learning between projects: more than sending messages in bottles

11
Learning between projects: More than sending messages in bottles Andreas Hartmann , André Dorée Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands Received 25 March 2014; received in revised form 10 July 2014; accepted 17 July 2014 Abstract Although learning from projects has gained much importance in research and practice, progress in understanding and improving inter-project learning appears to be slight. We argue that the adoption of a sender/receiver approach limits the learning effectiveness in project-based organisations. Drawing upon the notion of learning as a social activity embedded in an organisational context, we develop the argument that learning from projects takes place within projects rooted in the historical, organisational and cultural context of previous and current projects. We underpin our argument with results from a multiple-case study on learning in construction organisations. We show that learning cannot be segregated from immediate practice and occurs when individuals engage in project work. Particularly the orientation towards project goals and project-overarching ambitions or trajectories can serve as contextual binder for learning in and between projects. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Keywords: Project-based organisation; Knowledge transfer; Social learning; Case study 1. Introduction For more than a decade, learning from projects has received much attention in practice and research. Driven by the intention to improve the performance of project-based organisations (e.g. in construction, aerospace, motion pictures) numerous studies have been conducted to identify barriers and enablers for learning from projects (e.g. Holzmann, 2013; Kumaraswamy and Thorpe, 1996; Shokri-Ghasabeh and Chileshe, 2014; Swan et al., 2010). Yet despite the efforts made, progress in improving the learning from projects appears to be slight. Project-based organisations seem to be caught in the learning paradox of projects (cf. Bakker et al., 2011). Due to their fluid, temporary and interdisciplinary nature, projects are seen as suitable organisational units for stimulating learning and creating knowledge (Ayas and Zenuik, 2001; Edmondson and Nembhard, 2009; Schindler and Eppler, 2003). However, it is also argued that the ephemerality and discontinuities of projects restrict the assimilation of the created knowledge by other organisational units and its enhancement over time (Bresnen et al., 2003; Swan et al., 2010). Besides identifying problems and difficulties in cross-project learning, previous studies investigated a number of tools for extracting and disseminating lessons learned such as post-project reviews, company intranet or face-to-face meetings (e.g. Maqsood et al., 2006; Koners and Goffin, 2007; Newell and Edelman, 2008; Paranagamage et al., 2012). The majority of these studies, often implicitly, adopt a sender/receiver perspective on learning which assumes the possibility of engineering communication channels for transferring knowledge between projects and lubricating their operation with the proper tools and motivated context(Kasper et al., 2013, p.334). We argue that particularly this core assumption that knowledge is a transferrable commodity accounts for the little observable progress in understanding and enhancing project learning activities. To be clear, we do not reject the sender/receiver approach, but we argue that within the contextual boundaries of project-based industries the sender/receiver conceptualisation of learning has its limitations and calls for alternative approaches. Drawing upon the notion of learning as a contextually embedded social activity, we propose such an alternative approach. Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 53 489 2084; fax: +31 53 489 2511. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Hartmann), [email protected] (A. Dorée). www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.006 0263-7863/00 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved. Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: More than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijproman.2014.07.006 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx xxx JPMA-01674; No of Pages 11

Upload: andre

Post on 09-Feb-2017

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

JPMA-01674; No of Pages 11

Learning between projects: More than sending messages in bottles

Andreas Hartmann ⁎, André Dorée

Department of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Twente, PO Box 217, 7500AE Enschede, The Netherlands

Received 25 March 2014; received in revised form 10 July 2014; accepted 17 July 2014

Abstract

Although learning from projects has gained much importance in research and practice, progress in understanding and improving inter-project learningappears to be slight. We argue that the adoption of a sender/receiver approach limits the learning effectiveness in project-based organisations. Drawingupon the notion of learning as a social activity embedded in an organisational context, we develop the argument that learning from projects takes placewithin projects rooted in the historical, organisational and cultural context of previous and current projects. We underpin our argument with results from amultiple-case study on learning in construction organisations. We show that learning cannot be segregated from immediate practice and occurs whenindividuals engage in project work. Particularly the orientation towards project goals and project-overarching ambitions or trajectories can serve ascontextual binder for learning in and between projects.© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Project-based organisation; Knowledge transfer; Social learning; Case study

