group. Normally, people work on several projects at a time. A typical project
budget ranges from AUD$500,000 to several million dollars. There are usually
around 5–6 people working on a project, lasting from several months to a year. Some
projects can last several years.
Table 5.12 provides a snapshot of the company‘s profile. Project leaders from two
divisions, referred to as IT and MIN, participated in this study.
Table 5-12: Summary of Delta’s profile
DELTA
INDUSTRY Research
SECTOR Government Owned Corporation
DESCRIPTION Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
CASE MIN and IT divisions
INVESTIGATED SITES PMs from MIN Projects PMs from IT Projects
NO. OF INFORMANTS Interviews: 9 Questionnaire: 13
PROJECT SIZE
Budget: AUD$500k–several million No of people: up to 5–6 Duration: several months – year
PROJECT MANAGERS’ GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION Co-located and Dispersed
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
140
Most of projects that MIN division undertakes are to deliver leading technologies to
mining industry and are external to organisation. This is different to the IT division,
which has a higher percentage of internal work. In total, nine participants (six from
MIN and three from IT) participated in the interviews, their ID‘s are coded: D1–D9,
and 13 filled out the questionnaire on trust and culture. All of the respondents had a
recognised professional degree, most of them were engineers or held PhDs.
Personnel at Delta do not normally have a project management degree or courses
completed, at most some employees completed project management subjects in
college. The majority of employees at Delta work not only on projects but also
conduct research, write scientific papers and attend conferences.
5.6.2. Organisational Culture
This section reports the findings on how OC influences I-PKS at Delta. Overall, at
Delta, 13 respondents participated in the questionnaire assessing the dominant
culture type: 10 from MIN Projects and 3 from IT Projects. From Figure 5.5 it can be
seen that cultural differences exist between these two divisions, MIN and IT. At IT,
the dominant culture is Hierarchy, characterised by formal procedures that govern
what people do. At MIN the culture is more balanced, shifted towards Clan type.
Although data from the questionnaire revealed that Delta‘s culture is somewhat
focused towards Hierarchy, which can be explained by the fact that Delta is a
government owned corporation (GOC), overall data from the interviews and
documents strongly suggested that Delta‘s culture has characteristics of Adhocracy.
There was a range of evidence suggesting this claim. First of all, Delta‘s focus and
vision was aimed towards providing innovative solutions achieved by teamwork.
Also, it was reported that at Delta, project leaders are driven by research and
innovation, their goal is to produce outstanding and innovative products. Data
provided evidence that personnel at Delta value innovation and creativity, and
employees were very committed to the work they are doing. Although the project
management reporting system at Delta was fairly simple, most respondents agreed
they did not like that administrative part of their job. These observations suggest
characteristics of Adhocracy and are supported by the finding raised by Cameron and
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
141
Quinn (2005) who stated that sometimes Adhocracy exists in large organisations that
have a dominant culture of different type. This appears to be the case in Delta, where
Adhocracy exists despite having a dominant Hierarchy culture.
Figure 5-5: Culture profiles of Delta
In addition, there was a range of evidence suggesting informality (attribute of Clan
type culture) was prevalent at Delta. It was reported (D2, D3, D4) that most of the
formal processes to transfer knowledge from one project to another do not work;
they tend to be resisted by employees. Furthermore, there was no formal induction
process: at Delta, the newcomers joined a team working on particular project and the
team‘s duty was to provide mentoring for the new colleague. Moreover, face to face
informal interactions were the most commonly used means to interact and share
knowledge. Other characteristics like casual outfits, informal language used
suggested the high level of informality at Delta.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MIN
IT
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
Clan
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
142
Willingness to share knowledge
Analysis revealed that PMs were generally open with each other and willing to share
their knowledge. At least five respondents from Delta stated that colleagues within
their group are willing to share their experiences and shortcomings. A project leader
from Delta assured, ―certainly within the group everyone is very open and willing to
share knowledge even this related to their projects‘ pitfalls‖. However, there was a
remark suggesting that revealing project pitfalls can jeopardise the priority in
obtaining resources for future projects. This was observed by one project leader from
IT Projects who stated:
―It‘s vital always to maintain a team which is not held by people saying
you know this didn‘t work well, those guys did it wrong or something. So
that‘s one reason you tend not to go outside saying this is wrong or that‘s
wrong. Because in the future you won‘t work well if you‘re doing that...
and generally, there‘s competition between your projects and other
projects so you want your projects to be seen as successful instead of
emphasising where they‘re going wrong‖ (D4).
Collaboration
Analysis brought to light that collaboration and KS between divisions was
encouraged, but top management did not actively participate in facilitating working
together. It was reported that collaborative endeavours such as workshops and cross-
divisional conferences were rare, and top management has recognised the need for,
and tries to facilitate, collaboration, for example by organising reading sessions and
by providing collaborative tools for sharing knowledge between dispersed groups.
The researcher was also invited to a meeting initiated by an upper level manager
where a project leader from IT Projects was explaining to PMs from MIN Projects
the collaborative opportunities of wikis. These endeavours were still in an early stage
and have not yet proven to be effective.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
143
The volume of interactions and presence of silos
Open plan and communal areas (corridor, canteen, library and gym) enabled frequent
communication and knowledge exchange. However, silos across IT and MIN were
identified. OCAI analysis revealed that cultural differences existed between IT
projects and MIN projects and at least four respondents (D1, D3, D4, D9) provided
support of that. At Delta, PMs from IT Projects were located in an open plan office.
PMs from MIN Projects were also co-located in one area; some in open plan, others
in separate rooms that were usually open. Communal areas (corridor, canteen, library
and gym) were frequently utilised by people and served as places to meet and
interact. These informal meetings often led to conversations about work-related
issues, and people got to know what everybody was doing.
Both MIN and IT were located in different buildings. Furthermore, IT division had a
centre in Canberra, Brisbane and Sydney, but the physical dispersion between the
two groups makes it hard to collaborate and share knowledge. People from Canberra
did not meet often with those working in Brisbane, only if there was a formal
meeting scheduled. A project leader from IT Canberra reported that the meetings
between teams in Canberra and Brisbane should happen more frequently because
otherwise people ―tend to do things in different ways and do not get sense of all
moving in the same direction‖ (D4). He also commented on the consequences of the
physical separation between IT‘s Brisbane and Canberra teams: ―The [physical]
separateness [Canberra versus Brisbane] means we talk less even though you tend to
be working on the project. So what tends to happen is the project splits into sub
projects and these people work on something up there and the people down in
Canberra work on something down here. I do think distance, physical separation is a
problem, you tend to be isolated, you tend to do things in different ways‖ (D4).
Differences between co-located and dispersed PMs
Data provided evidence that geographical dispersion affects the transparency in
conducting projects and interaction frequency. There were comments stating that
interactions between geographically dispersed PMs are not as frequent, and it is
easier to approach a person who is physically closer. One project leader (D7)
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
144
reported that from a preference side, physical proximity does not matter, but it does
matter from a convenience perspective. Others (D8, D9) also agreed that it is easier
to ask for knowledge from someone who is physically close. At least four Delta
participants (D9, D3, D4, D5) reported that physical proximity helped to establish
and maintain close relationships, one reported:
―… they [people I share knowledge with] tend to be the people you know
well so they tend to be the people you are close to. Not necessarily the
people you work with on a day to day basis but you have worked with
them or often it‘s just people physically close, like you‘re in the same
building so you talk a lot. Being proximal makes a big difference so a lot
of the things happen over morning tea or chat or something like that‖
(D4).
As a result, these close relationships facilitated KS between project leaders, ―if you
know someone well and you spend a bit of time with them you‘ll become more aware
of their frustrations and things‖ (D4). At least one project leader (D6) reported that
the relationships between IT and MIN are good, but the interactions are not frequent
due to the location. Furthermore, analysis brought to light that dispersed PMs
followed different project management processes as well as used different
mechanisms to share knowledge. For example, PMs from the IT division preferred to
use wikis and each of them had a wiki on their home page, while PMs from the MIN
division primarily exchanged knowledge through face-to-face interaction. It was also
reported that there is inconsistency in conducting projects and PMs from different
locations are managing projects in their own way, one PM commented that project
leaders from other locations ―tend to do things in different ways and do not get sense
of all moving in the same direction‖ (D4).
5.6.3. Trust
At Delta, 11 respondents participated in the questionnaire related to the presence of
three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. The findings indicate that the presence
of ability trust contributed the most to KS, showing a mean value of 4.43, the least
contributing was benevolence trust with the mean of 3.79. However, all three forms
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
145
showed a positive effect on KS, reporting mean values above the midpoint. Table
5.13 reports on mean and standard deviation values, measured in a scale from 1 to 5,
where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement.
Table 5-13: The presence of three forms of trust during knowledge sharing endeavours (mean and standard deviation values)
DELTA n=11
Trust Dimensions Mean SD
ABILITY TRUST 4.43 0.55
BENEVOLENCE TRUST 3.59 1.03
INTEGRITY TRUST 3.79 0.78
Data from the interviews presented in this research provided strong evidence
suggesting that trust at Delta is very important, and revealed that the lack of trust
causes very low levels of cooperation and low results. Furthermore, at Delta
teamwork is based on social relationships and reliance, suggesting the existence of
trust.
Ability trust
All respondents except one stated that ability trust is crucial in KS. Ability trust gives
a confidence in the information provided by that person ―if one is surrounded by
skilled people who are capable to do their job one can easily achieve their goals‖
(D9). Respondents also commented that competent people give fair and just
solutions, which is critical in a project environment.
Benevolence
In contrast, benevolence trust was perceived to be advantageous, but not critical in
KS. Four respondents reported its importance as moderate, one stated, “I don‘t
expect people to go out of their way, they‘ve got their own work to do. It‘s nice if
they do but umm...‖ (D5). Another employee commented that ―normally people are
more willing to help if they‘re concerned about the outcome‖ (D8). However, the
foundations of benevolence trust are based on goodwill and altruistic behaviour, not
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
146
on getting profit, therefore if the willingness to help is motivated solely by a means
to obtain benefit it should not be considered as benevolent.
Data from at least three Delta respondents (D3, D4, D8) confirmed that there is a
relationship between the type of knowledge and benevolence trust. Benevolence trust
was unimportant when seeking technical advice. However, when knowledge was
related to more sensitive issues, such as involving other people‘s performance,
benevolence trust mattered. Furthermore, it was suggested that when people are
concerned about the needs of knowledge seeker they are more likely to provide
insightful advice. One person commented,
―if people just give you a quick answer you might not pick it up straight
away or they might not actually grasp what your problem is, whereas if
someone is actually willing to come over and look at your work and see
what you‘ve done and be like oh this is where you‘ve done it wrong and
actually go into the problem and help you resolve what it is‖ (D8).
At least two project leaders (D3, D4) reported that if knowledge is related to issues
concerning customers, or conflicts between teams or within teams then benevolence
trust becomes extremely important, but if knowledge relates to technical ‗know what‘
and explicit aspects, benevolence is of no great concern. One of the project leader
stated:
―if it‘s generally just going asking questions about oh you know, have
you done you know interpolation in this particular area using these type
of things and they can give me a five second answer or potentially send
me through an email with some information then yeah it‘s a relatively
simple question. So the amount of work they have to go to is small so you
know, going out of their way or willingness to go out of their way, it
[benevolence] is not an issue‖ (D3).
Overall, at Delta, benevolence trust attributes to I-PKS only to some extent and is
perceived valuable in two circumstances: when knowledge shared is related to more
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
147
sensitive relation- related issues (internally and externally) and when there is a need
to provide insightful advice.
Integrity
Integrity, on the other hand, was identified as being very important in KS by at least
eight respondents, ―we‘re very honest about our likes and dislikes. In fact, that‘s
great about [Delta] the way that everyone can be totally up front about their likes
and dislikes and successes and failures‖ (D2). Only one respondent provided a
comment that integrity is unnecessary.
According to respondents, if people are honest and credible they provide quality and
truthful information. Respondents widely commented on the importance of being
upfront with everyone and to tell the truth no matter whether the information is
positive or negative because ―the dialogue is how you solve problems‖.
Also, three respondents (D1, D5, D8) provided evidence that when ability exists it is
the integrity that reinforces KS behaviours. A project leader commented, ―skills and
competency... I mean none of that is really useful if they‘re not honest‖ (D8).
―I will change my opinion if somebody ... if they ... are more an expert
than I am in something and I just say alright, okay you‘re probably right
... if somebody comes and says look this is technically impossible then
you know [I‘ll take it on board]. but I want them to do more than that, I
want them to explain why it‘s not possible... people have to articulate
what they think is a solution and I‘ll articulate and we‘ll come to an
agreement or agree to disagree on something but I don‘t want somebody
to sit in the back and not criticise something and then talk behind my
back and say that‘s the wrong solution‖ (D1).
Overall, the majority of Delta respondents held knowledge source honesty and
credibility in high regard. This would suggest that in this instance integrity trust was
highly regarded by participants as key to I-PKS outcomes.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
148
5.6.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
At Delta, besides face-to-face interactions during formal meetings or informal
gatherings, there was a range of technology mechanisms available, including: e-mails
(normally used for formal and informal communication or if people required
information from colleagues outside the company), software registry (a tool for
storing software codes in different revisions, allowing users to store the history of all
changes made), telephone and teleconferencing (used as a substitute for face-to-
face). The Internet was the most frequently used technology-based knowledge
source. One respondent stated ―I normally Google it and then if unsuccessful then go
and ask colleagues. Google is your friend‖ (D9). There was also a shared-drive that
contained past project documents (from 1995–2005). However, people hardly ever
looked into these archives. Since a wiki was established in 2005, for some projects,
all current project documentation was being stored on the wiki. The wiki has become
the most frequently used internal tool for a knowledge base. PMs from IT Projects
had a wiki on their home page. The wiki is used:
to store project archives
to share information with clients
to store a raw level of project planning
to maintain contact lists
to write project reports, where lots of people need to contribute to the report,
―[People are] writing the different parts of the report as different wiki pages.
And then at the end you have a smaller group of people who collate all that
information to make the final report‖ (D5).
to store specifications
as a discussion board.
Respondents recognised a range of advantages associated with using the wiki for I-
PKS. According to respondents, the wiki is a way to maintain information flow in
growing groups, is well searchable, saves time because information is entered only
once, works as a memo, is easy to use and is integrated — everything can be found
in one place. One respondent who heavily used and contributed to the wiki
commented:
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
149
―I don‘t think workshops are necessary because even when you do have a
workshop and you sit there and everybody goes yeah this is a great idea.
Two days later everybody‘s moving on and they‘re doing something else
and they‘ve forgotten the workshop and I think what the advantage of
having wikis and stuff like that is that you have permanent records of
what was discussed, you know, the discussion and it keeps going, there‘s
no like time line it actually starts happening‖ (D1).
Table 5.14 summarises findings on the use of KSM among Delta project leaders.
Table 5-14: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Delta respondents
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms DELTA
(n=9)
Relational Mechanisms
Face-to-face Informal 5
Face-to-face Formal 0
Project Management Tools
and Processes
i.e. LL databases, post project reports
0
PMO N/A*
Technology Mechanisms
IntellectWeb Tools (i.e. wiki)
4
Enterprise Repositories (i.e. intranet, shared-drive)
3
* – not available
At least five respondents (D2, D1, D3, D6, D7) reported that when seeking
knowledge they often go into each others‘ offices asking for help or meet during
morning or afternoon tea. There are also groups that get together to have lunch.
Often during these informal gatherings, people discuss work-related issues. This
statement best represents that occurrence:
―Within our lab so they‘re people that are working on other projects and
you‘ll be chatting in the tea room or something about saying oh they had
this problem here and I go oh hang on we‘ve got that same problem.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
150
What we end up doing is the person that solved that problem ends up
solving our problem, so that happens quite a lot‖ (D1).
Nevertheless, data provided evidence suggesting that MIN and IT divisions preferred
to use different mechanisms to share knowledge. MIN Projects relied on face-to-face
interactions, while IT Projects extensively used wikis and other technologies.
The company organises internal workshops and seminars to bring in different people
from other areas. However, at least two Delta participants (D1, D4) complained that
these meetings are not as frequent as required or if they are organised, people are
reluctant to participate. Some interviews were conducted on a day when IT and MIN
divisions had their reading session. While people generally had a positive attitude
towards these types of initiatives, the overall perception about these gatherings was
that at the beginning people participate because it is something new — they are
driven by curiosity — later people know what to expect, it becomes a boring routine
and they slowly withdraw from it. It was also pointed out that Delta does not allocate
resources to organise such sessions and customers are unwilling to pay for it because
it is not in their interest. According to a project leader from MIN (D6), these
initiatives have not yet been proven to be particularly successful. People are engaged
and participate in these gatherings, but after some time people stop going:
―These types of meetings work well for a while, and later people drop off.
It‘s probably a human nature thing that you go along to a few of these
and then once you‘ve been to a few of them you no longer make as strong
a commitment to go to the next. You say oh okay I‘ll miss this one and go
to the next one and then you end up missing two and a row and then they
just slowly die off‖ (D6).
Project management related tools and processes
At Delta, project management is still very immature. There is no formal project
management methodology; however there are internally designed templates that
assist in carrying out a project. Although according to one respondent from the IT
division, these templates are just ―bureaucratic tools that do not assist in running the
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
151
project, but have to be filled up to satisfy admin requirements‖ (D1).There‘s no
feedback in the system, and project documentation is not visible to others. When
reports go for approval they are only visible to people with approval rights; other
project leaders or members cannot view them.
The amount of rigor put into project management processes depends on whether the
project is internal or external, small or large. In small projects, normally the
processes are fluid and required documentation is limited to reporting on milestones.
The processes are more specific when a project is large and/or external to the
company. External projects also tend to be much more time based, matching time
requirements and having a more specific budget than internal projects. In terms of
leveraging knowledge out of a project, there is no formal requirement to produce LL,
or formal project debrief meetings held. Respondents from both divisions (D2, D4)
reported that LL reviews are prepared rarely, unless requested by the client. There is
only a requirement to provide plan and milestones reports, mainly to track project
progress. Cross-project KS happens informally during ongoing face-to-face or e-mail
interactions, ―I guess if you learn something really useful you might send out an
email to the group and say hey we should do it this way‖ (D8).
Delta does not have a dedicated PMO to help manage projects. There is one
administrative person working part time who helps with accessing project records,
and a full time person providing commercial and legal support. Project leaders and
team members normally get support from Stream Leaders, who administer projects
and project direction and manage project financials.
5.6.5. Summary of the Delta Case
Section 5.6 focused on analysis of Delta and explored Delta‘s KS behaviours
focusing on the elements identified in the I-PKS Framework. A summary of these
behaviours, tailored to answering the research questions is presented in this Section.
RQ1: How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge
sharing?
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
152
Data indicates that at Delta PMs are generally willing to share knowledge, but this
generally applies to KS between projects from the same division. Although Delta
provided communal areas (corridor, canteen, library and gym) for people to meet and
interact, the KS between IT and MIN Projects was reported to be minimal.
Furthermore, data showed that cultural differences exist between MIN and IT
Projects. IT and MIN projects also follow different norms and use different
mechanisms to share knowledge. This could suggest that it was primarily cultural
values including informality, mentoring and teamwork, not the open plan layout that
drives PMs to share their knowledge. Although collaboration is encouraged, the
organisation does not actively participate in facilitating collaboration.
RQ2: How does the existence of three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)
benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
The presence of ability and integrity appeared to be the most important for I-PKS.
Benevolence trust was regarded as necessary in two circumstances: when knowledge
was related to more sensitive relation-related issues, and when providing insightful
advice. Data from interviews also suggested that integrity trust reinforces the
relationship between ability trust and knowledge sharing.
RQ3: How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project
management tools and process, and technology) improve I-PKS behaviours?
At Delta project leaders use a range of means to exchange knowledge: face-to-face,
email, phone, wikis, SMS, teleconferencing, software registry (SBN), Internet and
shared-drive. Although people are fluent in working with computerised technologies
on a daily basis, they still prefer to share knowledge during informal interactions. It
was reported that people tend to be resistant to formal processes. Project
management at Delta is still not matured, and there is no formal process established
for capturing, storing and sharing project knowledge.
RQ4: How do the relationships between these three factors of OC, trust and
KSM improve the I-PKS?
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
153
At Delta, OC appears to influence trusting relationships. The friendly, non-
competitive atmosphere means that people are honest about their likes and dislikes;
hence facilitating trust. This in turn allows for unbounded KS, which normally
occurs during informal face-to-face interactions. Thus, suggesting that OC, by
building trusting relationships, foster the use of informal, organic sources to share
knowledge.
5.7. SUMMARY
This chapter presented the within-case analyses of the four PBOs. It explored in
detail the I-PKS behaviours from the perspective of PMs concentrating on the factors
identified in the I-PKS Framework. The use of a pattern-matching technique allowed
comparison of empirically-based patterns with these predicted (as illustrated in the
Framework and discussed in Chapter 3). The main aim of this chapter was to answer
the research questions related to the role of OC, PMs‘ geographical location, trust in
I-PKS, and the use of a range of mechanisms in I-PKS. Figures summarising the KS
behaviours of each case were provided at the end of each section. Within-case
findings are the basis for the cross-case analysis, which is presented in the next
chapter.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
154
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
155
6. Cross-case Analysis
6.1. INTRODUCTION
In the previous chapter, the within-case analysis guided by the I-PKS Framework,
outlined the KS practices and behaviours of each case. The aim of the analysis was to
become familiar with each case as a stand-alone entity before the cross-case analysis
began. At that stage, no comparison between cases was made. The same data
employed in the within-case analysis was used to conduct the cross-case analysis
presented in this chapter. However, the data for the cross-case analysis was arranged
in a different manner, according to emerging findings related to the research
questions. This chapter reports on findings from the cross-case analysis and answers
the following research questions:
RQ1: How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge
sharing?
RQ2: How does the existence of the three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)
benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge
sharing?
RQ3: How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms, namely
relational, project management tools and process, and technology,
improve inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours?
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
156
RQ4: How do the relationships between these three factors of
organisational culture, trust, and knowledge sharing mechanisms
improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?
Section 6.2 discusses the analytical procedures used for the cross-case analysis, and
the following sections, Sections 6.3–6.5, answer the research questions. Section 6.3
focuses on organisational culture (OC), Section 6.4 investigates the role of trust in
inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS), and Section 6.5 examines how different
knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) can improve I-PKS. Section 6.6 explains the
relationships between the three factors of OC, trust and KSM. Section 6.6
summarises the findings.
6.2. CROSS-CASES PROCEDURES
This cross-case analysis primarily looked for similarities and differences across and
within the cases, and attempted to explain the reasons for these similarities or
differences. This pattern-matching process was highly iterative and followed steps
suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) involving constant comparison between cases, and
verifying that the emergent relationships between elements fit with the evidence in
each case. Sometimes, a relationship was confirmed by the case evidence while other
times it was revised, disconfirmed or set aside due to insufficient evidence. A range
of NVivo tools including matrix queries facilitated the comparison of several nodes
at once. Also, the use of relationship nodes, figures and diagrams assisted in
identifying the links between the elements, hence enabling explanation, confirmation
or disconfirmation of the relationships. When behaviour did not match the predicted
pattern then the explanation building technique (Yin, 2003) was applied. When it
was possible to develop a plausible explanation of why the pattern did not match,
this often led to richer findings. In relation to setting up the propositions, this
research followed the approach taken by Gilbert (2005) and articulated a set of
formal observations (propositions) based on comparative data from the four cases.
These observations addressed the role of OC, trust and KSM in I-PKS and are
presented at the end of each section. The comparison of emergent propositions with
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
157
the extant literature is presented in the next chapter (Chapter 7 — Discussion and
Practical Implications).
6.3. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
This section combines the analysis from the four cases on OC to answer RQ1: How
does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing? This section
begins with a comparison of the cultures of the four participating organisations,
followed by a discussion on findings related to OC in the context of I-PKS.
Propositions are presented at the end of each subsection.
6.3.1. Organisational Culture and the
Willingness to Share Knowledge
Findings from the questionnaire and interviews, discussed in Chapter 5, indicated
which culture is dominant in each case and how the cultural values influenced KS
behaviours. Figure 6.1 outlines the results from the questionnaire where the
organisational culture assessment instrument (OCAI) was applied to determine the
dominant culture in all cases (separate OCAI results from the two Delta divisions,
MIN and IT, are presented).
From the figure it can be seen that Market culture appears to have a strong impact on
Alpha and Beta cases. Gamma‘s culture is balanced with a slight shift towards the
Hierarchy type. Follow-up interviews helped to explain that the change of director,
which happened around the time the initial interviews were conducted, was the
reason for the culture shift from Clan towards Hierarchy. Questionnaire results show
that there were clear differences in dominant cultures between Delta divisions, MIN
and IT. Nevertheless, data from the interviews and documents suggested that the
overall culture in Delta appears to have strong characteristics of Adhocracy.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
158
Alpha: Clan = 19, Adhocracy = 8, Market = 35, Hierarchy = 38 Beta: Clan = 19, Adhocracy = 19, Market = 35, Hierarchy = 28 Gamma: Clan = 25, Adhocracy = 19, Market = 25, Hierarchy = 31 Delta MIN: Clan = 33, Adhocracy = 25, Market = 21, Hierarchy = 24 Delta IT: Clan = 24, Adhocracy = 19, Market = 16, Hierarchy = 41
Table 6.1 outlines the main cultural focus and summarises across the cases those
cultural fundamentals that were found to influence KS behaviours, including: the
willingness to share knowledge, the presence of silos and collaboration.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta MIN
Delta IT
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
Clan
Figure 6-1: Culture profiles of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta MIN and IT
Table 6-1: Culture profiles — cross-case comparison
COMPANY ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
Dominant Culture (OCAI results)
Hierarchy and Market Market
Balanced with prevalence of Hierarchy type,
Change of managing director shifted the culture focus from
Clan to Hierarchy
MIN division — Clan IT division — Hierarchy
Culture focus Control,
Structure, Unwillingness to change
Process control, Customer focus,
Achievement, Result orientation, Accomplishment,
Measurement, Use of quality tools
Teamwork, Employee involvement,
Recognition
Overall Delta‘s focus: Innovation,
Development, Creativity, Informality,
Commitment
Collaboration
Top management does not discourage, but it also does not actively support, collaboration and KS endeavours. The organisation does not provide many opportunities for collaboration between PMs from different geographical locations. Nevertheless, there was evidence that recent structural changes are shifting the way projects are managed from solitary to more joint efforts.
The organisation encourages, but does not actively contribute to facilitating, I-PKS.
Collaboration is encouraged, new ideas are welcomed. The organisation provides support to newcomers and rewards those who go the extra mile to help another team member.
Collaboration is encouraged, but the organisation does not actively participate in facilitating collaborative work and KS between divisions. Workshops and cross-division conferences are rare. Only recently, top management recognised the need and now tries to facilitate collaboration by organising reading sessions. However, these endeavours do not occur frequently and, according to respondents, have not yet been successful.
COMPANY ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
Willingness to share knowledge
Some PMs are open and willing to share knowledge. However, some are reluctant, to do so. Those PMs who like to be portrayed as a kind of perfect project manager are unwilling to reveal their project‘s pitfalls.
Some PMs are open and willing to share knowledge. However, those focussed on career progression are reluctant. Some are reluctant to share their project‘s pitfalls; instead they try to blame others for the failure.
Strong evidence providing that PMs are open and willing to share knowledge, even related to project shortcomings. Projects‘ shortcomings are seen as opportunities rather than failures.
PMs are generally open with each other and willing to reuse their knowledge.
Evidence of hesitancy to share
knowledge Interviews Interviews No evidence No evidence
Important Remarks
I‟m very open about where I‟ve done well and where I‟ve done wrong. I have a number of individuals working for me who feel that failure is a weakness and therefore wouldn‟t be as open. So about fifty-fifty I think (A7).
We have some people that have been in the organisation for ten years and believe that they should be a general manager, so I think there‟s a little bit of well if I share too much with you you‟ll get the heads up on me (B3).
I‟m quite happy to identify my shortcomings because [if not] you‟re not going to make it better next time (G6).
MIN Projects — That‟s great about [Delta] the way that everyone can be totally up front about their likes and dislikes and successes and failures (D2).
Reasons for not sharing knowledge
To maintain position of importance
Hoarding knowledge increases power and a way to promotion
No evidence No evidence
Reasons for not sharing knowledge related to project
shortcomings
Revealing project pitfalls… - is a sign of failure - puts the position of perfect PM at risk
Revealing project pitfalls… puts the strong position in the organisation at risk
No evidence No evidence
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
161
According to DeLong and Fahey (2000) cultures which emphasise willingness to
share knowledge, collaboration and frequency of interactions will have greater KS
outcomes. This pattern was found at Gamma and Delta, whose focus on employee
involvement and teamwork was perceived to improve KS outcomes. Within-case
analysis revealed that PMs from Gamma and Delta were normally open and willing
to share any kind of knowledge, and no one indicated that people are hesitant to
share. At Gamma, project pitfalls were viewed as areas for improvement rather than
failures, and collaboration and KS were endorsed by the unit manager. Similarly, at
Delta, no one indicated that people are hesitant to share.
The pattern was different in Alpha and Beta cases who reported evidence of
hesitancy to share knowledge. At least two respondents of each of company (A5, A7,
B2, B3) reported that some PMs are very protective and unwilling to share
knowledge. Data from interviews outlined in Chapter 5 also provided evidence that
in these two companies there are PMs who are reluctant to share their project pitfalls
because they want to retain their reputation and position of importance in the
company; others, focused on career, recognised knowledge as power and a way to
career advancement.
Also, at Alpha and Beta the indicator of Market culture was high while Clan culture
was relatively low, demonstrating competitive and goal-oriented cultures, where
there is no place for failure and the focus is on winning and success. This can explain
why project leaders of Alpha and Beta were sometimes reluctant to share knowledge,
especially that which related to their projects‘ shortcomings. Furthermore, the
performance measures in Market-type cultures are normally based on numbers and
tangible achievements, thus some employees are reluctant to share because they do
not want to give their secrets away to others as this could jeopardise their career
advancement.
Analysis of Alpha and Beta provided some evidence to suggest that cultures, which
focus on competition, achievement and demanding leaders are the reason that some
PMs are reluctant to share knowledge related to their projects with other colleagues
outside their project boundaries. Those that focus on collaboration, teamwork,
commitment and employee involvement (Gamma and Delta cases) are more willing
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
162
to share their knowledge. Indeed, the above analysis and discussion provided
evidence that the type of culture influences KS behaviours. Therefore, it is proposed
that:
Proposition 1a: Project managers from cultures that emphasise
competition, achievement, demanding leaders and winning (displaying
characteristics of Market type), are less likely to report knowledge
sharing between projects.
Proposition 1b: Project managers from cultures that create a
collaborative environment encourage people to communicate, and create
a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work (displaying
characteristics of Clan type), are more likely to improve inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours.
6.3.2. Project Manager’s Geographical Location
PMs‘ geographical location differed across cases. Table 6.2 illustrates the location of
PMs from each case. There were two cases (Alpha and Delta) where PMs were both
co-located and geographically dispersed. At Alpha, PMs from SA Development
Projects shared office space; likewise PMs from WA Maintenance Projects also
shared a location. Those PMs from SA Maintenance Projects were dispersed,
working on project sites. At Delta, PMs from MIN Projects worked together on the
same floor, also PMs from IT Projects shared working space, but PMs from MIN and
IT worked in different buildings. PMs from Beta and Gamma all worked together in
an open plan office.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
163
Table 6-2: PMs geographical distribution across-cases
Case Location A Location B
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta
Legend:
Co-located PMs Dispersed PMs
Analysis of Alpha evidence suggested that those PMs who were co-located (SA
Development Projects and WA Maintenance Projects) worked closely with each
other (A6), and developed a more mature approach to project management than those
located on project sites (A2). There were comments from co-located Beta
respondents (B3, B5) who reported they have close working relationships with their
peers. Similarly, at Gamma, where all PMs shared the same space, data provided
strong evidence that this open plan office arrangement facilitates building close
relationships. At least five respondents (G1, G3, G5, G9, G10) commented they are
PMS FROM SA
MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS
PMS FROM SA
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
PMS FROM
WA
MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS
PMS FROM
MIN
PROJECTS
PMS FROM IT
PROJECTS
PMS FROM TC
PROJECTS &
BI PROJECTS
PMS FROM
INTERNET,
PHONE,
COUNTERS, AND
DISASTER
CAMPAIGNS
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
164
very close with their colleagues and most agreed they frequently interact with their
peers. Similarly at Delta, at least four respondents (D9, D3, D4, D5) expressed that
physical proximity helped to establish and maintain close relationships, which as a
result facilitated KS between project leaders. PMs reported they seek knowledge
normally from those who they know well. At Delta, it was further reported that the
willingness and openness to share information about a project‘s shortcomings
depends on the people and how well they know them, ―if you know someone well and
you spend a bit of time with them you‘ll become more aware of their frustrations and
things‖ (D4).
In each case, Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta, data from the interviews provided
evidence of the importance of collocation for KS, yet further analysis brought to light
that although physical proximity contributes to KS, it does not have a direct effect,
but rather it influences other factors that are more closely related to KS. Evidence
from the cases signified that those PMs who were co-located maintained close
working relationships. Data from the four cases recaptured above and discussed in
the previous chapter, provided support to state that physical proximity helps to build
close relationships and those close relationships appear to have a more direct effect
on KS than does physical proximity.
Nonetheless, there was minimal exchange of knowledge and expertise between PMs
from distant locations. The within-case analysis brought to light that at least four
respondents from Alpha (A2, A5, A7, A8) and four from Delta (D1, D3, D4, D9)
reported that cultural differences and silos also existed between dispersed PMs, and
there was a clear distinction between ‗us and them‘. Furthermore, there were a
number of remarks commenting on the inconsistency in conducting projects between
geographical locations. Although respondents from both cases reported that more
frequent KS and transparency in managing projects between geographically
dispersed sites could be very fruitful, analysis revealed that in both cases Alpha‘s and
Delta‘s dispersed PMs followed different project management processes, developing
their own norms and routines for project management (Alpha and Delta cases), and
used different KSM (Delta case). On top of that, at Alpha and Delta, there was
limited collaboration between geographically dispersed PMs.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
165
The cultural differences between geographically dispersed PMs, manifested by the
presence of silos, distinction between ―us versus them‖, the lack of common
approach in managing projects and poor collaboration between dispersed PMs
appeared to result in limited KS. Based on the analysis of Alpha and Delta it would
appear that there are a range of problems that arise from geographical dispersion
between PMs; these problems cause barriers to effective KS. Figure 6.2 illustrates
this argument.
The analysis presented above leads to two conclusions; (1) that close proximity does
not directly add to KS behaviours, but it is likely to create opportunities for building
close and bonded relationships and these close relationships appears to have a more
direct effect on KS than physical proximity, (2) geographically dispersed PMs are
more likely to display evidence of cultural differences, which in result can lead to
limited I-PKS. Results from this analysis are stated formally:
Proposition 2: Physical proximity is likely to facilitate the establishment
of bonded relationships between peers, which in turn improves I-PKS.
It is also is proposed:
Figure 6-2: Consequences of PMs geographical dispersion
Limited knowledge
sharing between
geographically dispersed PMs
PMs geographical
dispersion
Creation of silos — ―us versus them‖
Poor collaboration between dispersed
PMs
The lack of a common approach in
managing projects:
o development of own norms and
routines for project
management
o the use of different knowledge
sharing mechanisms.
ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM
GEOGRAPHICAL DISPERSION
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
166
Proposition 3: Geographically dispersed PMs are likely to display
evidence of cultural differences. These cultural differences may in
consequence lead to limited I-PKS behaviours.
6.4. TRUST
The effect of trust on KS was examined to answer RQ2: How does the existence of
the three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence
I-PKS behaviours? Ability trust refers to the trustor's perception that another party is
knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of competence or skills; benevolence trust
suggests that the trustee has a specific attachment to the trustor and would keep the
best interests of the trustor at heart; and integrity trust refers to the trustor's
perception that the trustee will adhere to a set of principles such as honesty and
credibility during and after the knowledge exchange. Trust was examined from the
knowledge seeking perspective.
Data on trust was obtained from interviews and the questionnaire. The questionnaire
provided answers related to the presence of the three forms of trust during inter-
project KS endeavours. Interviews further revealed how important each trust form is
in KS. Appendix E provides a copy of the questionnaire related to trust, distributed to
the respondents from the four cases, and describes the process to collect quantitative
data. Across all cases, ability and integrity were the most influential in seeking
knowledge from other projects, followed by benevolence. A scale to measure the
presence of trust ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5
strong agreement, and 3 is the scale midpoint. In all cases, ability trust received mean
values above 4.0, with the highest mean of 4.57 (Beta case) and the lowest mean of
4.21 (Alpha case). Integrity trust also reported high mean values. Across the Alpha,
Beta and Gamma cases, integrity trust received mean values above 4.0. Only in Delta
case did integrity trust report a mean value below 4.00 (mean = 3.79). Across all
cases, benevolence trust received the lowest mean value. Nevertheless, it still showed
a positive effect on KS, reporting mean values above the midpoint (3.00). Analysis
of the questionnaire data revealed that the presence of the three forms of trust existed
during knowledge exchange behaviours, which means that all forms of trust
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
167
positively contribute to I-PKS, with ability trust reporting the highest contribution
and benevolence trust the lowest contribution.
Qualitative data from interviews was examined by using numerical counts in
combination with matrix queries as a proxy indicator of the importance of the three
trust dimensions across the four cases. This process was explained in Chapter 4
Methodology, Section 4.5.4.2. This analysis of the interviews revealed that overall,
25 remarks suggested that ability trust is important, and 23 suggested that integrity
trust is important in KS. There were seven comments consistent with the notion that
benevolence trust positively influenced I-PKS, and six indicated that benevolence
trust was irrelevant.
Although data from the interviews presented in Chapter 5 revealed there were
distinct views on the level of importance of trust between cases, overall, there was
strong evidence supporting the notion that ability and integrity trust have a positive
impact, and moderate evidence that benevolence trust has a positive effect on KS
behaviour. Table 6.3 reports remarks raised by respondents on trust. In brackets
under the ‗Respondents‘ heading, specific codes characterising respondents are
listed. In some cases the same respondent provided two views related to the same
form of trust, i.e. G8 feels experience (attribute of ability trust) is moderate for
knowledge sharing, but he also commented that professionalism (attribute of ability
trust) is not necessary in inter-project knowledge sharing. In analysing trust all
remarks related trust attributes were included.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
168
Table 6-3: Major remarks on the importance of trust from respondents
Trust Rank Respondents Major Remarks
AB
ILIT
Y
(com
pete
nce, skill
s a
nd
pro
fessio
nalis
m)
Impo
rtan
t A1, A3, A4, A5, A6, B2, B4, B6, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G10, G11, G13, D1, D2, CR3, D5, D6, D8, D9
RB2 Person has some skills or knowledge so you always turn to them when the person has certain IP [intellectual property]. Someone can be your colleague and you know him well, but he will not provide you with the info you need. You don‟t want to approach person who spends half an hour explaining something that can take two sec. you‟ve got to be careful there.
Mod
erat
e A3, A8, B3, G1, G3, G6, G8, G11, G14, D1
RG8 Sometimes people who haven‟t got experience can see the wood, you know can see the wood for the trees and can come up with some great ideas and suggestions because they‟re not clouded by projects and have never seen it before and come up with some good ideas so I don‟t think experience is necessarily.
Not
Impo
rtan
t
G5, G8, G9, G10, D2, D7
RD2 I don‟t care about any you know, looking professional or acting professional, I don‟t care about that because I‟m a scientist. All that matters to me is you know, you Google them, read their papers
BE
NE
VO
LE
NC
E
(positiv
e in
tention
and w
illin
gness t
o h
elp
)
Impo
rtan
t
A1, A2, A3, A4, G14, D6, D8
RA3 It‟s important to approach the person who will be willing to share that knowledge. I can think of people in the company you know, they would have a wealth of experience but you know, they wouldn‟t go out of their way to help people more or to necessarily share.
Mod
erat
e
A8, G6, D3, D5, D7, D9
RA8 Positive intention, it‟s just an expectation that I would have, I would expect people to have those qualities.
Not
Impo
rtan
t
B3, B4, G5, G9, G10,G13
RG10 I don‟t want someone who‟s got good intentions but is going to give me the wrong information.
INT
EG
RIT
Y
(ho
nesty
an
d c
redib
ility
)
Impo
rtan
t
A1, A4, A5, A7, A8, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, C6, G8, G9, G10, G11, D1, D2, D3, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9
RA7 Honesty is very important. The information received from other project manager influence the decision that I‟m making and I‟d be pretty unhappy if I made a wrong decision based on data and the individual who I was talking to knew that. Essentially rug pulling RG8: That‟s what I value from someone being honest and frank with me. If I‟m going down the wrong track or yeah. I‟d rather that, rather than being nice and not wanting to offend me and giving me wrong information
Mod
erat
e
A7, B2, B6, D5
RA7 Credibility I guess is a measure of a person‟s confidence in another person‟s eyes. I can make my own assessment as to the whether I should apply the information that‟s been provided to me.
Not
Impo
rtan
t
B4, D9
RB4 Honesty doesn‟t really matter too much. Nobody within our team would be dishonest in the information sharing because it‟s black and white, the type of information. It‟s not as if you‟re talking about soliciting new customers.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
169
In summary, across the four cases, three forms of trust — ability, benevolence and
integrity — were found to be related to I-PKS. The analysis from interviews and
questionnaire confirmed that trust has a strong impact on the transfer of knowledge
in the inter-project context. It was found that when trust exists, PMs are more willing
to seek and more confident to apply knowledge received from others to a project.
According to the analysis provided above, it is proposed that:
Proposition 4: Ability and integrity trust, and in a more limited fashion
benevolence trust, increase the likelihood of I-PKS.
6.4.1. The Contingent Effect of Integrity Trust
Analysis of the interview data revealed that there is a relationship between the ability
and integrity dimensions. Within-case analysis of Alpha, Gamma and Delta provided
evidence suggesting that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability
trust and KS. Integrity trust is a perception that the trustee adheres to a set of
principles that the trustor finds acceptable (i.e., honesty and credibility). Ability
refers to a perception that another party is knowledgeable and possesses a certain
level of competence and skills (Mayer, et al., 1995).
Across all cases, it was apparent that ability trust highly contributes to KS between
PMs, which means that PMs will seek knowledge from those who possess a certain
level of skills and competencies. At least three respondents from Alpha (A2, A5,
A8), four from Gamma (G1, G3, G5, G6), and three from Delta (D1, D5, D8)
provided evidence signifying that although ability contributes, it is the integrity that
reinforces KS behaviours, which means that PMs will be reluctant to seek knowledge
from a person who they perceive has not been honest with them in the past, even
though it is believed this person is knowledgeable and possesses information they
look for. Below there are some remarks from respondents on the contingency role of
integrity trust:
―[Competence and professionalism] are beneficial and it‘s nice to have
those things but I think it‘s more critical that when I‘m asking someone a
question or asking for some information that I know that they‘re telling
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
170
me the truth [are honest with me]. I would expect that if someone is
working in the organisation, they are competent, the company has
deemed them [to be] ... they wouldn‘t have been in that position if they
were not competent in their job‖ (A8).
―Somebody would have to be competent for me to go and seek them out
to get information from them...and I would want to ensure that if they are
competent well they‘d need to be competent, that they‘d need to be
honest [and don‘t have] any hidden agenda‘s or anything like that‖ (G2).
―skills and competency... I mean none of that is really useful if they‘re
not honest‖ (D8).
At Beta there was no evidence that integrity reinforces the relationship between
ability and KS. Explanation building analysis helped to clarify why this is the case.
At Beta, knowledge that was shared required evidence, ―because it‘s black and
white, the type of information [we share]‖ (B4) indicating that the information had to
be credible because it was largely available for others to use. The person who put the
knowledge in would make sure the knowledge is credible because he or she would
not like to be perceived as not experienced and lose their position of importance.
Nonetheless, cross-case data provided evidence suggesting that PMs will seek
knowledge from a person whose ability they believe in, but it would be the presence
of integrity trust that powers that KS behaviour. Evidence from Beta indicates that
this can be the case especially when knowledge shared is tacit, not stored for others
to use. This leads to the following proposition:
Proposition 5a: An essential pre-requisite for positive I-PKS outcomes
is the presence of ability trust between project members.
Proposition 5b: The presence of integrity trust further enhances the
efficacy of ability trust in relation to its role in I-KPS.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
171
6.4.2. The Effect of Organisational Culture on
Trusting Relationships
Overall, the questionnaire results provided evidence suggesting that all three forms
of trust positively contribute to I-PKS. However, data from the interviews revealed
there were distinct views on the level of importance of trust between cases.
Explanation building analysis provided clarification as to why perceptions of trust
differed across the four organisations.
Questionnaire results provided evidence that PMs seek knowledge from those
individuals whom they believe possess a high level of the three forms of trust, and
data from interviews revealed the existence of the three forms of trust as being
essential for KS to occur. At Alpha there was an awareness that people need to be
helpful and willing to share. Nevertheless, it was recognised that the competitive and
achievement-focused culture at Alpha means that there are some people in the
company who have a wealth of experience, but they would choose to protect their
knowledge and expertise rather than help others. This means that respondents from
Alpha were aware that some PMs are reluctant to share their knowledge. Therefore,
they sought knowledge only from those whom they trusted.
The circumstances are different at Beta, whose personnel valued codified knowledge
over tacit. People were happy to talk, but information was valuable when hard coded
and documented: ―when we later discuss things with [the] director, there is a need
for data, for supporting evidence‖ (B1). One project leader commented, ―nobody
within our team would be dishonest in the information sharing because it‘s black and
white, the type of information [we share]‖ (B4). Also, with regard to ability trust,
respondents referred to its importance primarily in relation to the transfer of codified
knowledge. Analysis revealed that Beta‘s culture is evidence-based, characterised by
measurement, process control and the use of quality tools. Knowledge is mainly
acquired from databases where everything is ‗black and white‘ and formal meetings
are valued more than informal interaction. Trust essentially involves the assumption
of risk (a probability of loss) since confidence eliminates risk by ignoring possible
alternatives; the absence of risk removes the need for investing in trust-building
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
172
initiatives. In Beta, there is not much risk involved in KS because people do not rely
on each other while searching for knowledge; instead they use databases in which
input is reviewed and controlled. Thus, the knowledge seeker is confident that the
information he/she acquired comes from reliable sources. Trust is a willingness to
take a risk and it is critical in uncertain and risky situations. Therefore, this
environment does not create risky condition and trust is not perceived as important,
which is why integrity and benevolence are perceived to be low priorities.
An alternative explanation can be that achievement oriented, focused on winning and
competition culture at Beta means that PMs rely on non-organic mechanisms and do
not want to take a risk in trusting others for knowledge.
On the other hand, at Gamma, project shortcomings were seen as opportunities rather
than failures, the organisation provided support to newcomers and rewarded those
who made an extra effort to help another team member, and people were encouraged
to learn from their mistakes. Gamma creates opportunities for building strong and
friendly relationships, as well as opportunities to share knowledge. In this
environment, people can rely on each other and positive intentions are simply
assumed and therefore not considered to be critical. At Gamma, the majority of
respondents reported that people are encouraged to talk amongst themselves and new
ideas are welcomed. Gamma reportedly built a KS-focused culture. It was also
reported in Gamma that honesty and credibility ―it‘s something I guess we assume at
our company‖. It was reported:
―Maybe we take those things [honesty and credibility] for granted if we
have a good organisational culture. So like I said here, most people are
honest and um, some people are reliable, not all. But I think it‘s
something I guess we assume at [Gamma]. We assume that because
someone works here, generally get very reliable and very honest and it‘s
more like when there‘s an exception to that‖ (G14).
At Delta the role of benevolence trust in KS was perceived to be moderate. There are
two potential reasons related to OC that can explain this perception. First, it might be
that at Delta MIN, similarly at Gamma, culture is focused on teamwork and
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
173
employee involvement, and people are happy to help each other, largely ―just about
everybody will go out of their way in this group so it‘s kind of not a situation that we
have that I have to deal with too often‖ (D3). Therefore, this willingness to share
knowledge is assumed, thus not perceived as critical.
An alternative explanation is related to the overall Delta culture, which was focused
on innovation and development (characteristics of Adhocracy). It might be that
project leaders from Delta who know that their colleagues are preoccupied with their
projects are not expecting them to go out of their way and offer help. It was reported
that everybody had different agendas, different day-to-day concerns, and different
things they wanted to receive and achieve. ―They don‘t always have to align
completely with what you‘re doing and what you want to get out of it‖ (D7). Another
added, ―I don‘t expect people to go out of their way, they‘ve got their own work to
do‖ (D5). This can explain why in such an environment benevolence was not
expected, thus perceived moderate.
The above discussion revealed that OC appears to determine the perception of trust
and its value as a key facilitating driver of knowledge sharing behaviours. It also
explains why the perception of trust differed across the cases and showed that these
differences appear to be related to OC. Accordingly, it is proposed:
Proposition 6: Organisational culture is likely to determine the
perception of the value of trust as a key facilitating driver of I-PKS
behaviours.
6.5. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS
This section presents findings from the cross-case analysis of KSM and answers the
third research question: How can different KSMs (relational, project management
tools and process, and technology) improve I-PKS behaviours? There was a range of
different KSM available for PMs across all cases, including relational mechanisms
(face-to-face formal and informal meetings), project management tools and processes
(LL repositories, PMO), and a range of technology mechanisms (such as e-mails,
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
174
wikis, intranet, teleconferencing, software registry and shared-drives). These
technology mechanisms are further divided according to the typology proposed by
Alavi et al. (2006), into IntellectWeb Tools which support collaboration and content
management providing capabilities for messaging, calendaring, online chat,
application sharing and discussion forums (i.e., wikis, Google wave and other Web
2.0 applications), and Enterprise Repositories that consist of soft or hard copy
documents and databases of codified knowledge from internal and external sources.
The analysis of technology mechanisms focused primarily on IntellectWeb Tools
having great potential for collaborative KS between geographically dispersed PMs
and the avenue for LL.
In each case, it was apparent that PMs primarily transferred knowledge through face-
to-face interaction. Table 6.4 illustrates the important and/or primarily used
mechanisms for inter-project knowledge exchange. A numerical count analysis in
combination with a matrix query was used as a proxy indicator of the number of
respondents stating their preferable and/or most often used mechanisms for cross-
project KS. It often occurred that one respondent reported on more than one
mechanism.
Table 6-4: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for I-PKS
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
(n=8) (n=6) (n=14) (n=9)
Relational Mechanisms
Face-to-face Informal 7 2 9 5
Face-to-face Formal 5 5 11 0
Project Management
Tools and Processes
i.e. LL databases, post project reports
4 0 3 0
PMO 3 2 5 N/A*
Technology Mechanisms
IntellectWeb Tools (i.e. wiki)
6 1 4 4
Enterprise Repositories (i.e. intranet, share drive)
5 3 4 3
* – not available
The analysis of cases found several reasons explaining why PMs preferred face-to-
face interaction over other mechanisms. Firstly, there was strong support that PMs
are verbal and prefer to talk to each other instead of searching through databases.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
175
Secondly, data provided evidence that PMs are people-oriented and have well-
developed soft skills. PMs reported that they prefer face-to-face interaction because
they can read body language or see when people are lying to them. Thirdly, project
knowledge often requires context, otherwise it cannot be easily understood and
applied. Non-verbal interaction lacks the ability to put knowledge into context, and
face-to-face mechanisms work better in this case. Fourthly, verbal knowledge
exchange was preferable in the project environment because it provides instant
feedback, while documenting and searching for knowledge in databases was reported
to be time consuming. Table 6.5 provides major remarks from respondents about
why they prefer face-to-face interactions over other KSMs.
Table 6-5: Major remarks from respondents about why they prefer face-to-face over other KSMs
ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
I like to talk to people face to face and I can work out really if what they‟re telling me is the truth…You get the odd one that you can‟t pick but generally...., I had one guy that if he‟s telling the truth, not telling the truth, if he knows his subject matter and is confident with it he will just bam, fantastic, really good presentations telling me what....if he doesn‟t every second word is, instead of ummmmm he says „basically‟… And again you don‟t get that via email (A8).
From my personal experience, you can‟t beat face-to-face communication because you know, if you send an email it can be misconstrued, you can‟t have a tone in an email, you don‟t get the facial expression, you don‟t get if somebody‟s smiling at you as there talking (B6). I sit at my desk and I‟m on the phone and emails are falling in and I just don‟t have time, there‟s too many [things to do]. So pick up the phone and talk to me, get an answer to your question and move on (B6).
I‟m a verbal communicator, I like being able to talk it through so I love it. You know, I like to turn around and say hey, yes... (G6) I find face-to-face
communications so
much better
because electronic
communications do
not necessarily have
the same speed. So
you might send
someone an email
but they might not
read it for a day, two
days or whatever
(G12).
If you‟re working in a project area and quite often it‟s personal talk and communication... particularly when you‟re explaining why you want to do things, you‟ve got to put it into a context that they understand. Which means sometimes you have to explain the context which means that on a personal level it‟s quite often better to do that because you get a lot more back about what they think or understand about what you mean (D6). If you‟re trying to get good ideas flowing and running then you suggest something you get queried about it, you suggest something else, you modify it (D6).
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
176
Nonetheless, face-to-face interaction is not always possible, especially when
expertise needs to be transferred across geographical locations. The analysis found
that there is a range of alternative tools and mechanisms that support KS when face-
to-face is not possible or recommended. Also, project management methodologies
have already established some of the techniques that facilitate I-PKS, including the
capturing and storing of LL and post project reviews. However, analysis across the
four cases revealed that PMs tend to be resistant to formal processes and most of the
respondents reported they are reluctant to use these mechanisms. Subsection 6.5.1
investigates the reasons why PMs do not use LL and provides some solutions. The
proposition related to the use of KSM to improve I-PKS is presented at the end of
section 6.5.4.
6.5.1. Issues with Lessons Learned Across the
Cases
In three cases (Alpha, Beta and Gamma), LL documents were required at the end of
each project. Delta did not produce LL at all. At Beta and Alpha, LL captured the
‗know-what‘ and ‗know-how‘ knowledge; at Gamma, LL were mainly created to
improve project processes (‗know-how‘). However, analysis showed that PMs
seldom search through LL documents. ―We produce lessons learned, but we use them
poorly‖ — this summarises the overall state of LL in the cases that used LL
databases.
The within-case analysis found a range of reasons why PMs were reluctant to use LL
databases. For example, it was found that the process of capturing, storing and
reusing LL was partial and ineffective. At Alpha it was reported that every LL
document has a different format, different questions, no set structure and a lack of
common theme. PMs from Beta and Gamma complained that ―lessons learned are
usually done at a high level‖ focusing primarily on process improvement, and the
results and actions taken were not reported back to the managers, leading to a
breakdown in the double loop learning process. In this circumstance, PMs did not see
much value in LL, producing them only because it was formally required ‗to tick the
box‘. As noted previously, one PM commented, ―you can put all the stuff [LL] in
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
177
document, file your document in the folder and file away, so you can ticked that you
have done your lessons learned, but you never see it again‖ (B2). Also, a PM at
Gamma admitted that she produces LL rarely because ―we‘ve got much more
pressing things to do... they can be shared in a verbal way‖ (G5). These issues
identified in the within-case analysis are captured and summarised in Table 6.6. The
within-case analysis identified problems with quality, visibility and lack of
appropriate LL processes. LL quality represents the clarity of their content and
scope. Visibility corresponds to the degree to which LL can be accessed in the
organisation. Processes refer to the development and implementation of LL.
Table 6-6: LL issues
ISSUES ALPHA BETA GAMMA
QUALITY Poor format — Lack of consistent set of structure to produce LL
Only some project managers update LL documents
VISIBILITY
Captured and stored in a way that is not conducive to sharing
LL are not stored in a concise location
LL spreadsheet contains a large amount of
historical that is hard to deal with
Lack of visibility to see how LL are
progressing
PROCESSES
Lack of LL ownership — a person or group responsible for implementing changes, and following up
Lack of process to ensure LL are captured throughout the project
Lack of process that would require searching through LL documents, only individual‘s
initiative
Some solutions on how to improve LL databases have been proposed by companies.
For example, to improve the LL quality and process, Alpha introduced LL
ownership, a person from the PMO responsible for quality and input. Gamma
introduced an updated work packages request with a section on LL, so project
members can systematically provide feedback when they hand over work packages
after the completion of tasks. Alpha introduced a wiki (still on a trial stage) to
improve visibility and capture LL more informally throughout the project. More
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
178
suggestions on how to improve LL processes can be found in Chapter 6 under the
practical implications section.
The next section focuses on the potential of IntellectWeb Tools, namely wikis, for
inter-project knowledge exchange because respondents extensively commented on
the use of these collaborative tools to improve I-PKS, concluding that it allows for
explicit and tacit knowledge sharing. It was also suggested that wikis can become an
avenue for LL.
6.5.2. Wiki — the Avenue for Lessons Learned
and Tacit Knowledge Sharing
Some respondents saw a great potential for wikis to overcome current problems in
KS. All four organisations were in different stages of implementing wikis. Beta
implemented a wiki a couple of years ago, Alpha recently introduced a wiki (on a
trial period) and Gamma did not have a wiki (only one software design team used
wikis) although there was an initiative to introduce a wiki in 2006; the person who
developed this internet channel strategy went on long service leave, and his
successor made the decision to not proceed with the initiative. At Delta, a wiki was
established in 2005 and all current project documentation has since been stored there;
it has become the most frequently used internal tool for a knowledge base.
Overall, the attitude towards wikis as tools for knowledge exchange was very
positive across all four cases. This stance was also present among respondents whose
organisation did not employ a wiki (Gamma), who commented that the decision to
discontinue using the wiki is ―one of their major fails‖ (G4). Nonetheless, some
people were reluctant to use the wiki; they were mostly concerned with the quality of
information and lack of time for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. A
SWOT analysis has been conducted to determine the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats associated with wikis (see Figure 6.3).
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
179
STRENGTHS
• Shared location that everyone can view and update
• Interactive tool • Allows discoverability • Allows visibility/transparency • User friendly • Provides useful source of information for
PMs • Provides useful source of information for
customers • Provides useful source of information for
new employees • Allows sharing of tacit knowledge • It is useful for business intelligence
information • Provides alternative communication type for
distributed projects
WEAKNESSES
• Too little information • Poor quality of entries
OPPORTUNITIES, REASONS TO
APPLY WIKIS
• To share knowledge (also tacit) quicker and more informal
• To improve visibility • To keep knowledge and information on all
the projects in one space • To better systematise LL • To capture LL in the earlier project stages • To capture LL more informally
POTENTIAL THREAT, RISKS,
DANGER
• Can easily become outdated while not used • Poor quality of entries • Lack of time to maintain • It is just another IT tool to maintain (people
who use alternative tools will not update wikis)
• Relatively new tool, people are resistant to use it and/or do not know how to use it
Figure 6-3: SWOT analysis on wikis across the four cases
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
180
Even though it was found that wikis have more strengths than weaknesses, and most
people saw the advantages of applying wikis, there were also potential dangers
associated with them. The main concerns with wikis were that, if not used, they can
easily become outdated; sometimes they have poor quality entries; there is a lack of
time to maintain them; or they are simply another IT tool to maintain (people who
use alternative tools will not update wikis). On PM commented, ―once you start
getting really busy that‘s kind of at the bottom of the list, you don‘t maintain it and it
becomes useless‖ (A5). A PM from Gamma agreed, saying, ―I have found that if it
does not get updated with the frequency and the depth that you want that could be a
bit dangerous‖ (G9).
According to respondents, most of the potential risks associated with wikis could be
overcome by employing someone responsible for the update and maintenance of the
software: ―you‘re still going to need people to maintain it; that‘s my main bug-bear.
You‘ve got to have the maintenance to put data in there because as soon as it comes
bad, people don‘t trust it and they don‘t go back to there to use it‖ (A2). The
problem with the lack of ownership has been successfully resolved at Beta, where
such a role was assigned to the PPO representative. She maintained the wiki entries
associated with static information and LL. At Alpha, the risk of poor quality entries
was resolved by project management quality control where wiki entries related to
project lessons firstly go to PMs for quality assessment before they are entered into
the system.
Analysis from the case studies showed that the case organisations do not fully utilise
their wikis. For example, Beta uses wikis mainly to store static information, while
Alpha is primarily focused on capturing LL. Furthermore, according to the
respondents, some information and knowledge entered into wikis requires
maintenance and quality control, and other entries should be freely managed and
built up by every employee. An overall analysis showed that wikis could become a
new avenue for LL, and the best way to share both tacit and explicit knowledge
across geographical locations. Herein, an appropriately implemented wiki can assist
in breaking silos across dispersed groups. Figure 6.4 displays areas that need to be
considered to ensure an updated and dynamic wiki. Chapter 7 presents practical
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
181
implications on how wikis should be implemented and maintained to enable them to
be a dynamic and comprehensive tool for I-PKS.
6.5.3. Project Management Office — the
Facilitator for Inter-project Knowledge Sharing
This section discusses the analysis on the PMO, examining PMOs‘ I-PKS
capabilities. A PMO is an organisational entity established to manage a specific
project or related series of projects, usually headed by a project or program manager
(Dai & Wells, 2004; Ward, 2000). According to the I-PKS Framework, it is one of
the project management related KS mechanisms. A cross-case analysis was
conducted to answer the question: how does the PMO facilitate I-PKS? In each case,
the PMO was in a different maturity level. At the time of data collection, Alpha was
in the process of setting up a PMO, which started in 2009. Ultimately, they aimed for
the middle range or slightly towards the mature end of PMO. In both cases, Beta and
Gamma PMOs had recently transitioned into more mature PPOs with additional
functions and more control over the projects. Delta did not have a dedicated PMO to
help in managing projects. There was one administrative employee working part time
who was helping with accessing project records, and a full time employee providing
commercial and legal support. In every case, the PMOs mostly provided
administrative support to the projects, facilitating procedural knowledge. Table 6.7
UPDATED AND DYNAMIC
WIKI
• Comprehensive
• Intelligible
• User Friendly
PROCESSES
• Ownership
• Active Leadership Engagement
• Organisational Culture
ENVIRONMENT
Figure 6-4: Factors which ensure improved wikis
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
182
shows PMO functions and PMs‘ expectations of their respective PMO. Alpha‘s
responses relating to PMO functions were obtained primarily from the PMO
personnel, who reported that those functions are planned to be implemented in the
near future.
Table 6-7: PMO functions versus PMs’ expectations about the PMO
FUNCTIONS ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
1 : Provide administrative support 1 1 1 1
2 : Provide training, workshops, seminars, courses
1 0 1 0
3 : Provide informal and formal social interaction
1 0 1 0
4 : Quality assurance through control and reviews
1 1 1 0
5 : Passive repository for LL 1 0 1 0
EXPECTATIONS ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
1 : Facilitate procedural knowledge sharing 1 0 1 0
2 : Repository for LL 1 1 0 0
3 : Provide expertise knowledge 0 1 1 0
4 : Ensure quality and control 1 1 0 0
5 : Provide training, certification, support 1 1 0 0
6 : Facilitate interaction between PMs and project parties
1 0 0 0
7 : Improve visibility and transparency between projects
1 1 0 0
Data revealed that PMs had a range of expectations of PMOs, related to I-PKS,
including ensuring transparency in managing projects by becoming the repository for
LL, and providing support in finding the best practices of work procedures through
improved integration and collaboration among PMs. Beta and Gamma commented
on the need for experts‘ involvement in providing ‗know-how‘ knowledge to PMs.
PMs from Alpha and Beta reported that they expected their PMO to provide a certain
level of control and quality assurance in order to maintain consistency in reporting
and project management processes. Analysis revealed that PMOs in each
participating organisation provide PMs with the necessary tools to support projects,
including project management standards, templates and guidelines on how to
conduct projects, technical guidelines, checklists and manuals. It was also revealed
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
183
that PMOs at Alpha and Gamma already provide a certain level of project control,
which includes quality control of project management reports, value management
support, budget control and gate reviews.
As seen in Table 6.7, the overall analysis showed that the PMO functions and
expectations significantly overlap. Nevertheless, there were discrepancies in each
separate case, and analysis provided evidence that not every PMO satisfied the
expectations of PMs, who recognised that the PMO should play a more active role in
KS by promoting interactions between projects and providing expertise knowledge,
thus ultimately facilitating tacit KS. This function was partly performed at Gamma,
where the PMO organised monthly project management forums during which PMs
prepared short presentations on the challenges they have encountered in their
projects and how they resolved them. Moreover, PMs at Gamma could anytime
approach a PMO officer and discuss the issues they encountered in their projects.
6.5.4. Summary — Knowledge Sharing
Mechanisms
This cross-case analysis of KSM showed that face-to-face interactions appear to be
the most preferred means to share knowledge. However, face-to-face is not always
possible or recommended. Thus, data suggests that well implemented collaborative
mechanisms and PMOs have the capability to share both tacit and explicit knowledge
and can improve I-PKS, especially between geographically dispersed PMs.
6.6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, KNOWLEDGE
SHARING MECHANISMS AND TRUST
In this section explanation building analysis was used to explain the relationships
between OC, trust and KSM. Literature presents two views; on the one hand, there is
a body of knowledge stating that organisational culture influences trust (Issa &
Haddad, 2008; Whitener, et al., 1998). On the other hand, there is work implying that
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
184
organisational culture influences the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms (Alavi,
et al., 2006). This research indicates that the trust is perhaps an under-considered
element linking these two factors. Only a limited amount of research has been done
to integrate these factors of OC, trust, and knowledge sharing mechanisms (Issa &
Haddad, 2008). Taken together, evidence from within case analysis investigating the
relationship between OC, trust, and KSM provides some explanations.
First, this research implies that different organisational cultures may value different
mechanisms to share knowledge, and the use of these mechanisms may actually
effect the development of trusting relationships. For example, within-case analysis of
Beta showed that at Beta a predominantly control-focus culture meant that PMs
stored information in documents. In this organisation even mechanisms collaborative
in nature, such as wikis, were not exploited to their fullest extent and used to store
mostly static information. As a result, Beta heavily relied on explicit rather than tacit
knowledge. Furthermore, evidence from Beta showed that only ability trust was
referred to as important, and respondents did not reflect on benevolence and integrity
as having any value in the I-PKS process. As such, it can be inferred that in Beta
PMs codified data into databases, which input was reviewed and controlled, with
PMs relying on colleagues for knowledge only to a limited extent. In this
circumstance there was not much perceived risk involved in knowledge sharing,
because there was no situation that created the need to be vulnerable when relying on
reviewed and trusted source of knowledge. This can explain the reason why the value
of trust was low at Beta. This can suggest that a direct consequence of the evidence-
based culture at Beta was that PMs demonstrated a preference for seeking knowledge
from ―non-organic‖ sources, and developed trust towards the ability of these sources.
Furthermore, the culture at Gamma appeared to encourage frequent interaction and
collaboration between project participants, and nurtured an environment (both
physical and metaphysical) where people could socialise and informally exchange
knowledge, hence, displaying attributes of Clan culture. This helps to explain why
Gamma personnel demonstrated a preference for exchanging knowledge via face-to-
face interaction. The frequent use of organic sources of knowledge therefore had a
―virtuous cycle‖ effect, where increased interaction was likely to create environment
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
185
for the development of trusting relationships, and increased trust stimulated further
interaction.
Supported by the results in Chapters 5 and 6, and further illustrated by the examples
above it is suggested that PMs from evidence-based cultures focus on control and
measures and are likely to rely on explicit source of information such as documents
for proof and verification, thus do not value trusting relationships as a key facilitating
driver for knowledge sharing. In contrast, PMs from trust and collaboration based
cultures are more likely to share their knowledge informally (Gamma and Delta
cases) and will demonstrate a tendency to rely on organic sources for knowledge,
such as colleagues and collaborative mechanisms, which under the right conditions
can be self-reinforcing.
An extension of this point based on within case analysis and related to the
relationships between OC, trust, and KSM, suggests that organisational culture
creates an environment for trust or the absence of trust, hence determine the use of
knowledge sharing mechanisms. For instance, data from interviews at Gamma
provided evidence that culture was focused on non-blaming and collaboration, and
project pitfalls were viewed as opportunities for improvement rather than failures.
Thus, PMs were likely to openly share knowledge. This type of environment has a
strong potential to create trusting relationships, and fostered trust to be embedded in
the culture. It is then this trusting environment at Gamma that was likely to create
opportunities for more open inter-project knowledge sharing where peers trusted
knowledge acquired from their colleagues, hence felt safe to share knowledge
informally, and valued organic sources. Similarly, at Delta, the within-case analyses
suggested that friendly, informal atmospheres were conducive to people being honest
about their likes and dislikes. These trusting relationships could therefore be the
reason for unbounded knowledge sharing that occurred at Delta, where peers felt
secure to share knowledge informally, valuing organic sources.
It is suggested that collaborative, informal and non-blaming environments, common
for Clan type cultures, (for example Gamma and Delta MIN cases), appears to create
opportunities for more open inter-project knowledge sharing where peers trust
knowledge acquired from their colleagues, and are willing to share knowledge
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
186
informally during face-to-face interactions. As a result project members are more
likely to rely on and value organic sources for knowledge, such as colleagues and
other collaborative mechanisms.
Accordingly, culture appears to influence both, the use of knowledge sharing
mechanisms as well as the development of trusting relationships, and these trusting
relationships and KSM are mutually reinforcing. This means that using informal,
organic sources of knowledge creates platform for the development of trusting
relationships. These trusting relationships help PMs feel secure to search for
knowledge, without the need for support and evidence, thus give confidence to use
these less formal sources of knowledge. Based on that it is proposed:
Proposition 7a: Project managers from cultures that facilitate frequent
interaction, informality and collaboration (displaying characteristics of
Clan type) are more likely to value organic sources of knowledge and
therefore enabling trust as a key facilitating driver.
Proposition 7b: Project managers from cultures that are empirically
driven and based on control, efficiency, and explicit measures
(displaying characteristics of Hierarchy and Market types) are more
likely to value non-organic sources of knowledge and therefore display a
tendency to develop trust primarily in favour of these sources.
6.7. SUMMARY
This cross-case examination of data was conducted to answer research questions
related to the role of I-PKS elements in I-PKS. It compared the cases looking for
similarities and differences between them. In the situation where organisational
behaviours did not match the pattern observed in the majority of cases (i.e., Alpha,
Gamma and Delta reported on the contingency effect of integrity trust, while Beta
did not), further analysis was conducted aiming to explain the reason for this
discrepancy. This explanation building technique provided clarification, further
strengthening the emerging proposition. Overall, it was found that KS behaviours are
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
187
highly contextual and depend on organisational factors. That means that different
OCs and different proximities between PMs will result in different KS behaviours.
Findings across cases relating to ability, benevolence and integrity trust reported that
all three forms of trust positively contribute to I-PKS, with relationships present
between ability and integrity trusts. In relation to KSM, PMs across all cases
reported they prefer to share knowledge during face-to-face interactions. LL
databases were often not utilised due to the problems with quality, processes and
visibility. All cases reported on the potential of wikis for collaborative I-PKS. The
findings presented in this chapter are related to KS behaviours from the participating
cases. The next chapter refers to a broad range of literature to examine if the
propositions stated are similar, extend or contradict the broader context of current
literature.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
188
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
189
7. Discussion and Implications
7.1. INTRODUCTION
This research used four case studies to explore the complex nature of inter-project
knowledge sharing (I-PKS) from a PM perspective, and provided a step towards a
better understanding of the complexity of KS behaviours in the project management
context. The I-PKS Framework, which defines the scope of the research, guided the
process of data collection and analysis.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide answers for the research questions and
permit some conclusions to be drawn from this research in response to the research
problem. Firstly, this chapter reflects on and reviews the findings, formalised as
propositions of the four research questions (covered in Chapters 5 and 6). Some
analysis revealed certain conditions leading to limited KS. Thus secondly, practical
implications based on the data and literature are also suggested.
7.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
Cross-case examination of data found that behaviours related to organisational
culture (OC) appear to affect I-PKS in at least two ways. Firstly, by influencing the
willingness to share knowledge, including LL relating to project pitfalls, and
secondly, by influencing I-PKS endeavours between geographical locations.
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
190
7.2.1. Culture and the Willingness to Share
Knowledge
Based on the analysis of the role of OC in I-PKS, it was proposed that organisations,
with the dominant characteristics of a Market culture, which values competitiveness
and achievement, and focuses on performance measures are somewhat hesitant to
share knowledge, whereas cultures displaying Clan type values that create a
collaborative environment in which people are encouraged to communicate, and
create a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, openly share knowledge even
related to project shortcomings (Propositions 1a and 1b).
Market culture is characterised by competitiveness, productivity, efficiency, stability,
accomplishment and an external focus. Although according to Kasper (2002) and
Cameron and Quinn (2005) Market cultures maintain a prime focus on the external
environment, and the literature on Market culture and KM primarily focuses on the
role of knowledge development in relationships with external competitors (Hult,
Ketchen, & Arrfelt, 2007; Kasper, 2002), the Alpha and Beta cases revealed that
competitiveness is also present within organisational boundaries causing hesitance to
share knowledge. This finding is consistent with that proposed by De Long and
Fahey (2000) who claim that cultures which emphasise individual power and
competition among employees, will lead to knowledge hoarding behaviours. De
Long and Fahey (2000) stated that if employees believe that sharing what they know
incurs personal risks and decreases power, then the social norms governing how
individuals should interact will not support KS behaviours.
Furthermore, this proposition is also consistent with observations made by
Davenport et al. (1998) who state that ‗knowledge friendly cultures‘ are one of the
important factors leading to successful KM projects. Those cultures, according to the
authors, highly value learning, where people are willing and free to explore, where
leaders encourage knowledge creation and use, and people do not feel that sharing
knowledge will cost them their jobs. DeLong and Fahey (2000) further argue that
value orientations such as trust and collaboration will lead to greater willingness
among firm members to share insights and expertise with each other.
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
191
Overall, this finding is consistent with the notion that, ‗good‘ cultural values such as
sharing and openness will lead to positive KS behaviours, whereas ‗bad‘ values will
lead to dysfunctional KS behaviours, such as information hoarding and, hence,
undesirable outcomes (Alavi, et al., 2006).
7.2.2. Cultural Differences and Knowledge
Sharing Between Co-located versus Dispersed
PMs
Analysis of Alpha and Delta cases observed that there were different KS behaviours
between co-located versus geographically dispersed PMs. Data from all four cases
provided evidence stating that PMs who were co-located exchanged knowledge and
shared experiences more frequently with each other than those who were in remote
locations. Similar findings were drawn from the case study conducted by Eskerod
and Skriver (2007). They found that a shared office improved KT between PMs who,
as a result of the sharing space, got to know each other better, developed informal
language and increased the level of trust. The proposition stated in Chapter 6
(Proposition 2) builds further upon this finding, revealing that geographical
proximity appears to have an indirect effect on KS behaviours by creating
opportunities for building close and bounded relationships, which are shown to
improve I-PKS. Similar findings have been drawn by Levin and Cross (2004) who
concluded that strong ties, characterised by close and frequent interactions, had a
more powerful and fundamental effect on the recipient of useful knowledge than did
proximity.
Furthermore, the evidence from cross-case analysis suggests that cultural differences
and silos exist between dispersed PMs, and reveals a range of issues. They include
limited collaboration, lack of a common approach in managing projects, and a
distinction between ‗us and them‘. These cultural differences that arise from
geographical dispersion appear to be the cause for limited I-PKS (Proposition 3).
This finding is consistent with Newell, David, and Chand (2007) who found that an
‗us versus them‘ attitude prevails among distributed sites, hampering the
development of trusting relationships and KS. Furthermore, findings from broader
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
192
research on social cohesion has also shown that feeling strong bonds of social
cohesion where people see each other as members of a shared group emphasises a
common purpose, increases the level of social interaction and a sense of belonging,
whereas a society lacking cohesion displays social disorder, low levels of social
interaction between and within communities, and low levels of place attachment
(Forrest & Kearns, 2001).
7.2.3. The Leadership Active Engagement in
Improving Knowledge Sharing Between
Dispersed Projects
Arenius, Artto, Lahti, and Meklin (2003) suggest that when social communication is
missing (i.e., due to geographical dispersion), a project must develop specific means
to increase communication (such as project databases, document archives etc.). This
research argues that establishing and getting people to use new means, as proposed
by Arenius and colleagues, is not an easy task. Cross-case analysis presented in
Chapter 6, Section 6.5, showed that PMs are verbally inclined; they prefer to share
knowledge via face-to-face interactions and rely heavily on their personal networks.
For example, Delta provides tools such as corporate sub-version repositories and
arranges remote meetings via teleconference. However, it was reported that the use
of these tools did not significantly improve working together. Instead, when sharing
knowledge people relied on their closely located colleagues. Analysis of OC at
Alpha and Delta also showed that cultural differences between PMs from different
locations led to limited KS. Conclusions drawn from within-case analysis of these
two cases revealed that although leaders encouraged PMs to collaborate and share
knowledge with projects from other locations, they did not actively contribute to this
sharing, and top management did not provide many training sessions or opportunities
for collaboration between geographical locations. This could suggest that a lack of
active leadership engagement indirectly led to the emergence of these silos.
Supporting this argument is the evidence from Alpha and Delta cases, suggesting
that active leadership engagement could improve KS between dispersed projects. In
both cases, data revealed that leaders have recently recognised the need for
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
193
collaboration and KS between dispersed groups, and the recent structural changes in
project management focus more towards providing a collaborative approach and are
slowly shifting organisational routines towards better I-PKS. For example at Alpha,
the recent establishment of the project management office (PMO) and wiki, which
are actively supported by the new leader, are the reasons that projects become more
visible and processes more integrated. Moreover, at least three respondents (A1, A2,
A4) commented that the use of collaborative tools depends on how much support is
given by senior management. Similarly at Delta, top management has recently
recognised the need for and tries to facilitate collaboration, for example, by
organising reading sessions and by providing collaborative tools for sharing
knowledge between dispersed groups. These new endeavours are aimed at improving
I-PKS. Furthermore, at Gamma there was evidence of leadership support in building
a non-blaming, collaborative culture which is open to sharing, which implied the
likely improvement of KS behaviours.
The above discussion suggests that collaboration and KS between silos and/or
between geographical locations is likely to be more effective when it is actively
supported by top management than by individual initiatives. Therefore, the lack of
active leadership support could also explain why KS between silos and/or between
geographical locations was minimal. This view is supported by Sveiby and Simons
(2002) who suggested that a collaborative climate can be enhanced by leaders who
encourage KS in actions not words, building open communication channels
throughout the organisation, where employees are stimulated to say what they think,
even if it means disagreeing with the people they report to.
Accordingly, this research agrees with Arenius et al. (2003) that introducing specific
means, that is intelligible collaborative technology mechanisms, can assist in KS
between geographical locations, but their use is reliant on organisational active
engagement that supports these practices. Sveiby and Simons (2002) stated that when
the collaborative climate is poor KS does not take place, no matter the sophistication
of the KM systems that are implemented, and concluded that leaders in an
organisation can have a large impact on the company‘s culture and its way of
operating, playing a tremendous role in enabling a collaborative climate.
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
194
Interviews at Gamma revealed that when the culture is based on caring and
understanding, and the project shortcomings are perceived as opportunities for
improvement rather than failures, PMs are willing to share any kind of knowledge —
even the knowledge related to their project pitfalls. Goh (2002) advocates that
failures should be expected and tolerated, and treated as learning lessons by
employees and the organisation. Furthermore, De Long and Fahey (2000) refer to
the best practice example of the U.S. Army who formally considers knowledge-
sharing capabilities when identifying candidates for promotion, and values
recognising mistakes more than the ability of fixing them. This, according to De
Long and Fahey (2000), stems from the battlefield experience, where no plan is ever
carried out without errors. Therefore, the ability to recognise, evaluate and correct
mistakes becomes critical to success. This example of the battlefield experience is
somewhat similar to managing projects where every project is different and
uncertainty is always present. Thus, assessing project risk from past lessons and
experiences is critical for a project's success. Recognising and sharing project
mistakes as well as taking into account the LL from past projects will increase
organisations‘ knowledge capability, advance their risk management, and help to
achieve long term continuous improvement.
In reality PMs will not share their project pitfalls if they continue to be blamed, cut
down or their position is threatened, as in the examples of Alpha and Beta. ‗Healthy‘
competitiveness is essential to improve performance, but it is not recommended if it
leads to knowledge hoarding. The Gamma case study showed that the changes of
leadership, who brought more control in the organisation, had a power to shift the
culture from Clan to Hierarchy. It is therefore suggested that leaders can have an
influence on culture, and as a result impact KS behaviours.
7.2.3.1. Practical Implications
This research suggests that in cultures where the emphasis is on competition,
achievement and winning, it is the leaders who can promote KS by recognising those
who have gone the extra mile to help a colleague. Leaders should not be defensive
about problems and be able to admit mistakes, as well as treat employees fairly
without blaming them for problems that arise. Harris and Ogbonna (2001) found that
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
195
the best leadership style for a Market culture is participative and supportive. Kasper
(2002) proposed that in a Market culture, achievement-oriented leaders who care
about people would be the best solution. Furthermore, Yang (2007) found that the
facilitator, mentor and innovator leadership styles positively influence collaboration
and KS, while the monitor style is negatively related to KS. A supportive leader, like
the one from Gamma case study before the transition, is the one who can endorse
feelings of belongingness and help PMs recognise they are not competing amongst
themselves, but are part of a team who, by sharing knowledge, will build its
knowledge capabilities and gain a competitive position in the market. It is therefore
suggested that active leadership engagement in promoting collaboration between
dispersed projects, encouraging the use of collaborative tools for KS, and ensuring
transparency of project management norms and practices increases the likelihood of
better I-PKS outcomes between geographically dispersed PMs.
7.3. THE ROLE OF TRUST
Although trust has been shown to influence KT (Koskinen, et al., 2003), knowledge
acquisition (Maurer, 2010), and knowledge use (Foos, et al., 2006), there is limited
research available on the role of different trust dimensions in KS (Holste & Fields,
2010; Levin & Cross, 2004). Cross-case analysis reported in Chapter 6, Section 6.4,
proposed that ability and integrity trust, and in a more limited fashion benevolence
trust, increase the likelihood of I-PKS (Proposition 4). Accordingly, this research
showed that for a better understanding of trusting behaviours it is important to
consider trust as a multidimensional concept, because the perception of the value of
different trust dimensions in KS can vary. This was also evident in the study
conducted by Pinto and colleagues (2009) who found that contractors‘ perceptions of
the role of trust in building healthy relationships differ from the perceptions of
owners. The authors concluded that integrity and competence trusts are important
determinants of healthy relationships for owners, but only integrity trust is a
predictor of positive working relationships for contractors (Pinto, et al., 2009).
Furthermore, according to the literature reviewed in Chapter 3, there is limited
research investigating the relationships between trust dimensions. This research
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
196
showed that integrity trust appears to have a contingent effect on the relationship
between ability trust and KS. That means that PMs will seek knowledge from a
person whose ability they believe in, but it would be the presence of integrity trust
between these individuals that reinforces that KS behaviour (Proposition 5a and
5b). This is a significant finding, demonstrating that although ability trust strongly
contributes to KS, it is in fact integrity trust that makes all the difference in the
sharing of knowledge. Accordingly, managers by promoting the development of
trusting relationships can set strong foundation for learning and more effective
knowledge sharing.
7.3.1. Practical Implications
To intentionally create trust or manage another party‘s propensity to trust is a
difficult task. However, it is possible to enhance conditions for trust-building. Trust
is context- and person-specific; hence the appropriate means and methods for
building trust should be considered carefully. Suggestions on how to develop trusting
relationships have been drawn from the cross-case analysis of participating
organisations. Some of the suggestions are aligned with those proposed by Abrams,
Cross, Lesser, and Levin (2003) and include:
reviewing organisational norms and practices that encourage or discourage
the high frequency of interaction and collaboration
supporting and recognising KS initiatives
endorsing and maintaining a friendly and non-competitive atmosphere at
work
creating an atmosphere for learning not blaming.
7.4. THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING
MECHANISMS
The cross-case analysis of knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) brought to light
that PMs preferred to share knowledge face-to-face. Analysis revealed that PMs are
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
197
verbally inclined and people-oriented. Face-to-face interactions enabled them to
share contextual knowledge and to provide instant feedback. Previous research has
repeatedly demonstrated the importance of social communication for cross-project
KS (e.g. Keegan & Turner, 2001; Newell, et al., 2006). Nevertheless, face-to-face
interaction is not always possible (due to geographical dispersion of PMs) or
recommended (some knowledge requires evidence and is better stored in
documented form). Therefore maintaining a LL database could improve KS between
projects. Consequently a statement can be drawn that both face-to-face interactions
as well as explicit information channels, like electronic or documented LL, appear to
be equally important in a project environment, and project-based organisations
(PBOs) should facilitate access to both.
Nonetheless, this research showed that little use was made of the project
documentation stored on databases. Turner, et al. (2000) and Newell, et al. (2006)
found a similar pattern, and Turner, et al. (2000) concluded that the practice of
storing knowledge simply became a meaningless box-ticking exercise. This research
builds upon these findings and Chapter 6, Section 6.5.1, revealing a range of issues
related to quality, processes and visibility of LL, including:
a lack of consistent set of structure to produce, store and share LL
the way LL are captured is not conducive to sharing; LL are not stored in a
concise location, or the LL spreadsheet contains a large amount of historical
data that is hard to deal with
a lack of visibility to see how LL are progressing
a lack of LL ownership; someone who is responsible for managing LL,
implementing changes and following up.
Respondents recognised that there are no processes in place that could ensure that LL
are captured throughout a project, or stored and reviewed at the beginning of a new
project. Realising these issues helps to make sense of why so little use was made of
the project documentation stored on the databases.
Furthermore, the reasons why PMs did not search through past project knowledge
was related to time pressure. Projects are time-orientated and from case data it is
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
198
apparent that PMs are often running out of time to deliver the project. Thus, they
have little time and motivation to search for knowledge in databases, which are
normally in a PDF format, and difficult to search through and leverage for future
projects. They also have no time to reflect on their experience and document
knowledge for future use; thus, prefer to refer to their peers.
In addition, analysis showed that knowledge intensive PMOs could potentially
relieve PMs by providing ownership of LL as well as expertise, mentoring and
advice for PMs. This argument is aligned with the existing studies emphasising the
need for the active role of knowledge-intensive PMOs in managing the best practices
of project management, and learning from projects (both failures and successes) (Dai
& Wells, 2004; Desouza & Evaristo, 2006; Liu & Yetton, 2007).
7.4.1. Practical Implications
Some practical implications to improve LL quality, visibility and processes have
been drawn from the cross-case analysis and practices used by participating
organisations, they include:
introducing an easily accessible, intelligible and user-friendly LL database
introducing LL ownership — a person accountable for LL implementation
cataloguing LL according to themes
keeping LL in one place
developing a clear action plan for capturing, documenting and sharing LL
throughout the project.
Within- and cross-case analyses found that the use of IntellectWeb Tools such as a
wiki can improve the visibility and capture of LL more informally throughout the
project. Normally, LL are captured and stored in a project folder, LL spreadsheet or
shared drive. The use of more interactive tools to capture and share LL could visibly
improve their use.
These IntellectWeb Tools have recently become an alternative to more static
knowledge repositories; they serve to not only store any explicit knowledge, but are
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
199
also used for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. Cross-case analysis
revealed that one of these tools, a wiki, can become both the avenue for LL as well
as the facilitator for tacit KS between geographically dispersed projects.
The implications for how to ensure updated and dynamic wikis for I-PKS were
drawn from the comments raised by respondents across four cases and are presented
in Figure 7.1. According to the respondents a wiki‘s design should be user friendly
and intelligible, have search capability with indexing for a more intuitive way of
finding knowledge, and be integrated with project management processes and quality
systems to manage projects from end–to-end. Feedback from respondents provided
types of information and project knowledge available and stored in wikis:
static information
links to processes
LL
valuable links
technical information
space for collaboration and knowledge exchange.
Consequently wiki entries should be categorised by the level of control and
maintenance required:
require ownership to maintain and quality control
require moderate ownership control and maintenance
free entries.
According to respondents wikis must have an owner — a person responsible for
updating and maintaining some of the entries, especially those related to static info
and LL. The other entries associated with collaboration and sharing of tacit
knowledge should be maintained by employees, encouraged to use wikis by their
leaders and an open OC. A comprehensive, intelligible and user-friendly tool
supported by leadership engagement, a collaborative culture and ownership will
ensure an effective and vibrant tool for I-PKS. Figure 7.1 provides some suggestions
on how to ensure wikis are an updated and dynamic collaborative tool for I-PKS.
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
200
Despite PMs‘ lack of time to maintain wikis and update LL databases, there does
exist the PMO, which can provide a great advantage for PMs in managing project
knowledge and facilitating access to all kinds of knowledge. Two PMO roles,
administrative and knowledge intensive, can help to facilitate KS by providing
expertise and organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation,
and explicit KS by ensuring transparent project management processes and by
managing repositories for LL including collaborative tools.
Figure 7-1: Suggestions how to ensure updated and dynamic collaborative tool for I-PKS
Updated and Dynamic WIKI
User friendly (for example have search capability with indexing for more intuitive way of finding knowledge)
Intelligible
Comprehensive (have end to end processes)
DESIGN
REQUIRE OWNERSHIP TO MAINTAIN AND QUALITY
CONTROL
REQUIRE MODERATE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL
AND MAINTENANCE FREE ENTRIES
Explicit knowledge Tacit and explicit
knowledge Tacit knowledge
Static info
Links to processes
LL
Valuable links
Technical info
Space for collaboration and knowledge exchange
CONTENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ENTRIES
Active support and engagement to use wiki
Once you show them how to do things and they find it at least remotely useful then they‘re more than happy enough to go along with it (D3).
LEADERSHIP ENGAGEMENT
Cultural norms and practices supporting the use of wiki
Whilst the wiki is probably the way to do things and I don‟t think in itself it‟s the solution, it can‟t be seen purely as being a magic bullet. It comes down to actually having the organisational culture…. Because without creating that appropriate culture and encouraging that culture, it‟s just spending lots of money on a technical project which then nobody uses (G4)
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
A person responsible for updating and maintaining entries.
Someone‟s got to drive it! You‟re still going to need people to maintain it, that‟s my main bug-bear. You‟ve got to have, it‟s the maintenance to put data in there because as soon as it comes bad, people don‟t trust it and they don‟t go back to there as a rule. (A2)
OWNERSHIP
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
202
7.5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL
CULTURE, TRUST AND MECHANISMS
The analysis of culture and trust across all four cases provided evidence, formalised
as Proposition 6, that the perception towards trusting behaviours and value of trust
as facilitator of KS were influenced by the culture. For example at Beta, benevolence
and integrity trusts were perceived low priority because the OC was based on control
and measures, and knowledge was normally hard coded, therefore there was no risk
associated with KS. This is consistent with the observation made by Hosmer (1995)
and Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner (1998) who concluded that the use of
these mechanisms (control and measures) minimises the need to trust employees to
act in organisationally desirable ways. This is because trust involves the assumption
of risk, a probability of loss, thus the use of monitoring and control mechanisms
reduce the risk and the need to trust. On the other hand at Gamma, where the culture
was focused on open communication and shortcomings were seen as opportunities
rather than failures, benevolence trust was simply assumed in the organisation, thus
not perceived as important for KS. The cross-case examination of data concluded
that an OC that fosters a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, and
facilitates a collaborative environment in which people are encouraged to share
knowledge is more likely to improve trusting relationships. Accordingly, this
research extends the theoretical proposition of Whitener et al. (1998) by providing
empirical evidence that OC is likely to affect trusting behaviours and the perception
towards trust as a facilitator of KS. Moreover, this research also extends the study
conducted by Issa and Haddad (2008) who found that the ‗proper organisational
culture‘ is significantly related to mutual trust between employees, but considered
interrelations between OC, trust and knowledge sharing only to a limited extent, and
did not focus on cultural nor trust dimensions.
Moreover, analysis of cases Beta, Gamma and Delta showed that culture appears to
also affect the use of KSM. Chapter 6, Section 6.6, showed that at Beta, the culture is
evidence-based relying on explicit sources for knowledge, whereas Gamma and MIN
Delta who display characteristics of a Clan type culture promoting informality and
collaboration, rely primarily on colleagues. This is consistent with other research (De
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
203
Long & Fahey, 2000) which argues that some firms rely heavily on formal meetings,
while others promote frequent, unplanned and unstructured interactions among
employees. Depending on the culture, these formal and informal interactions are
valued differently, which results in different patterns of KS.
Combining these two findings together, it can be observed that different culture types
appear to affect the utility of different mechanisms to share knowledge, and as a
result influence trusting behaviours. Accordingly, cross-case analysis formally
proposed that: an OC that facilitates the characteristics of a Clan type culture is more
likely to result in people valuing organic sources of knowledge, therefore enabling
trust as a key facilitating driver. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven and
based on control, efficiency and measures (characteristics of Hierarchy and Market
types) are more likely to value non-organic sources of knowledge and therefore
display a tendency to develop trust primarily in the ability of these sources
(Propositions 7a and 7b).
7.6. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRATED
RESEARCH FINDINGS
This thesis has examined the way that OC, trust, and mechanisms influence I-PKS
behaviours. Existing research implies that effective I-PKS is a part of successful
organisation (Bower & Walker, 2007; Kotnour, 1999; Schindler & Eppler, 2003;
Walker, et al., 2004). This research demonstrates that I-PKS is a complex matter,
influenced by a range of factors, which some are interrelated.
The following points, outlined in Table 7.1 present practical implications of this
research, which are set for PBOs to bring the awareness of I-PKS patterns and to
ensure more effective knowledge sharing between projects. These implications —
Emphasise on need for awareness and evaluation of dominant OC type as
determinant of different I-PKS patterns
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
204
Provide insight into the active role of leadership in fostering KS (1) between
PMs from Hierarchy and Market type cultures, and (2) between
geographically dispersed PMs
Give managers guidelines on how to build trust to improve I-PKS behaviours
Offer directions on how to ensure more frequent face-to-face interactions and
greater useability of LL documents for more effective I-PKS
Outline a list of responsibilities held by PMO personnel to facilitate I-PKS.
Table 7-1: Research findings and implications for practice
RESEARCH FINDINGS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Based on the findings from this research, different cultural values may lead to different I-PKS patterns.
It is recommended for a PBO to be aware of, and evaluate its dominant culture characteristics. This will uncover knowledge sharing patterns specific for a given culture type.
Application of Cameron and Quinn (2005) Competing Value Framework may be useful in determining the dominant culture.
This research suggests that PMs from cultures focused on evidence, control, measurement and result orientation (displaying values of Hierarchy and Market type) appear to heavily value non-organic mechanisms to share knowledge, and rely primarily on explicit rather than tacit knowledge, thus do not utilise their knowledge capabilities to its fullest extent.
It is recommended that leadership in Hierarchy and Market driven cultures should be supportive and participative.
Support from leaders can endorse feelings of belongingness, enhance the collaborative climate and help PMs recognise they are not competing amongst themselves, but are part of a team who, by sharing knowledge, will build its knowledge capabilities and gain a competitive position in the market.
This research observed that different knowledge sharing patterns will occur between co-located versus dispersed PMs, who are more likely to display evidence of cultural differences, which may lead to limited KS behaviours.
It is recommended that active leadership engagement could potentially improve KS between dispersed PMs by encouraging the use of collaborative tools for KS and ensuring transparency of project management norms and practices.
This research suggests that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability trust and knowledge sharing. This finding shows tremendous value of integrity trust during I-PKS behaviours, and implies that organisations should consider investing in trust building endeavours to improve their knowledge sharing outcomes.
In order to enhance conditions for trust building, managers may consider to:
review organisational norms and practices that encourage or discourage the high frequency of interaction and collaboration
support and recognise KS initiatives
endorse and maintain a friendly and non-competitive atmosphere at work
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
205
create an atmosphere for learning not blaming
To enhance ability trust managers may consider to:
Ensure the visibility of other people‘s skills and competencies; this will bring the awareness of ‗who knows what‘
Ensure confidence in the measures evaluating people skills and expertise
This research confirmed that PMs are verbally inclined and people-oriented. They primarily value face-to-face interactions over e-mails or technology based tools, when sharing knowledge between projects.
Where possible, it may be useful to facilitate face-to-face interactions by designing open plan offices or creating designated areas where PMs can meet and exchange valuable tips and experience.
Based on the findings from this research documented lessons learned are not utilised to their fullest extent. This is due to the problems related to poor quality, visibility, and lack of comprehensive processes to capture, store, and reuse this documented knowledge.
To ensure greater useability of past projects lesson, it is recommended to:
Introduce an easily accessible, intelligible and user-friendly LL database in a form of a collaborative tool such as wiki (discussed in detailed in Section 7.4.1 and outlined in Figure 7.1)
Introduce LL ownership — a person or an entity accountable for LL implementation and maintenance
Catalogue LL according to themes
Keep LL in one place
Develop a clear action plan for capturing, documenting and reusing LL throughout the project
Findings from this research suggest that a well implemented PMO is likely to provide a significant advantage for PMs in managing project knowledge and facilitating access to not only explicit, but also a tacit knowledge
If possible, PBO may consider to assign PMO personnel with responsibilities that will ensure more effective I-PKS, they include:
- providing expertise, mentoring and advice for projects
- organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation
- having an ownership and maintaining knowledge input LL and collaborative mechanisms
7.7. SUMMARY
The aim of this research was to examine the role of OC, trust and KSM in I-PKS by
investigating behaviours related to KS from a PM perspective. This chapter
discussed findings from the analysis related to these factors and outlined some
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
206
practical implications. The next chapter concludes the research by providing a
summary of overall findings, research contributions, limitations and directions for
future studies.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
207
8. Conclusions
8.1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 recognised the need to investigate KS behaviours in an inter-project
context and highlighted the limited research in this area, which has focused primarily
on a range of mechanisms to share knowledge including transfer of LL and post
project reviews. Accordingly, Chapter 3 (I-PKS Framework) detailed the literature
review conducted outside the project management field, in order to identify factors
that can potentially influence inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). This critique
resulted in the I-PKS Framework which comprises three main factors: organisational
culture (OC), trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM), all of which defined
the scope of this research. This research then examined how OC, trust and KSM
influence I-PKS from the PMs‘ perspective and so an inductive theory building
approach was conducted. This methodology is presented in Chapter 4, where four
research questions informed by the I-PKS Framework were posed. These questions
guided the empirical investigation and analysis presented in Chapter 5 (Within-case
Analysis) and Chapter 6 (Cross-Case Analysis), and based on this analysis, seven
propositions were formalised. These propositions captured the role of OC, trust and
KSM in I-PKS and were discussed in Chapter 7, which also proposed practical
applications to improve I-PKS.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
208
The overall findings from this thesis, as discussed in Chapter 7, demonstrate that I-
PKS depends on multiple factors, some of which are interrelated. The sharing of
knowledge requires both environment (trusting relationships and a culture that
promotes teamwork and a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work), as well as
mechanisms that facilitate KS to occur. Accordingly, this research offers a number of
contributions to the body of knowledge and the practice of KS.
This concluding chapter summarises the study findings, providing answers to the
research questions, acknowledging the study contributions and limitations, and
providing directions for future research.
8.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE,
TRUST AND MECHANISMS IN INTER-PROJECT
KNOWLEDGE SHARING
To fulfil the research aim, that was to investigate how OC, trust and KSM influence
I-PKS behaviours, this section reports on overall findings from the thesis, illustrated
in Figure 8.1, which are related to the factors from the I-PKS Framework and
captured in the research questions.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
209
Figure 8-1: Integrated research findings
8.2.1. Cultural Influences on Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing
Results from this research showed that OC affects I-PKS in at least two ways.
Firstly, cultures which display Market type values, such as competitiveness and
achievement, and which focus on performance measures are likely to show evidence
of hesitancy to share knowledge. On the other hand, cultures with Clan type
characteristics, having a collaborative environment in which people are encouraged
to communicate, and which create a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work,
are likely to openly share knowledge even related to project shortcomings. Secondly,
geographically dispersed PMs are more likely to display evidence of cultural
differences. These cultural differences, manifested by the presence of silos, a
distinction between ‗us versus them‘, a lack of common norms and approaches in
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
210
managing projects, and poor collaboration were observed to result in limited KS
between dispersed PMs.
8.2.2. Influence of Ability, Integrity and
Benevolence Trusts on Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing
This thesis showed that ability and integrity trust, and in a more limited fashion
benevolence trust, increase the likelihood of I-PKS. This means that trust amongst
work peers has a strong impact on KS in the inter-project context, and when trust
exists, PMs are more willing to seek and confidently apply knowledge received from
others to their project. Furthermore, this research revealed that ability and integrity
trusts are related, indicating that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between
ability trust and KS. In other words, PMs will seek knowledge from a person whose
skills and expertise they believe in, but it would be the presence of integrity trust that
reinforces KS to occur. In contrast, the lack of integrity trust is likely to result in
limited KS behaviours, even if ability trust exists. That is to say, even if a person has
a wealth of expertise, others would be reluctant to seek knowledge from him/her if
they do not believe in this person‘s credibility.
8.2.3. Utilisation of Knowledge Sharing
Mechanisms to Improve Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing Behaviours
Four main mechanisms have been identified as the preferred ways to improve I-PKS:
face-to-face, LL, collaborative tools and project management offices (PMOs). PMs
prefer talking to each other instead of searching through databases, and several
reasons were found to support this claim. Nevertheless, face-to-face interaction is not
always possible (due to the geographical dispersion of PMs) or recommended (some
knowledge requires evidence better stored in a documented form). Staff changes and
the finite character of projects often make it hard to identify the person who worked
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
211
on the task of interest. Therefore, it is useful to document knowledge for future
projects. This is often achieved by capturing and storing experiences in the form of a
LL databases.
LL databases, however, are often underutilised. PMs do not see their value,
producing them only as a formality — just ―to tick the box‖. A number of problems
associated with the poor capture and use of LL were categorised into problems with
quality, visibility and processes. They include a lack of consistency and clear
uniform guidelines on how LL should be produced, the lack of a concise location
where LL are stored, or LL and LL spreadsheets being too long which makes it
difficult to find relevant information. Also, the lack of feedback on how LL are
progressing was another reason PMs did not see much value in producing LL and did
so only to meet formal requirements.
Based on practices used by participating organisations, practical applications to
improve LL quality, visibility and processes have been proposed. The use of
collaborative tools such as wiki can potentially replace the static LL databases. Busy
and time-oriented PMs are not interested in searching for information in a pile of
irrelevant documents, which is tiresome and time consuming. Easily accessible,
intelligible, and user friendly collaborative tools can ensure easy access to project
knowledge, and are likely to improve KS between geographical locations.
A well implemented PMO is likely to provide a significant advantage for PMs in
managing project knowledge and facilitating access to not only explicit, but also a
tacit knowledge. A PMO could facilitate tacit KS by:
providing expertise, mentoring and advice for projects
organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation
having an owner and being a central repository for LL.
Overall, this research showed that, despite the importance of face-to-face
mechanisms, well implemented collaborative mechanisms and knowledge-based
PMOs have the capability to share both tacit and explicit knowledge and can improve
I-PKS, especially between geographically dispersed PMs.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
212
8.2.4. The Relationships Between
Organisational Culture, Trust and Knowledge
Sharing Mechanisms in Improving Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing
Findings from this thesis showed that the perception towards the value of trust as a
key facilitating factor of KS behaviours is likely to be determined by organisational
culture. Results, outlined in Chapter 6 Section 6.4.2, showed that cultures which
display Clan type values are more likely to foster trusting relationships between
peers. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven and based on control,
efficiency and measures (cultures that facilitate Hierarchy and Market type
characteristics) are less likely to value trusting relationships with their peers, and
appear to display trust mainly in mechanisms.
Furthermore, the results presented in Chapter 6 Section 6.6 also showed that cultures
that facilitate Clan type characteristics are more likely to result in people valuing
organic/collaborative sources of knowledge and therefore enable trust as a key
facilitating driver. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven, based on control,
efficiency and measures are more likely to value non-organic/static sources of
knowledge, which input is controlled and verified, and therefore display a tendency
to develop trust primarily in the ability of these sources.
This means that evidence-based cultures, which focus on measures and store
knowledge in documents for proof and verification, rely mostly on explicit
knowledge. However, it is the tacit knowledge that has a substantial value for
organisations and constitutes a critical component for successful project management
efforts. Therefore, cultures that primarily rely on static or unambiguous information
do not utilise their knowledge capacities to their full extent. On the other hand,
cultures based on trust, collaboration and non-blaming often share their knowledge
informally, relying on both explicit knowledge stored in documents, as well as
knowledge acquired informally from their colleagues, as a result these cultures better
utilise their knowledge potential.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
213
8.3. CONTRIBUTIONS
The findings drawn from this research provide a number of contributions to the body
of knowledge and practice. This section reports on each of the contributions and how
they refer to the findings of existing theories and research.
8.3.1. Contributions to Theory and Methods
Organisational culture influences the willingness to share knowledge between
projects
The current literature established that OC influences KM efforts (Alavi, et al., 2006;
De Long & Fahey, 2000; Gray & Densten, 2005; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Sveiby &
Simons, 2002). However, only recently has research on project management focused
its interest on OC in the context of KS, and some preliminary theoretical (Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008) and empirical (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007) studies have been
conducted. Furthermore, the complexity and context dependency of these two
concepts, OC and KS, mean that there is still limited empirical evidence stating the
relationships between them. In response, this research makes a significant
contribution by providing rich empirical evidence of the relationships between OC
and the willingness to share knowledge, demonstrating which cultural values are
more and which are less likely to improve I-PKS behaviours. The use of interviews
and the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) in the cross
examination of OC resulted in rich empirical contributions. Furthermore, this thesis
contributes to the project management literature by introducing Cameron and Quinn
(2005) CVF to evaluate knolwedge sharing in the inter-project context.
Organisational culture influences trusting behaviours
This thesis extends the theoretical proposition of Whitener et al. (1998), which states
that different cultures will show different trustworthy behaviours, and in doing so
provides empirical evidence that OC is likely to affect the perception of the value of
trust during KS. This research also extends the study conducted by Issa and Haddad
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
214
(2008) who found that the ‗proper organisational culture‘ is significantly related to
mutual trust between employees, but considered interrelations between OC, trust and
knowledge sharing only to a limited extent, and did not focus on cultural nor trust
dimensions. In addition to offering empirical support, this research provides evidence
demonstrating that certain cultural values, similar to the Clan type cultures of
collaboration, and a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, are more likely to
improve trusting relationships with peers. In contrast, cultures that are empirically
driven, and based on control, evidence and measures, (displaying fundamentals of
Hierarchy and Market type cultures), are less likely to report on trusting
relationships.
The role of the three forms of trust in knowledge sharing in the context of
project management
Based on the literature reviewed in Chapter 3, there is limited research on different
trust dimensions in KS (Levin & Cross, 2004; Holste & Fields, 2010), and minimal
research on the impact of trust on KS in a project environment (Ding, et al., 2007;
Koskinen, et al., 2003; Maurer, 2010). Accordingly, this research demonstrates the
first attempt to investigate the three forms of trust in the inter-project context, and
subsequently, this research argues that for a better understanding of trusting
behaviours it is important to consider trust as a multidimensional concept. It is also
argued that different trust dimensions will have different effects on KS behaviours.
Comprehensive/holistic view of inter-project knowledge sharing
There is limited research to date focusing on I-PKS, concentrating primarily on
mechanisms to share knowledge (Kotnour, 1999; Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Purdon,
2008; Turner, et al., 2000) and only to some extent to the role of OC (Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007). This research conducted an extensive
literature search and identified factors that could potentially influence I-PKS. These
factors were then captured in the I-PKS Framework. Moreover, this research
examined the application of these factors in the inter-project context. As such this
research contributes to the project management literature by providing a more
comprehensive and holistic view of I-PKS from the perspective of PMs, bringing the
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
215
concepts of OC, the three forms of trust, and a range of KSM into the picture.
Furthermore, by suggesting the existence of relationships between these factors, this
research highlights the role of Clan type cultures, which promote social interaction
and the organic mechanisms to share knowledge, which in turn facilitate the
development of trusting relationships, hence create opportunities for sharing both
tacit and explicit knowledge.
Relationship between OC, trust, and KSM
There is a body of knowledge stating that organisational culture influences trust (Issa
& Haddad, 2008; Whitener, et al., 1998), and there is a research done implying that
organisational culture influences the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms (Alavi, et
al., 2006). Issa and Haddad (2008) found that ‗proper organisational culture‘, mutual
trust between employees and the use of collaborative tools will improve knowledge
sharing, but these authors considered interrelations between these factors only to a
limited extend, stating that organisational culture is significantly related to mutual
trust between employees. This thesis contributes to current research by making an
attempt to investigate how the three factors of OC, trust, and KSM interrelate.
Relationship between ability and integrity
A significant contribution to the theory is the finding on relationships between
integrity and ability trust. According to the literature reviewed in Chapter 3, there is
limited research investigating the relationships between trust dimensions. Results
from this study suggest that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability
trust and KS. Cross-case analysis revealed that PMs will be reluctant to seek
knowledge from a person whom they perceive has not been honest with them in the
past, even though it is believed this person is knowledgeable and possesses
information they seek. This finding draws attention to the value of integrity trust in I-
PKS endeavours.
Multi-method approach in examining organisational culture
Authors advocate that examining culture in its organisational context using
qualitative data provides more valuable insights into the nature of this complex
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
216
phenomenon (e.g. Bellot, 2011; Sackmann, 1991). This research demonstrated that a
qualitative investigation of OC yields a more insightful understanding of corporate
values and shared beliefs. The Gamma case showed discrepancies between the
results obtained from interviews and the questionnaire. Interview findings suggested
that Gamma displays principles of a Clan culture; however, findings from the OCAI
showed that the dominant culture was that of a Hierarchy type. Coffey (2010, pp.
190, 198) has also encountered similar difficulties where two of his mini-case studies
demonstrated conflicting responses with the priory conducted survey. Conducting
four mini cases helped to further explain the results obtained from the survey, and
provided the complete picture of OC in participating companies. Similarly in this
research, two follow-up interviews conducted with a PM and a from a PMO
representative helped to identify reasons for the discrepancies between results
obtained from OCAI and the interviews. Consequently, this research demonstrates
that using a mixed method approach in investigating culture provides accurate and
insightful findings.
Strategy to examine trust
In exploring trust, most research uses questionnaires (Becerra & Gupta, 2003; Holste
& Fields, 2010; Levin & Cross, 2004; Maurer, 2010; Pinto, et al., 2009; Ridings, et
al., 2002), despite the fact that previous studies conducted by Borgatti and Cross
(2003) showed survey respondents were uncomfortable to answer questions related
to trust. Therefore this research, along with the questionnaire, conducted face-to-face
interviews to obtain more insightful responses. To allow the respondent to feel more
comfortable in answering questions related to trust, this research firstly asked
questions related to other factors investigated in this study, such as OC and KSM,
leaving questions related to trust to the end. At the end of the interview, when a
closer rapport between the interviewer and respondent had been established, the
investigator asked the respondent to indicate how important ability, benevolence and
integrity trust were for I-PKS and then asked to further elaborate on their choice,
explaining their responses. This approach obtained valuable comments and insight
related to trust, which would not have been possible if only the questionnaire had
been applied.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
217
8.3.2. Practical Contributions
Finally, this thesis offers a range of practical contributions, as detailed in Chapter 7
(Discussion and Practical Implications) Sections 7.2.3.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.1, and Section
7.6. This research (1) emphasises on need for awareness and evaluation of dominant
OC type as determinant of different I-PKS patterns, (2) provides insight into the
active role of leadership in fostering KS, (3) gives managers guidelines on how to
build trust to improve I-PKS behaviours, (4) offers directions on how to ensure more
effective face-to-face interactions and greater useability of LL documents for
positive I-PKS outcomes, (5) outlines a list of responsibilities held by PMO
personnel to facilitate I-PKS, (6) proposes how to ensure the development of an
updated and dynamic collaborative tool such as a wiki, as a substitute for static LL
documents, for both tacit and explicit KS, and KS between geographical locations.
In the short term it is suggested that managers evaluate the dominant characteristics
of organisational culture. This will help to uncover knowledge sharing patterns
specific for a given culture type. In addition, managers should also create
environment for face-to-face interactions, improve useability of lessons learned by
following steps provided in Section 7.6, and assign responsibilities to PMO
personnel, listed in Section 7.6 that will ensure more effective I-PKS. This should
provide some quick solutions to improve I-PKS behaviours.
In the long term it is recommended to promote supportive and participative
leadership style, which could potentially enhance collaborative climate, endorse
feelings of belongingness, ensure transparency of project management norms and
practices, and encourage the use of collaborative tools for KS. It is also
recommended to enhance conditions for trust building. This process, although
lengthy/time-consuming could potentially bring tremendous value for organisation
ensuing positive I-PKS outcomes.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
218
8.4. LIMITATIONS
While the contributions of this study are considerable, there are also a number of
limitations.
Limitations related to the research scope
Although this research claims to provide a more holistic view of I-PKS, it is
acknowledged that there could potentially be other factors that contribute to I-PKS
which are not covered in this study. According to the literature reviewed in Chapter
3, OC, trust and KSM appeared to contribute the most to I-PKS. Limiting the
research scope to these factors allowed the researcher to maintain a realistic, feasible
and manageable focus.
This study was limited to the PMs‘ perspective due to their key role in knowledge
flow. Including other project members, who normally come from different
backgrounds and professions, could potentially introduce unwanted complexity.
Although this study argues that a PM is at the centre of a project network, possessing
a broad knowledge about project issues (Blackburn, 2002; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007;
Loo, 2002), it does acknowledge that other project members play an important role in
I-PKS. Future studies could consider investigating the role of other project members
in I-PKS, taking into account project complexity and the backgrounds of these
individuals.
Finally, by examining KSM, this research focused only on those reported by
respondents, and utilised by participating cases. There are a range of other KSM not
covered in this research which could potentially improve I-PKS.
Limitations related to the research design and conduct
There were a number of limitations related to the case study design and how it was
conducted. This research claims that the choice of cases followed purposeful logic,
this was indeed done, but to an extent. The identification of cases was also based on
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
219
availability and local proximity. As a result, all the case studies conducted were
Australian and came from a range of sectors.
The data was collected and analysed by a single researcher which could have
introduced researcher bias. Nevertheless, (1) the application of NVivo software for
data management, (2) draft report reviewed by participating organisations, and (3)
two rounds of analysis, recommended by Sackmann (1991) and Eisenhardt &
Bourgeois (1988), conducted in a span of few months minimised the potential bias.
8.5. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Although this research offered many interesting insights into the problem of I-PKS,
further investigations are required to fully understand the complexity of the problem.
Given the inductive research approach, the finding from this thesis opened new paths
of inquiry related to I-PKS. Therefore, as advised by Eisenhardt and Graebner
(2007), it is suggested that the specific findings may serve as hypotheses for studies
of I-PKS using deductive research methodologies.
According to the analysis conducted in this study, not each form of trust appeared to
be equally contributing to I-PKS. The most contributing were ability and integrity,
whereas benevolence appeared to contribute only to some extent. Levin and Cross
(2004) found that benevolence trust improves the usefulness of both tacit and explicit
knowledge exchange. Analysis of Delta case showed that benevolence was primarily
valued when knowledge that was shared related to sensitive, people-related issues or
contextual knowledge, but when sharing technical or explicit knowledge,
benevolence trust appeared less important because there was a low emotional impact
involved in the transfer of this more tangible knowledge. Accordingly, evidence from
Delta provided some limited support that the value of benevolence trust is contextual,
and depends on the type of knowledge one seeks from other projects. Future research
may consider further investigating circumstances in which benevolence trust in a KS
context matters the most.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
220
The role of active leadership engagement was not included in the I-PKS Framework,
but was shown to play a part in I-PKS. Further research could consider a
comprehensive investigation of the role of active leadership engagement in fostering
KS in a project environment.
Finally, this study was focused on a dyadic and organisational level of analysis, not
on the individual level, which includes a person‘s absorptive capacity or status (Shu,
et al., 2009; Szulanski, 1996). Status could potentially contribute to I-PKS
behaviours. For example, a PM who has been in a position for a long time and has a
wealth of experience, and a high status in the organisation will be more likely to be
approached for knowledge than someone who has not yet established such a position
of importance. Absorptive capacity appears more relevant to the knowledge
acquisition process than to KS. Nevertheless, further studies may consider
investigating I-PKS at the individual level.
References
221
REFERENCES
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.
Aita, V., & Mcllvain, H. (1999). An Armchair Adventure in Case Study Research. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 253-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008). Knowledge Transfer in Project-Based Organizations: An Organizational Culture Perspective. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 7-15.
Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105-1120.
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: a transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105-1120.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2006). An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191-224.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS, 1(Article 7), 1-37.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2001). Case study methodology as a means of theory building: performance measurement in facilities management organisations. Work Study, 50(2/3), 95-104.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Impact of cultural differences on knowledge management in global projects. The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 40(3/4), 239-253.
Antoni, M., Nilsson-Witell, L., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2005). Inter-project improvement in product development. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 876-893.
Arenius, M., Artto, K., Lahti, M., & Meklin, J. (2003). Project Companies and the Multi-Project Paradigm—A New Management Approach. In J. Pinto, D. Cleland & D. Slevin (Eds.), The Frontiers of Project Management Research: Project Management Institute.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J., & Moreland, R. (2000). Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Learning from the Experience of Others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1-8.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003a). Introduction to the special issue on managing knowledge in organizations: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Management Science, 49(4), V-VIII.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003b). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
References
222
Becerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. (2003). Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 32-44.
Bellot, J. (2011). Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture. Nursing Forum, 46(1), 29-37.
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.
Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 5(1), 68-75.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211-241.
Billows, R. (2006). The Project-based organisation. from http://www.4pm.com/ Blackburn, S. (2002). The project manager and the project-network. International Journal of
Project Management, 20(3), 199-204. Blomqvist, K. (1997). The many faces of trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(3),
271-286. Blomqvist, K. (2009). Trust In Organizational Knowledge Processes. Paper presented at the
10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Università Degli Studi Di Padova, Vicenza, Italy.
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
Bower, D., & Walker, D. (2007). Planning Knowledge for Phased Rollout Projects. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 45-61.
Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2004). Building Project Capabilities: From Exploratory to Exploitative Learning. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1601 - 1621.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157-166.
Brown, J., & Gray, E. (1995). The people are the company. from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/01/people.html
Burgess, D. (2005). What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit? Journal of Business Communication, 42(4), 324-348.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition: Harvard University Press.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (Revised ed.). San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568.
Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 87-98.
Carrillo, P. (2005). Lessons learned practices in the engineering, procurement and construction sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(3), 236-250.
Carrillo, P., Robinson, H. S., Anumba, C. J., & Bouchlaghem, N. M. (2006). A knowledge transfer framework: the PFI context. Construction Management & Economics, 24(10), 1045-1056.
Cavana, R., Delahaye, B., & Sekeran, U. (2001). Applied Business research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. QLD, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
References
223
Chinowsky, P., & Carrillo, P. (2007). Knowledge management to learning organization connection. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(3), 122-130.
Chinowsky, P., Molenaar, K., & Realph, A. (2007). Learning organizations in construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(1), 27-34.
Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Cleland, D., & Ireland, L. (1994). Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation - fifth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Coffey, V. (2010). Understanding Organisational Culture in the Construction Industry. Abingdon, Oxon: Spon Press/ Taylor & Francis.
Cook, S., & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.
Cross, R., Parker, A., & Borgatti, S. (2000). A bird’s-eye view: Using social network analysis to improve knowledge creation and sharing. Knowledge Directions, 2(1), 48-61.
Dai, C. X., & Wells, W. G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 523-532.
Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H., Prusak, L., & Strong, B. (2008). Business Insight (A Special Report):
Organization; Putting Ideas to Work: Knowledge management can make a difference -- but it needs to be more pragmatic. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition.
De Long, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.
Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. Research in organizational change and development, 5(1), 1-21.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In K. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Desouza, K. C., & Evaristo, R. J. (2006). Project management offices: A case of knowledge-based archetypes. International Journal of Information Management, 26(5), 414-423.
Ding, Z., Ng, F., & Cai, Q. (2007). Personal constructs affecting interpersonal trust and willingness to share knowledge between architects in project design teams. Construction Management and Economics, 25(9), 937–950.
Dyer, W., & Wilkins, A. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613-619.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics Of Strategic Decision Making In High-Velocity Environments: Toward a Midrange Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737-770.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.
References
224
Eskerod, P., & Skriver, H. J. (2007). Organisational culture restrainning in-house knowledge transfer between project managers - a case study Project Management Journal, 38(1), 110-123.
Evans, D. (1995). How to write a better thesis or report: Melbourne University Press Carlton, Vic.
Evaristo, R., & van Fenema, P. C. (1999). A typology of project management: emergence and evolution of new forms. International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), 275-281.
Fernández, W. D. (2004). Using the Glaserian approach in grounded studies of emerging business practices. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(2), 83-94.
Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational Learning. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.
Fong, P. (2005). Co-creation of knowledge by multidisciplinary project teams. In P. Love, P. Fong & Z. Irani (Eds.), Management of Knowledge in Project Environments. Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fong, P. (2008). Can We Learn from Our Past? Managing Knowledge Within and Across Projects. In I. Becerra-Fernandez & D. Leidner (Eds.), Knowledge management: an evolutionary view (Vol. 12, pp. 204-226). Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe Inc.
Fong, P., & Kwok, C. (2009). Organizational culture and knowledge management success at project and organizational levels in contracting firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(12), 1348-1356.
Fong, P., & Wong, K. C. (2009). Knowledge and experience sharing in projects-based building maintenance community of practice. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 3(3), 275-294.
Foos, T., Schum, G., & Rothenberg, S. (2006). Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 6-18.
Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.
Frappaolo, C. (2008). Implicit knowledge. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 23-25.
Friesl, M., Sackmann, S. A., & Kremser, S. (2011). Knowledge sharing in new organizational entities: The impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micro-politics and suspicion. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 71-86.
Gable, G. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: An example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112-127.
Gamble, P. R., & Blackwell, J. (2001). Knowledge Management: A State Of The Art Guide. London: Kogan Page.
Garcia-Perez, A., & Ayres, R. (2009). Wikifailure: The Limitations of Technology for Knowledge Sharing. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Università Degli Studi Di Padova, Vicenza, Italy.
Gephart, R. (2004). Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.
Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741-763.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson.
Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23-30.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
References
225
Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2005). Towards an integrative model of organizational culture and knowledge management. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(2), 594-603.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496.
Hansen, M. T. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-85.
Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2001). Leadership style and market orientation: an empirical study. European journal of marketing, 35(5/6), 744-764.
Hartley, J. (2004). Case study research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 323-333). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy, 29(7-8), 871-893.
Hoffman, E., Kinlaw, C., & Kinlaw, D. (2001). Developing superior project teams: a study of the characteristics of high performance. In: Project teams. from <http://www.nasateammates.com/About/findings.pdf>
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 128 - 140.
Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.
Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Arrfelt, M. (2007). Strategic supply chain management: Improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 1035-1052.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165.
Irani, Z., Sharif, A. M., & Love, P. (2009). Mapping knowledge management and organizational learning in support of organizational memory. International Journal of Production Economics, 122(1), 200-215.
Issa, R., R. A., & Haddad, J. (2008). Perceptions of the impacts of organizational culture and information technology on knowledge sharing in construction. Construction Innovation, 8(3), 182-201.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there?: antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29-64.
Jasimuddin, S. M. (2008). A holistic view of knowledge management strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 57-66.
Johannessen, J. A., Olaisen, J., & Olsen, B. (2001). Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. International journal of information management, 21(1), 3-20.
Julian, J. (2008). How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and continuous improvement. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 43-58.
Kadefors, A. (2004). Trust in project relationships--inside the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 175-182.
Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 187-213.
References
226
Kasper-Fuehrer, E. C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2001). Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations. Journal of Management, 27, 235-254.
Kasper, H. (2002). Culture and leadership in market-oriented service organisations. European journal of marketing, 36(9/10), 1047-1057.
Kasvi, J. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hailikari, M. (2003). Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 21(8), 571-582.
Keegan, A., & Turner, J. R. (2001). Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices. Management Learning, 32(1), 77-98.
Keller, R. T., & Holland, W. E. (1983). Communicators and Innovators in Research and Development Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 742-749.
Kerzner, H. (2003). Strategic planning for a project office. Project Management Journal, 34(2), 13-25.
Keskin, H., Akgun, A., E., Gunsel, A., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). The Relationship Between Adhocracy and Clan Cultures and Tacit Oriented KM Strategy. Journal of Transnational Management, 10(3), 39-53.
King, W. (2006a). Knowledge sharing. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), The encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 493–498). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
King, W. (2006b). Knowledge transfer. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), The encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 538–543). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
King, W. (2009). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. In W. R. King (Ed.), Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning (Vol. 4, pp. 3-13). New York: Springer US.
Koskinen, K. U., Pihlanto, P., & Vanharanta, H. (2003). Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 281-290.
Kotlarsky, J., & Oshri, I. (2005). Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 37-48.
Kotnour, T. (1999). A Learning Framework for Project Management. Project Management Journal, 30(2), 32-38.
Lamond, D. (2003). The value of Quinn's competing values model in an Australian context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1/2), 46 - 59.
Lampel, J., Scarbrough, H., & Macmillan, S. (2008). Managing through Projects in Knowledge-based Environments Special Issue Introduction by the Guest Editors. Long Range Planning, 41(1), 7-15.
Landaeta, R. E. (2008). Evaluating Benefits and Challenges of Knowledge Transfer Across Projects. Engineering Management Journal, 20(1), 29-39.
Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179-228.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.
Lewis, J., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985. Liebowitz, J. (2005). Conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management. In P. Love,
P. Fong & Z. Irani (Eds.), Management of Knowledge in Project Environments (pp. 1-18). Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Liebowitz, J. (2008). 'Think of others' in knowledge management: making culture work for you. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 47-52.
References
227
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Liu, L. L., & Yetton, P. Y. (2007). The Contingent Effects on Project Performance of Conducting Project Reviews and Deploying Project Management Offices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(4), 789-799.
Loo, R. (2002). Working towards best practices in project management: A Canadian study. International Journal of Project Management, 20(2), 93-98.
Love, P., Edwards, D., Love, J., & Irani, Z. (2011). Champions of practice: context and habitus for unbounded learning in construction projects. Facilities, 29(5/6), 193-208.
Love, P., Fong, P., & Irani, Z. (2005). Management of Knowledge in Project Environments. Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.
Love, P., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. (2003). Learning to reduce rework in projects: analysis of firm's organisational learning and quality practices. Project Management Journal, 34(3), 13-25.
Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437-455.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
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. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 629-637.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An integration model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123-136.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work: Harper & Row. Mintzberg, H. (1979). Structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
Ndoni, D. H., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2010). The integration of human relationships in capital development projects: A case study of BSF scheme. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(3), 479-494.
Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2006). Sharing Knowledge Across Projects: Limits to ICT-led Project Review Practices. Management Learning, 37(2), 167-185.
Newell, S., David, G., & Chand, D. (2007). An analysis of trust among globally distributed work teams in an organizational setting. Knowledge and process management, 14(3), 158-168.
Newell, S., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., Bresnen, M., & Obembe, A. (2008). Interdependencies in Complex Project Ecologies: The Case of Biomedical Innovation. Long Range Planning, 41(1), 33-54.
Ngoasong, M., & Manfredi, F. (2007). Knowledge Management in Project-Based Organizations: The Interplay of Time Orientations and Knowledge Interventions. Paper presented at the Knowledge Management Conference.
References
228
Nguyen, T., Smyth, R., & Gable, G. (2004). Knowledge Management Issues and Practices: A Case Study of a Professional Services Firm. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Australasian Conference on Information Systems.
Nobeoka, K. (1995). Inter-project learning in new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 432-436.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Office of Government Commerce UK. (2005). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2 (4th ed. ed.). London: London : TSO.
Parker, D., & Craig, M. (2008). Managing Projects, Managing People: Palgrave Macmillan. Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in
marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), 785-802. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice.
Organization Science, 1(3), 267-292. Pinto, J. K., Slevin, D. P., & English, B. (2009). Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of
owner/contractor relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6), 638-648.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension: Peter Smith Publisher Inc. Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge
codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30(9), 1373-1394. Project Management Institute, I. (2004). A Guide to the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PMBOK guide) (3rd ed.). Pennsylvania, USA. Project Management Institute, I. (2008). A guide to the project management body of
knowledge:(PMBOK guide) (4 ed.): Project Management Institute, Inc. Proverbs, D., & Gameson, R. (2008). Case Study Research. In A. Knight & L. Ruddock (Eds.),
Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment (pp. 99-110). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Prusak, L. (1997). Knowledge in organizations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Prusak, L. (2001). Where did knowledge management come from? IBM Systems Journal,
40(4), 1002-1007. Purdon, P. (2008). Using Lessons Learned to Improve Project Management. Paper presented
at the AIPM Conference. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of
cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267. Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear
and knowledge documentation. Omega, 36(2), 206-220. Richards, L. (2006). Teach-yourself NVivo 7: the introductory tutorials. from
http://download.qsrinternational.com/Document/NVivo7/NVivo7_Tutorials_Lyn_Richards.pdf
Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.
Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.
Rose, K. H. (2007). Post-project reviews to gain effective lessons learned. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 100.
Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.
Sackmann, S. (1991). Uncovering culture in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 295-317.
References
229
Sackmann, S. (1992). Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 140-161.
Sako, M. (1992). Prices, Quality and Trust, Inter-firm Relations in Britain & Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. Schindler, M., & Eppler, M. J. (2003). Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project
learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 219-228.
Scott, J. E., & Gable, G. (1997). Goal congruence, trust, and organizational culture: strengthening knowledge links.
Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Milsons Point, N.S.W.: Random House Business.
Shannon, C. (2001). A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 5(1), 3-55.
Sharif, M., Zakaria, N., Ching, L. S., & Fung, L. S. (2005). Facilitating Knowledge Sharing Through Lessons Learned System. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice.
Sharp, D. (2003). Knowledge management today: Challenges and opportunities. Information Systems Management, 20(2), 32-37.
Shaw, R. (1997). Trust in the balance: Building successful organizations on results, integrity, and concern. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shu, W., Chuang, Y.-H., & Sheng Lin, C. (2009). Knowledge Sharing with Online Social Networks. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Università Degli Studi Di Padova, Vicenza, Italy.
Siakas, K. V., Georgiadou, E., & Balstrup, B. (2010). Cultural impacts on knowledge sharing: empirical data from EU project collaboration. The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 40(3/4), 376-389.
Smith, E., A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311-321.
Smyth, H. (2006). Measuring, developing and managing trust in relationships. In S. Pryke & H. Smyth (Eds.), The Management of Complex Projects - a Relationship Approach (pp. 316). Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.
Smyth, H., Gustafsson, M., & Ganskau, E. (2010). The Value of Trust in Project Business. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 117-129.
Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communications. Management Science, 32(11), 1492-1512.
Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551-556.
Stinchcombe, A. L. (1987). Constructing Social Theories: University of Chicago Press. Sutrisna, M. (2009). Research Methodology in Doctoral Research: Understanding the
Meaning of Conducting Qualitative Research. Paper presented at the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Doctoral Workshop, Liverpool, UK.
Sveiby, K. E., & Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work–an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 420-433.
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 17(Winter Special Issue), 27-43.
Taylor, J., & Levitt, R. (2005). Inter-organisational Knowledge Flow and Innovation Diffusion in Project-based Industries. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The qualitative report, 3(3), 1-17.
References
230
Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.
Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4), 355-366.
Trochim, W. (2006). Positivism & Post-Positivism. Research Methods Knowledge Base, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.
Turner, R., & Keegan, A. (2000). The management of operations in the project-based organisation. Journal of Change Management, 1(2), 131-148.
Turner, R., Keegan, A., & Crawford, L. (2000). Learning by Experience in the Project-Based Organization.
Turner, R., & Muller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1-8.
Walker, D. (2004). The Knowledge Advantage (K-Adv): Unleashing Creativity and Innovation Guide for the Project 2001-004 (2B)—Delivering Improved Knowledge Management and Innovation Diffusion project for advice and collaboration on CRC CI project.
Walker, D., & Christenson, D. (2005). Knowledge wisdom and networks: a project management centre of excellence example. The Learning Organization, 12(3), 275-291.
Walker, D., Wilson, A., & Srikanathan, G. (2004). The Knowledge Advantage (K-Adv) Unleashing Creativity and Innovation Guide for the Project 2001-004. Brisbane: CRC in Construction Innovation.
Ward, L. (2000). Project Management Terms: A Working Glossary 2nd Edition: ESI International.
Waterfield, R. A. H. t. b. (1987). Plato: Theaetetus. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Weiss, J., & Wysocki, R. (1992). 5-phase project management: a practical planning &
implementation guide Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as
initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537.
Wiig, K. (1997). Knowledge Management: Where Did It Come From and Where Will It Go? Expert Systems With Applications, 13(1), 1-14.
Winsor, D. (1988). Communication failures contributing to the Challenger accident: an example for technical communicators. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 31(3), 101-107.
Wong, E., Then, D., & Skitmore, M. (2000). Antecedents of trust in intra-organizational relationships within three Singapore public sector construction project management agencies. Construction Management and Economics, 18(7), 797-806.
Yang, J. T. (2007). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. Tourism Management, 28(2), 530-543.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Forth ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.
References
231
Appendixes
233
APPENDIX A - Study Outcomes
ID JOURNAL SUBMISSIONS
J1A
Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G. D., & Trigunarsyah, B. The role of trust in inter-project knowledge transfer. Submitted to Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering
J2 A
Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G., Trigunarsyah, B., Interactions between organisational culture, trust, and mechanisms in inter-project knowledge sharing. Submitted to International Journal of Project Management
J3 A
Pemsel, S., Wiewiora, A., Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations. Submitted to International Journal of Project Management
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS (PEER REVIEWED)
C1B
Wiewiora, A., Liang, C., & Trigunarsyah, B. (2010). Inter- and intra- project knowledge transfer: analysis of knowledge transfer techniques. Paper presented at the PMI Research and Education Conference 2010, Washington DC, USA.
C2A
Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G. D., & Trigunarsyah, B. (2010). The role of trust in inter-project knowledge transfer. Paper presented at the ICOMS Asset Management Conference Adelaide 2010 Conference Proceedings. (Paper nominated for journal submission)
C3A
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Gable, G. & Murphy, G. (2009). Barriers to effective knowledge transfer in Project-Based Organisations. Paper presented at the Global Innovation in Construction Conference, September 2009, Loughborough, UK
C4A
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G. & Gable, G. (2009). The impact of unique for projects´ characteristics on knowledge transfer in Project Based Organisations. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, p 888-896, September 2009, Vicenza, Italy, ISBN 978-1-906638-40-5
C6B
Chen, S., Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Gable, G. & Murphy, G. (2009). “Project team’s internal and external social networks and their influence on project performance”. Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, p 957-963, September 2009, Vicenza, Italy, ISBN 978-1-906638-40-5
C7B
Chen, L., Gable, G. G., Wiewiora, A., & Trigunarsyah, B. (2009). The interrelations among the project teams conduit networks, knowledge network and its performance. Proceedings of 2009 International Conference on Engineering Management and Service Sciences, IEEE, Beijing, China.
DOMESTIC PEER REVIEWED CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS
C8A
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B. & Murphy, G. (2009). The Need For Unique Approach In Knowledge Transfer For Project Based Organisations. Proceedings of The Second Theme Postgraduate Conference, p 94-104, March, Brisbane, Australia, ISBN 978-174107-270-9
C9B
Chen, S., Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B. (2009). The Research Approach On How To Overcome Lack Of Trust And Lack Of Social Networks Within Small And Medium Project Teams In Project-Based Organisations. Proceedings of The Second Theme Postgraduate Conference, p 104-117,
Appendixes
234
March 2009, Brisbane, Australia, ISBN 978-174107-270-9 BOOK CHAPTERS
BCh1A
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., & Murphy, G. (2009). Knowledge transfer in project based organisations: the need for a unique approach. In T. Yigitcanlar (Ed.), Rethinking Sustainable Development Planning, Designing, Engineering and Managing Urban Infrastructure and Development. Hersey PA, USA: Engineering Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
BCh2B
Chen, S., Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B. (2009). The Research Approach On How To Overcome Lack Of Trust And Lack Of Social Networks Within Small And Medium Project Teams In Project-Based Organisations. In T. Yigitcanlar (Ed.), Rethinking Sustainable Development Planning, Designing, Engineering and Managing Urban Infrastructure and Development. Hersey PA, USA: Engineering Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).
A - Publications which represent outcome of this research
B - Publications related to the research problem
Appendixes
235
APPENDIX B – The Case Study Protocol
Before the final version of the case study protocol emerged, the interview process
and questions were piloted by three academics, and five project management
practitioners. The academics were researchers own supervisory team. The
practitioners came from a range of industries, including four executive managers that
have been involved in providing project management consultancy to project-based
organisations (PBOs) across a range of industries, and one senior structural engineer
who worked for a multinational organisation providing leadership in management,
engineering, environment, planning and architecture.
The aim of this pilot was to assist in ensuring the consistency and organisation of the
interview process, and the relevance and format of investigation questions. The pilot
study made apparent that some terminology needed to be clarified. In result key
concepts of the study, including knowledge sharing, inter-project knowledge sharing,
and transfer of lessons learned were explained to each interviewee prior to
conducting the interview. It also became apparent that some questions used in the
pilot study were overlapping. In result, these questions were removed from the
protocol to ensure better flow of the data collection.
CASE STUDY PROTOCOL
The protocol defines the instruments and procedures to follow in conducting the case study and guides the investigator in data collection process.
Part 1: Introduction to the research (5 min.)
Introduce myself and the research
Introduce following concepts: knowledge, knowledge sharing/transfer, inter-
project knowledge sharing, and transfer of lessons learned to achieve common
understanding
Appendixes
236
Ensure confidentiality and provide ethics consent form for signature
QUT has strict policy on ethics, and in order for this research to be carried, ethics
had to be approved. That’s why before we start the interview I would like to
ensure you that this interview is absolutely confidential, and in no way it could
be apparent that responses came from you. Could you please read and sign this
consent form to confirm your agreement to participate in this study.
Ask for permission to record the interview
Part 2: Case Study Questions (40 min.)1
Demographic
1. How long have you been working for [company name]? 2. What is your position in [company name]? 3. How long is your experience in project management? 4. What is the standard size of project do you usually work on? (number of
people involved, budget, duration) 5. According to the following typology2, what is the type of project you are
typically involved? (1) projects that have been done before; (2) projects that have not been done before; (3) projects that have some new work, for which no experience base exists;
6. What project management methodology [company name] follows? Investigation questions
1. Do you turn for knowledge or advice to solve issues in your project to colleagues working on other than your project?
2. What type of information/advice would you normally seek from them? 3. How often do you seek knowledge from them? 4. How often do you interact with them? 5. Do you share office with them? YES/NO, Where are they located? 6. How does [the organisation] facilitate inter-project knowledge sharing? 7. How does [the organisation] facilitate collaboration between projects? 8. Does the company organise workshops, seminars where people from
other projects/other project managers can exchange knowledge? What are they? Do you find them useful?
1 The interviews did not always follow the exact interview structure presented in the case protocol. Often the investigator used additional probing questions to clarify answers or to expand interesting comments raised by interviewees. 2 Typology proposed by Cleland and Ireland (1994)
Appendixes
237
9. What is normally done to help new employees to get off speed? 10. Does the organisation reward individuals for knowledge sharing? In
what way? 11. Are project managers/members normally willing to share shortcomings
that occurred in their projects with colleagues outside their project? - (Can you give example?)
12. What means do you normally use when you seek/share knowledge outside your project?
13. What would be your preferred means? Why? 14. To promote cross-division collaboration, does company offer
collaborative tools such as corporate subversion repository, teleconferences, Wikis? Do you use them? What is your attitude towards these tools?
15. Does your organisation have dedicated program or project support unit (also known as project management office (PMO)?
16. From your perspective, how does PMO facilitate knowledge sharing between projects? (Can you give example?)
17. Do you produce lessons learned after project stages/milestones? 18. In what stages of the project do you normally produce LL? 19. Do you review past plans or lessons learned during planning phase of the
project? (if not ask why?) (if yes, do you find them useful and why?) 20. What is included in lesson learned? 21. How do lessons learned are captured in your organisation? (text file,
word doc, pdf etc?) 22. Are LL easily accessible in your organisation? 23. Can you give example when such inter-project knowledge sharing
worked really well? and why it worked well? 24. When you sought knowledge, related to a recently completed project,
from a person from other project, how important for you were the following characteristics of that person?
Attributes Important Moderate Not
Important
Competence
Skills and experience
Positive intention
Willingness to help
Honesty in information sharing
Credibility
Appendixes
238
25. Please explain why [this attribute] is [Important/Moderate/Not important] for you?
Closing Phase
Check with respondents if there is a possibility to contact them again in case any clarification is required.
Part 3: Data collection procedures
Details of key contact person
Site 1: Name........................e-mail......................tel. no............... Site 2: Name........................e-mail......................tel. no.............. Site 3: Name........................e-mail......................tel. no.............. Site 4: Name........................e-mail......................tel. no...............
Preparation prior to site visit
- Ensure a room is booked for the interview - Tape recorder - Review of case study questions
List of interviewees
1. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 2. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 3. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 4. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 5. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 6. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 7. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 8. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 9. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 10. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number]
Data collection plan
The calendar period for the site visits
Sample of the interview agenda at Delta
Appendixes
239
Evaluation
References to relevant investigated documents and observations
(Including organisational structure charts, LL spread sheets, and other relevant
documents.)
Field notes
Following advice of Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) an interview notes were
maintained and updated after each interview. These notes included information of
what has been identified and explored during the interview, and captured overall
impression of the interview. Nevertheless, these field notes were not used during
data analysis process. They were used only to recapture what happened during the
interview and recall the main points that were observed.
Appendixes
240
Appendixes
241
APPENDIX C - Correspondence with
Study Participants
This appendix provides templates of e-mails sent to key contact persons and
respondents during planning and conducting data collection.
E-MAIL SENT TO KEY CONTACT PERSON TO INITIATE DATA COLLECTION (EXAMPLE)
Dear [Key contact person], This is Anna Wiewiora from QUT. We met in July and discussed the opportunity to interview [Gamma] employees and investigate knowledge sharing between projects at [Gamma]. I have recently obtained ethical clearance required for data collection, and would like to begin the interview process at [Gamma]. Would October be a suitable month to conduct the interviews? Would you wish to schedule interviews yourself or prefer me to personally contact the potential respondents? Ideally, I would like to interview 15 people including project managers, project officers, personnel of the Project Management Office, and others that play a significant role in inter-project communication and knowledge transfer. As discussed, this research will adopt a "minimal impact" approach, so it will only include short 45 minutes interviews and review of documents. There is no cost to the participating organisation and in return for collaboration in the study [Gamma] will be provided with a summary report detailing the findings of the research. I trust that our collaboration will be fruitful for both parties and produce valuable results to [Gamma]. Thank you very much for your support and the opportunity to work with [Gamma] employees in this important research area. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Kind Regards,
Anna Wiewiora
PhD Candidate | School of Urban Development | Faculty of Built Environment
and Engineering | Queensland University of Technology
Phone: 04 1674 3533 | Emails: a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au or
anna.wiewiora@student.qut.edu.au| CRICOS No. 00213J
Appendixes
242
E-MAIL SENT TO POTENTIAL INTERVIEWEES (EXAMPLE)
Dear [Name of the potential interviewee], This is Anna Wiewiora from QUT Faculty of Engineering. (Key contact person] gave me your e-mail and informed that you have agreed to participate in data collection for the research on inter-project knowledge sharing in project-based organisations. [Key contact person] advised me to contact you directly and schedule an interview. The
interview would last approximately 45 minutes, and will focus on your experience in
seeking and sharing knowledge, best practices and lessons learned between projects.
If possible can we please arrange the interview by the end of this week? Please let me know of your availability and suggest a suitable time for you to meet up. Thank you very much for your support and the opportunity to share your experience. Hope to hear from you soon. Kind Regards,
Anna Wiewiora
PhD Candidate | School of Urban Development | Faculty of Built Environment
and Engineering | Queensland University of Technology
Phone: 04 1674 3533 | Emails: a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au or
anna.wiewiora@student.qut.edu.au| CRICOS No. 00213J
E-MAIL UPDATING KEY CONTACT PERSON ABOUT THE STUDY PROGRESS (EXAMPLE)
Dear [Key contact person],
Thank you very much for the opportunity to conduct the interviews at [Gamma].
The data collection process has gone smoothly thanks to your support and to the great
efforts contributed by the respondents.
The next stage of the research is to conduct approx 15 min web-based questionnaire. The
questionnaire will be available to [Gamma] employees in February. I will contact them
directly asking for the participation.
I will then provide [Gamma] with a detailed report on the inter-project knowledge sharing
best practices including some specific recommendations for [Gamma] projects.
Kind Regards,
Anna Wiewiora
PhD Candidate | School of Urban Development | Faculty of Built Environment
and Engineering | Queensland University of Technology
Phone: 04 1674 3533 | Emails: a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au or
anna.wiewiora@student.qut.edu.au| CRICOS No. 00213J
Appendixes
243
E-MAIL SENT TO PARTICIPANTS ASKING TO FILL OUT WEB-BASED QUESTIONNAIRE ON OC AND
TRUST (EXAMPLE)
Dear [Name of the participant],
This is Anna Wiewiora from QUT. Thank you again for sharing your insights and experience
on knowledge sharing practices at [Gamma] during our meeting few months ago. Your
frank responses provided a valuable contribution to the study.
I am now approaching the final stage of the study in which I would like to invite you to take
part in an online questionnaire. It should only take about 15 minutes to complete.
The questionnaire is strictly confidential. It contains questions, which covers aspects of
organisational culture and knowledge sharing practices.
To access it, please click on (or copy and paste) the URL below:
http://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV
With your help in filling out this questionnaire we will be able to gain more reliable and
credible findings for the final report and research results.
Thank you for your help and support.
Kind Regards,
Anna Wiewiora
PhD Candidate | School of Urban Development | Faculty of Built Environment
and Engineering | Queensland University of Technology
Phone: 04 1674 3533 | Emails: a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au or
anna.wiewiora@student.qut.edu.au| CRICOS No. 00213J
Appendixes
244
Appendixes
245
APPENDIX D - Consent Form
This appendix presents The Consent Form that had to be signed by every respondent
prior to conducting the interview. It includes a short description of the study,
expected benefits of the participation, and confidentiality assurance. The Form was
prepared as a part of Ethical Clearance granted prior to data collection (Ethics No:
0900000432).
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT
RESEARCH PROJECT
“Improving Inter-project Knowledge Transfer in
Project-Based Organisations”
Research Team Contacts
Anna Wiewiora As. Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah Dr Glen Murphy 04 16743533 07 3138 8303 07 3138 1397
a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au bambang.trigunarsyah@qut.edu.au gd.murphy@qut.edu.au
Description
An important part for managing the knowledge is its transfer to locations where is needed
and can be used. This research focuses on the problem of inter-project knowledge transfer
based on the idea that despite project uniqueness, each project activity can be repetitive
and reused in different projects. This means that knowledge from one project is valuable
and can be reused in other projects. Therefore it is important to share knowledge across
projects in order to avoid unnecessary re-invention of lessons already learned. The transfer
of organisational knowledge, such as best practices, can be hard to achieve because it is
difficult to connect the right person with the source of knowledge he or she requires. This
study will examine the relationships between key elements determining effective inter-
project knowledge transfer. This will help to provide guidelines for project-based
organisations to ensure inter-project knowledge transfer, best practice approaches on how
to ensure effective knowledge communication and transfer of lessons learned beyond the
project, as well as advice regarding the best knowledge transfer techniques for different
PBO types.
Appendixes
246
The research team requests your assistance by sharing with us best practices in inter-
project knowledge communication and lessons learned transfer.
Participation
Your participation in this project is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can
withdraw from participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty.
Your decision to participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship
with QUT.
Your participation will involve focused interview to investigate matters related to inter-
project knowledge communication.
- Approximate interview time will be 30 - 45 min plus 10 - 20 min web-based questionnaire.
Expected benefits
As a result of your participation you will be provided with a detailed report relating to the
study that will answer the following questions regarding your organisation:
What type of communication is the most effective for inter-project knowledge transfer?
How to improve the communication process to ensure more effective knowledge transfer?
How to overcome barriers that cause ineffective inter-project knowledge transfer?
How organisation can improve knowledge transfer across projects? Risks
There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this
project.
Confidentiality
Organisation’s name and participants' names will not be included in all reports and
publications unless approval is obtained from the relevant participants.
Consent to Participate
We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your
agreement to participate.
Questions / further information about the project
Please contact the researcher team members named above to have any questions
answered or if you require further information about the project.
Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project
QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects.
However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the
project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or
Appendixes
247
ethicscontact@qut.edu.au. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research
project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.
CONSENT FORM for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT
“Improving Inter-project Knowledge Transfer in
Project-Based Organisations”
Statement of consent
By signing below, you are indicating that you:
have read and understood the information document regarding this project
have had any questions answered to your satisfaction
understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team
understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty
understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or ethicscontact@qut.edu.au if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project
the interview will include a digital recording
agree to participate in the project.
Name
Signature
Date / /
Appendixes
248
Appendixes
249
APPENDIX E - Questionnaire
This appendix reports on questions send to case study respondents. Before the
submission of the questionnaire, pilot questionnaire was conducted with eight
people: three academics, two practitioners, and three PhD students. After considering
their feedback, questions were realised to case study participants.
Introduction and Confidentiality Statement
Dear Respondent,
We ask for your collaboration to complete this questionnaire. Your efforts to complete it honestly and fully will determine the quality of this research.
We guarantee that all your information and answers will remain strictly confidential to the research team. Only the aggregated level data will be reported and no judgment or evaluation of individuals will be made.
This research meets the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. The ethics approval number is 0900000432. The contact person with regards to Ethical Clearance is Janette Lamb, tel. 07 3138 5123, e-mail: jd.lamb@qut.edu.au
Thank you for your effort and contribution to the study.
Regards, Anna Wiewiora Research Centre Room: O401, Block O School of Urban Development / Project Management Faculty of Build Environment and Engineering Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Ph.: 04 16743533 E-mail: a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au
TELL US ABOUT YOUR ORGANISATION, FOCUSING ON THE UNIT/DIVISION/OR
DEPARTMENT YOU ARE CURRENTLY WORKING IN.
Appendixes
250
For each of the next 6 statements please distribute 100 points amongst the four items (A, B, C and D) depending on the extent to which each item best describes your organisation3. Make sure the total distributed for each statement equals 100, as per the example shown
below.
E.g.: Knowledge sharing in organisations can be achieved by:
A. building mutual trust 30
B. improving information and communication technologies 20
C. motivating employees with incentives 10
D. building knowledge sharing culture 40
Total 100
1) My organisation is ... A. a very personal place. It is like an extended family, people seem to share a lot of themselves.
B. a very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.
C. very results oriented. The major concern is with getting the job done, people are very competitive and achievement oriented.
D. a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do.
Total 100
2) The leadership in my organisation is generally considered to
exemplify... A. mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.
B. entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking.
C. a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.
D. coordinating, organising, or smooth-running efficiency.
Total 100
3) The management style in my organisation is characterised by... A. teamwork, consensus, and participation.
B. individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.
C. hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.
D. security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships.
Total 100
4) The glue that holds my organisation together is... A. loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organisation runs high.
B. commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis
3 Items measuring organisational culture were adopted from Cameron and Quinn (2005)
Appendixes
251
on being on the cutting edge.
C. the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are common themes.
D. formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organisation is important.
Total 100
5) My organisation emphasises... A. human development. High trust, openness, and participation persist.
B. acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.
C. competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant.
D. permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important.
Total 100
6) My organisation defines success on the basis of... A. the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people.
B. having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.
C. winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key.
D. efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost production are critical.
Total 100
WHEN ANSWERING THE REMAINING QUESTIONS PLEASE HAVE IN
MIND THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED PROJECT IN WHICH YOU HAVE
BEEN INVOLVED.
Think of a person, outside that project team, who were most important in providing you with knowledge on that project (e.g. other project managers and/or project members from your organisation not working on that project)
Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with following statements related to that person4.
Strongly agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree
This person is very capable of performing his/her job.
oo oo oo oo oo
4 Items measuring the three trust dimensions were adopted from Mayer and Davis (1999) and used also in Becerra and Gupta (2003).
Appendixes
252
I fell very confident about this person's skills. oo oo oo oo oo
This person has much knowledge about the work that he/she need to do.
oo oo oo oo oo
This person is known to be successful with the things he/she tries to do.
oo oo oo oo oo
This person really looks out for what is important for me.
oo oo oo oo oo
This person is very concerned about my welfare. oo oo oo oo oo
My needs are very important to this person. oo oo oo oo oo
This person would go out of his/her way to help me.
oo oo oo oo oo
This person has a strong sense of justice. oo oo oo oo oo
I never have to worry about whether this person will stick to her/his word.
oo oo oo oo oo
This person tries hard to be fair in dealings with others.
oo oo oo oo oo
Sound principles seem to guide this person's behaviour.
oo oo oo oo oo
Appendixes
253
APPENDIX F – Example of the Report
Sent to Participating Organisation
This appendix provides an example of the report sent to one of the four participating
organisations. For the confidentiality purpose the actual name of the organisation
was changed to BETA.
Anna Wiewiora PhD Candidate Cooperative Research Centre for Integrated Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM) Faculty of Build Environment and Engineering Queensland University of Technology Supervisory Team: Associated Professor Bambang Trigunarsyah Dr Glen Murphy Professor Guy Gable
BETA INTER-PROJECT
KNOWLEDGE SHARING
Analysis report
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH AIM ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH APPROACH ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
FUTURE ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3
KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS – TRUST ................................................................................................................................... 4
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BETA ...................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.5
ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS .................................................................................................................................................. 6
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BETA ............................................................................................................................ 7
KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS ................................................................................................................................... 8
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BETA .......................................................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 12
RECOMMENDATIONS ON TRUST ......................................................................................................................................... 12
RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE TRANSFER OF LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................. 13
WIKI ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
FURTHER ACTIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 16
FURTHER READINGS........................................................................................................................................................... 16
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: SWOT ANALYSIS ON WIKI ACROSS THREE PROJECT-BASED ORGANISATIONS ..................................................... 14
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: TRUST DIMENSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 5
TABLE 2: ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING KNOWLEDGE SHARING ............................................................................ 6
TABLE 3: USE OF KNOWLEDGE SHERING MECHANISMS AT BETA .......................................................................................... 8
TABLE 4: LESSONS LEARNED ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 9
TABLE 5: THE MAINTENANCE OF WIKI ENTRIES ................................................................................................................... 15
I n t r o d u c t i o n
This report provides findings from the interviews conducted with Beta personnel on knowledge sharing practices between Beta’ projects in the Business Improvement and Transition and Customer Projects. Beta is one of three project-based organisations participated in the study. The report is structured as follows - 1. Overview of the research. 2. Research approach used for data collection. 3. Key findings thus far. 4. Implications for Beta. 5. Recommendations. 6. Plan for further action.
RREESSEEAARRCCHH AAIIMM
Current research shows that every project can provide valuable knowledge to other projects due to an unexpected action, unique approach or problem experienced during project phases. Furthermore, it is apparent that the risk of knowledge loss at a project’s end is a serious problem for organisations. Companies can save considerable costs, resulting from redundant work and the repetition of mistakes - if they master the project learning cycle. Consequently, the aim of this is: To develop an approach for effective inter-project knowledge sharing within project-
based organisations
The approach will help to direct Beta to achieve more effective knowledge share between projects and to improve its long term performance. G
RREESSEEAARRCCHH AAPPPPRROOAACCHH
Six semi-structured interviews have been conducted to date with various project leaders and project members from the Business Improvement and Transition and Customer Projects Departments. The aim of the interviews was to capture practices in inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). The average interview was 45 minutes. All interviews were recorded and later transcribed for data analysis. Findings from the interviews focused on the key elements that appeared to be important in understanding the I-PKS, contributing to model development. G
FFUUTTUURREE AACCTTIIOONNSS The project team intends to consider for utilisation the initial findings contained within this report. Additional interviews, followed by 10-15 min questionnaire for quantitative analysis, will contribute to a clearer picture of the way in which Beta transfers project knowledge between projects.
KKEEYY FFIINNDDIINNGGSS
This report provides findings to date on inter-project knowledge sharing with the focus on:
1. Organisational factors including the role of organisational culture and project managers’ geographical dispersion.
2. It reveals findings on three trust dimensions: ability, benevolence, and integrity.
3. It examines mechanisms used to share knowledge in Beta providing comprehensive analysis on the use of lessons learned and wikis.
4. The last section discusses implications for Beta and provides recommendations drawn from the cross case analysis of participating organisations on how to build trusting relationships, improve transfer of lessons learned, and ensure effective and more dynamic wikis for better knowledge sharing.
K e y F i n d i n g s This section provides key findings focusing on critical elements affecting knowledge sharing between projects in Beta including:
Trust;
Organisational factors consisting of organisational culture and size; and
Knowledge sharing mechanisms focusing on lessons learn as a source of project knowledge.
IINNTTEERRPPEERRSSOONNAALL RREELLAATTIIOONNSS –– TTRRUUSSTT
Ability
Benevolence
Integrity
BACKGROUND
Trust is a part of the human dimension of project management; and is one of the most important determinants of project success. Trust is positively related to development of project teams and improves the strength of working relationships by solidifying partnering roles. Furthermore, trust increases the willingness of various project stakeholders to cooperate in non-self motivated ways reducing transaction costs, and contributing to risk mitigation in projects. Trust creates a climate in which people feel more comfortable and secure in sharing ideas as well as searching for information. The impact of three dimensions of trust – ability, benevolence, and integrity on knowledge sharing between Beta projects was examined. Three trust dimensions play different roles in knowledge sharing.
Ability refers to the trustor's perception that another party is knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of competence or skills. Ability is domain-specific in that trustees can be highly proficient in one area may be viewed as having little experience in other areas.
Benevolence suggests that the trustee has some specific attachment to the trustor and would keep the best interests of the trustor at heart.
Integrity refers to the trustor's perception that the trustee will adhere to a set of principles such as honesty, and credibility during and after the knowledge exchange. Perceived integrity instils trustor's confidence in trustee behavior and reduces perceptions of risk. Also, if a project member does not give an honest advice, loses credibility, and will not be asked for an opinion again.
AMONG ALL TRUST DIMENSIONS ABILITY TRUST WAS PERCEIVED AS THE MOST
IMPORTANT FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO KNOWLEDGE SHARING WITHIN AND
BETWEEN BETA PROJECTS.
Table 1 provides definitions of three forms of trust, and their indicators.
Table 1: Trust dimensions
Ability trust was referred to as only important in the transfer of codified knowledge.
Beta respondents did not reflect on benevolence or integrity as having significant impact in knowledge share at all. However, there were limited comments on benevolence and integrity trust. Additional interviews, will contribute to a clearer picture on the role of benevolence and integrity trust for Beta employees.
Trust Dimensions
ABILITY BENEVOLENCE INTEGRITY
Definition
A perception that another party is knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of competence.
Suggests that the trustee has some specific attachment to the trustor and would keep the best interests of the trustor at heart.
A perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable.
indicators competence, skills
and experience
positive intentions and willingness to
help
honesty and credibility
S U M M A R Y A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R B E T A
Among all trust dimensions ability trust was perceived as the most important factor contributing to knowledge sharing within and between Beta projects.
Furthermore, Beta respondents did not reflect on benevolence or integrity as having significant impact in knowledge share.
Trust essentially involves the assumption of risk (a probability of loss). In Beta there is minimal risk involved in knowledge sharing because people seldom rely on each other while searching for knowledge, instead they use databases, which input is reviewed and controlled. In the circumstances knowledge seeker is confident that knowledge he/she acquired comes from reliable sources. This confidence eliminates risk by ignoring possible alternatives. Absence of risk removes the need for investing in trust-building initiatives. This explains why benevolence and integrity trust were perceived as not important by Beta respondents. However, analysis from two other project-based organisations that participated in the study revealed that trust had a strong impact on knowledge sharing in inter-project context. It was found that when trust exists people are more willing to seek and more confident to apply knowledge received from others to a project. Therefore, Beta need to invest in building trust especially to encourage sharing of embodied and rich tacit knowledge that is often more valuable then schematic, simple and easily codified explicit knowledge.
The section ‘Summary of Findings’ provides practical directions on trust. Some
suggestions for managers on how to effectively develop and maintain trusting relationships are provided in the section ‘Recommendations’, at the end of the report.
OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONNAALL FFAACCTTOORRSS
Organisatio
nal Culture
Size
BACKGROUND The organisational culture and subcultures surrounding project members influence their involvement in knowledge transfer and sharing of lessons learned. Organisational culture encourages (or discourages) trustworthy behaviour through the structuring of general patterns of communication, coordination, and decision making. Right organisational culture enhances trusting relationships, and help to enable more effective knowledge sharing. Without appropriate mechanisms to encourage cooperation, knowledge transfer may not work.
OVERALL: EMPLOYEES FROM THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AND TRANSITION
AND CUSTOMER PROJECTS ARE MOSTLY OPEN AND WILLING TO SHARE
KNOWLEDGE WITH THEIR COLLEAGUES, WITH SOME MINOR CASES OF
HESITANCY. Organisational factors include organisational culture, and size. Organisational culture has been analysed by looking at: willingness to share knowledge, open communication, presence of silos, employees’ involvement, teaching and sharing, learning from mistakes. These fundamentals have been found to influence knowledge sharing in organisations. Size represents geographical dispersion between project managers and office landscape architecture. Table 2 summarises the findings.
Table 2: Organisational factors affecting knowledge sharing
ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS INFLUENCING KNOWLEDGE SHARING (BETA)
Willingness to share, open communication
Mostly open and willing to share knowledge These reluctant to share are where in the role for a long time, or those focussed on career progressing
Presence of silos No silos have been identified
Employees Involvement Teaching and sharing
Organisation encourages, but does not actively contribute in facilitating inter-project knowledge share
Office Landscape Architecture
Open plan office architecture encourages frequent knowledge share Knowledge share between different geographical locations is minimal
Interviewees reported that their colleagues are mostly open and willing to share knowledge.
Three respondents agreed that those reluctant to share are those who were in a role for a long time, “when they have been in a role for so long, and they have lot of IP, and are not necessarily willing to share that with
younger people”, or are focussed on their career and perceive knowledge as a power and a way to promotion.
Those employees who are co-located share knowledge frequently. Open plan office architecture and specially designed “cages” allow for business related informal chats. However, it has been stated that knowledge sharing between different geographical locations is minimal. For example, it was reported that it’s very difficult to do a knowledge transfer in between Sydney and Brisbane. “So even though you can do email, phone calls, sometimes you can lose things in that communication and it’s really hard to transfer knowledge [that way]”.
S U M M A R Y A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R B E T A
Overall the analysis showed that Beta has well defined processes, rigour and discipline. It was reported, “when it cannot be measured it is not worth doing it”, and that information is really valuable when hard coded and documented. “When we later discuss things with [the] director, there is a need for data, for supporting evidence.” Culture in Beta is based on stability and control where employees are more likely to seek codified, explicit knowledge. There was only minor evidence on tacit knowledge sharing activities. Beta need to encourage informal interactions, and invest in development of trust to facilitate transfer of tacit knowledge.
KKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGEE SSHHAARRIINNGG MMEECCHHAANNIISSMMSS
Relational
Technolog
y
Project Management Procedure
BACKGROUND
There is a range of knowledge sharing mechanisms available for Beta employees including face-to-face formal and informal meetings, wikis, lessons learned repositories, Project Management Office, and other tools (such as e-mails and intranet). There are three types of knowledge sharing mechanisms: relational, technology, and project management procedures. Relational mechanisms promote mostly face-to-face communication; while technology based mechanisms include electronic or document knowledge exchange. Document exchange is a highly effective and efficient mechanism for sharing codified knowledge. It is often ineffective for transmitting complex and hardly codified tacit knowledge. In contrast, conversations and the transfer of people are relatively inefficient mechanisms for sharing codified knowledge, but for transferring tacit knowledge, they may be the only effective mechanisms [2].
IN BETA FORMAL MEETINGS ARE VALUED HIGHER THAN INFORMAL
INTERACTION. PEOPLE ARE HAPPY TO TALK, BUT INFORMATION IS ESPECIALLY
VALUED WHEN IS HARD CODED. Table 3 summarises findings on use of knowledge sharing mechanisms among Beta employees. Respondents commented on which means they perceived as important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.
Table 3: Use of knowledge sharing mechanisms at Beta
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
Beta (6) Number of
respondents/percentage
Important and /or primarily used
Face-to-face Formal 5
83.33%
Other Tools (i.e. e-mail, intranet)
3 50.00%
Face-to-face Informal 2
33.33%
Project Management Office 2
33.33%
Wikis 1
16.67%
Lessons Learned Database 0
0.00%
5 people reported formal meetings are important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.
Respondents reported that Beta wikis are too formalised and controlled. For most people in Beta wikis is used as a database to capture static info, not as an interactive tool to exchange knowledge.
However, no Beta respondents stated lessons learned repositories were
important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.
Further data analysis revealed the reasons why lessons learned were unpopular among employees in Beta. Lessons learned issues identified during the interviews are presented in Table 4. Issues with lessons learned quality, visibility, and processes have been identified.
Lessons learned quality represents clarity of lessons learned content and scope.
Visibility corresponds to the degree lessons learned can be accessed in the organisation.
Processes refer to lessons learned development and implementation.
Table 4: Lessons learned issues
LESSONS LEARNED ISSUES
QUALITY Lack of consistency in a way how lessons learned are produced and stored
VISIBILITY
Lessons learned are captured and stored in way that is conductive to sharing
It is hard to find relevant information
Lessons learned are not stored in a concise location
PROCESSES
Lack of lessons learned ownership - someone responsible for implementing changes, and following up
Lack of clear avenue for the projects to share LL. “We have document management system, wikis, blogs, but that‟s about the individual‟s initiative to utilise those tools”
Lessons learned are not captured throughout the project, especially the long duration projects as a result lessons learned are forgotten
S U M M A R Y A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R B E T A
Data from interviews demonstrated that knowledge was primarily shared during formal meetings. Furthermore, employees exchanged knowledge during informal interactions. Beta create opportunities for informal interactions for example providing specially designed ‘cages’. However, it was also found that information is more valued when is hard coded and formalised. Even wiki was used as a database to capture static info, not as a space for informal collaboration. Nevertheless, the use of lessons learned repositories was unpopular among Beta employees. The main concern with lessons learned, according to respondents, was a lack of consistency and clear uniform guidelines through the lessons learned process. One way to improve better capture and transfer of lessons learned is to extend the use of Wiki and create a space for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. The section “Recommendations” provides some directions for Beta on how to improve lessons learned quality, visibility, and processes. Recommendations come from cross case analysis and best practices used by participating organisations.
S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s Beta employees heavily rely on explicit rather than tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge provides rich context and is hard to articulate with formal language because it is not easily visible and expressible; it refers to personal ideas, experiences, and values. It is highly personal and hard to formalise, but it has a great value for the organisation. The sharing of tacit knowledge is a critical component of successful knowledge management efforts. Beta could benefit from better share of tacit knowledge. Beta create opportunities for interactions between co-located employees. Indeed, frequent and close interactions allow building a common understanding, increase the availability of people, and create knowledge sharing opportunities. In contrary poor relationships can result in hoarding knowledge sharing activities. However, strong ties themselves are not enough for effective sharing of knowledge. Ties between individuals must possess high level of trust for effective knowledge sharing to occur. Trust creates a climate in which people feel more comfortable and secure in sharing ideas as well as searching for information. Furthermore, cross-case analysis of participating in the study organisations revealed that ability, benevolence, and integrity facilitate and improve working relationships between members from different projects, which in turn has a positive effect on project outcomes. Greater level of trust in Beta could improve the sharing of highly complex and hardly codified tacit knowledge.
BETA NEED TO INVEST IN BUILDING TRUST ESPECIALLY TO ENCOURAGE SHARING OF EMBODIED AND
RICH TACIT KNOWLEDGE THAT IS OFTEN MORE VALUABLE THEN SCHEMATIC AND EASILY CODIFIED
EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE.
It has been found that Beta culture is characterised by measurement, process control, and use of quality tools. To acquire knowledge employees rely primarily on codified sources thus knowledge comes mainly from databases where “everything is black and white”. This explains for example why formal meetings are valued higher than informal interaction. People are happy to talk, but information is really valued when is documented “because when we later discuss things with director, there is a need for data, for supporting evidence.” Culture in Beta is based on stability and control where employees are more likely to seek codified, explicit knowledge.
BETA NEED TO INVEST IN RELATIONAL MECHANISMS AND ENCOURAGE INFORMAL INTERACTIONS TO
FACILITATE TRANSFER OF TACIT KNOWLEDGE.
In Beta wiki was used as a database to capture static info, not as a space for informal collaboration. Wiki in fact is a successful emerging tool supporting collaboration and content management. Wiki provides capabilities for messaging (e.g., e-mail), calendaring, online chat, and discussion forums.
BETA COULD EXTEND THE USE OF WIKI AND CREATE A SPACE FOR COLLABORATION AND TACIT
KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE.
Next section provides practical recommendations for Beta employees on how to build trusting relationships that lead to greater knowledge exchange and how to improve transfer of lessons learned and fully utilised wiki capability to become an avenue for lessons learned and interactive knowledge share.
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
This section provides recommendations for Beta managers to ensure better
knowledge share between projects. The recommendations focus on:
1. building trust and maintaining trusting relationships 2. improving transfer of lessons learned
RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS OONN TTRRUUSSTT
Recommendations on trust have been drawn from the cross case analysis of participating organisations and an extensive literature review. To intentionally create trust or manage another party’s propensity to trust it is a difficult task. However, it is possible to enhance conditions for trust-building. Trust is context and person-specific; hence the appropriate means and methods for building trust should be considered carefully. Literature provides a range of practices to build trust for business environment that can be appropriate for inter-project context.
Positive attitude towards colleagues and own organisation, and support and advice in a workplace help build organisational trust.
Distributed teams with a high rate of communication and interaction develop trust faster than teams with a low rate.
Socialization, personal interaction, and blending cultures are the drivers
for trusting relationships. Sharing sensitive information increases trust.
These statements suggest that the social dialogue among members notably supports the development of trust. Therefore, to effectively develop and maintain trusting relationships in Beta it is recommended for higher level managers to**:
REVIEW ORGANISATIONAL NORMS AND PRACTICES THAT ENCOURAGE OR
DISCOURAGE THE HIGH FREQUENCY OF INTERACTION AND COLLABORATION.
SUPPORT AND RECOGNISE KNOWLEDGE SHARING INITIATIVES. - Keep publicising key values such as trust—highlighting both
rewarded good examples and punished violations—in multiple forums.
ENDORSE AND MAINTAIN FRIENDLY AND NON-COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE AT
WORK. - Don’t divulge personal information shared in confidence. - When appropriate, take risks in sharing your expertise with people.
Be willing to offer others your personal network of contacts when appropriate.
CREATE ATMOSPHERE FOR LEARNING NOT BLAMING.
We recommend to encourage managers and employees to - Make clear both what they do and don’t know. - Admit it when they don’t know something rather than posture to
avoid embarrassment. - Defer to people who know more than they do about a topic.
**Some of the recommendations are aligned with those proposed by Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin (2003) and listed in the section.
RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS OONN HHOOWW TTOO IIMMPPRROOVVEE TTRRAANNSSFFEERR OOFF LLEESSSSOONNSS LLEEAARRNNEEDD
Recommendations on lessons learned have been drawn from cross case analysis and best practices used by participating organisations. To improve lessons learned quality, visibility, and processes the following solutions are proposed: INTRODUCE AN EASILY ACCESSIBLE, INTELLIGIBLE, AND USER-FRIENDLY LESSONS
LEARNED DATABASE
INTRODUCE LESSONS LEARNED OWNERSHIP – PERSON ACCOUNTABLE FOR LESSONS
LEARNED IMPLEMENTATION
CATALOGUE LESSONS LEARNED ACCORDING TO THEMES
KEEP LESSONS LEARNED IN ONE PLACE
DEVELOP CLEAR ACTION PLAN FOR CAPTURING, DOCUMENTING AND SHARING
LESSONS LEARNED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT
WWIIKKII --
Avenue for lessons learned and interactive knowledge share
Wiki can improve visibility and capture lessons learned more informally throughout the project. Recommendations on wikis come from cross case analysis and best practices used by participating organisations. A SWOT analysis has been conducted looking for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with wikis across three participating organisations (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: SWOT analysis on WIKI across three Project-based Organisations
Types of information and knowledge available and stored in wikis are:
Static information Links to processes Lessons learned Valuable links Technical information Space for collaboration and knowledge exchange
Respondents reported that Beta wikis are too formalised and controlled. For most people in Beta wikis is used as a database to capture static info, not as an interactive tool to exchange knowledge. Wiki capability is not fully utilised and only rarely used for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. According to the respondents some information and knowledge entered into wikis require maintenance and quality control, other information should be freely managed and built up by every employee. Consequently wiki entries should be categorised by required for:
STRENGTHS
• Shared location that everyone can view and
update
• Overcome e-mail trafficking
• Interactive tool
• Allows discoverability and visibility
• User friendly
• Provides useful source of information for
project managers, customers, and new
employees
• Allows sharing of tacit knowledge
• Useful for business intelligence information
• Alternative communication type for
distributed projects
WEAKNESSES
• Too little information
• Poor quality of entries
OPPORTUNITIESReasons to apply wikis
• Share knowledge (also tacit) quickly and
informally
• Improve visibility
• Keep knowledge and information on all
projects in one space
• Better systematise LL
• Capture LL in earlier project stages
• Capture LL more informally
THREATSDangers associated with applying wikis
• Can easily get outdated while not used
• Poor quality entries
• Lack of time to maintain
• Just another IT tool to maintain (people who
use alternative tools will not update wikis)
• Relatively new tool, people are resistant to
use it and/or do not know how to use it
ownership to maintain and quality control; moderate ownership, control and maintenance; and free entries
Wiki entries related to static info and lessons learned should be regularly updated and controlled. Other entries associated with collaboration and share of tacit knowledge should be maintained by employees encouraged to use wikis by their leaders. Table 5 shows different knowledge types that can be stored in a wiki and the required level of maintenance and quality control.
Table 5: The maintenance of wiki entries
REQUIRE OWNERSHIP TO MAINTAIN AND QUALITY
CONTROL
REQUIRE MODERATE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL
AND MAINTENANCE FREE ENTRIES
Explicit knowledge Tacit and explicit
knowledge Tacit knowledge
Static info
Links to processes
LESSONS LEARNED
Valuable links
Technical info
Space for collaboration and knowledge exchange
Furthermore, according to respondents from all three case studies, to ensure an updated and dynamic wiki it is important to consider design and environmental factors. Comprehensive, intelligible and user-friendly design along with leadership engagement, collaborative culture and ownership will ensure an effective and vibrant wiki. An overall analysis showed that Beta wiki could become a new avenue for lessons learned, and the way to share both, tacit and explicit knowledge across geographical locations. Herein an appropriately implemented wiki can assist in better share of tacit knowledge.
F u r t h e r A c t i o n s
The research project team would like to formally acknowledge the assistance so far provided by Beta and its personnel involved in the study. The project team intends to continue its data collection, interviewing project team leaders, team members and any other relevant personnel. Additional interviews and document reviews, followed by 10-15 min surveys for quantitative analysis, will contribute to a clearer picture of the way in which Beta transfers project knowledge within and between projects. We trust you found the preliminary findings interesting and valuable to Beta. If you are aware of anyone who can contribute to the research on knowledge sharing in Beta projects please contact me (details below): Anna Wiewiora Room: O401, Block O School of Urban Development / Project Management Faculty of Build Environment and Engineering Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Ph. : 04 16743533 E-mail: a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au
F u r t h e r R e a d i n g s
[1] E. H. Schein, "Organizational culture," American Psychologist, vol. 45, pp. 109-119, 1990. [2] E. Hoffman, C. Kinlaw, and D. Kinlaw, "Developing superior project teams: a study of the characteristics
of high performance. In: Project teams," 2001. [3] A. E. Akgün, J. Byrne, H. Keskin, G. S. Lynn, and S. Z. Imamoglu, "Knowledge networks in new product
development projects: a transactive memory perspective," Information & Management, vol. 42, pp. 1105-1120, 2005.
[4] J. K. Pinto, D. P. Slevin, and B. English, "Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of owner/contractor relationships," International Journal of Project Management, 2008.
[5] E. C. Kasper-Fuehrer and N. M. Ashkanasy, "Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations," Journal of Management, vol. 27, pp. 235-254, 2001.
[6] P. Eskerod and H. J. Skriver, "Organisational culture restrainning in-house knowledge transfer between project managers - a case study " Project Management Journal, vol. 38, p. 13, 2007.
[7] E. M. Whitener, S. E. Brodt, M. A. Korsgaard, and J. M. Werner, "Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior," Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, pp. 513-530, 1998.
[8] R. Issa, R. A. and J. Haddad, "Perceptions of the impacts of organizational culture and information technology on knowledge sharing in construction," Construction Innovation, vol. 8, pp. 182-201, 2008.
[9] S. M. Jasimuddin, "A holistic view of knowledge management strategy," Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 12, 2008.
[10] K. Blomqvist and P. Ståhle, "Building organizational trust," in 16th Annual IMP Conference, Bath, 2000. [11] J. Sydow, "Understanding the constitution of interorganizational trust," in Trust within and between
organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications, C. Lane and R. Bachman, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 31–63.
[12] S. L. Jarvenpaa and D. E. Leidner, "Communication and trust in global virtual teams," Organization Science, vol. 10, pp. 791-815, 1999.
[13] G. R. Jones and J. M. George, "The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork," Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, pp. 531-546, 1998.
[14] R. C. O'Brien, "Is Trust a Calculable Asset in the Firm?," Business Strategy Review, vol. 6, pp. 39-54, 2006.
[15] L. C. Abrams, R. Cross, E. Lesser, and D. Z. Levin, "Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks," Academy of Management Executive, vol. 17, pp. 64-77, 2003.
top related