1. Introduction

For more than a decade, learning from projects has receivedmuch attention in practice and research. Driven by the intention toimprove the performance of project-based organisations (e.g. inconstruction, aerospace, motion pictures) numerous studies havebeen conducted to identify barriers and enablers for learning fromprojects (e.g. Holzmann, 2013; Kumaraswamy and Thorpe, 1996;Shokri-Ghasabeh and Chileshe, 2014; Swan et al., 2010). Yetdespite the efforts made, progress in improving the learning fromprojects appears to be slight. Project-based organisations seem tobe caught in the learning paradox of projects (cf. Bakker et al.,2011). Due to their fluid, temporary and interdisciplinary nature,projects are seen as suitable organisational units for stimulatinglearning and creating knowledge (Ayas and Zenuik, 2001;Edmondson and Nembhard, 2009; Schindler and Eppler, 2003).However, it is also argued that the ephemerality and discontinuities

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 53 489 2084; fax: +31 53 489 2511.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Hartmann),

[email protected] (A. Dorée).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.0060263-7863/00 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projej.ijproman.2014.07.006

cts: M

of projects restrict the assimilation of the created knowledge byother organisational units and its enhancement over time (Bresnenet al., 2003; Swan et al., 2010).

Besides identifying problems and difficulties in cross-projectlearning, previous studies investigated a number of tools forextracting and disseminating lessons learned such as post-projectreviews, company intranet or face-to-face meetings (e.g. Maqsoodet al., 2006; Koners and Goffin, 2007; Newell and Edelman, 2008;Paranagamage et al., 2012). The majority of these studies, oftenimplicitly, adopt a sender/receiver perspective on learning whichassumes the possibility of engineering communication channelsfor transferring knowledge between projects and “lubricating theiroperation with the proper tools and motivated context” (Kasperet al., 2013, p.334).We argue that particularly this core assumptionthat knowledge is a transferrable commodity accounts for the littleobservable progress in understanding and enhancing projectlearning activities. To be clear, we do not reject the sender/receiverapproach, but we argue that within the contextual boundaries ofproject-based industries the sender/receiver conceptualisation oflearning has its limitations and calls for alternative approaches.

Drawing upon the notion of learning as a contextuallyembedded social activity, we propose such an alternative approach.

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

2 A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

Although the social and situated nature of learning has receivedmuch attention in research on knowledge creation in organisationsand projects, its role for the learning between projects is lessunderstood. Clearly, many previous studies revealed the impor-tance of social interaction and processes for the knowledge transferin project environments (e.g. Paranagamage et al., 2012; Roth,2003; Wiewiora et al., 2013). However, from the perspectiveof these studies, social interactions are still channels or tools forthe transmission of knowledge between one individual/project(sender) and another individual/project (receiver) (NoorderhavenandHarzing, 2009). Contrary to the sender/receiver perspective,we regard social interactions as contextually embedded andcollaborative efforts in projects from which learning occurs. Fromour point of view, learning across projects takes place withinprojects as a social activity rooted in the historical, organisationaland cultural context of previous and current projects (theimperative of continuity). We specifically argue that the goalorientation of project-based activities can and should serveas a contextual binder between projects, giving the socialinteraction within projects focus and orientation for thelearning from projects.

In the following we develop our argument based on theproject-based and situated learning literature. By referring tothe results of five case studies on learning from projects inconstruction organisations, we then intend to juxtapose theeffectiveness of the sender/receiver approach and social learningapproach for learning from and between projects. Based on that,we discuss the limitations of transferring lessons learned and thegoal-oriented learning from projects in projects. We also addresspractical implications and the limitations of our research.

2. Conceptual background

2.1. The sender/receiver approach of learning

The sender/receiver approach of learning is based on cognitivelearning theory that describes learning as an individual's acqui-sition of abstract and general knowledge delivered by knowl-edgeable sources (e.g. books, experts) and changing the mentalmodels of the individual (Elkjaer, 2003). It is much connectedwith the view of knowledge as an “objectified transferrablecommodity” (Gherardi, 2000, p.213) which can be extracted fromindividuals, exists independently from context, can be storedin repositories and transferred to other individuals. Knowl-edge production, transfer and consumption become autono-mous activities with the transfer of knowledge as central activityfor learning to occur.

The transfer of knowledge implies the existence of source,channel, message, recipient and context (Liyanage et al., 2009;Noorderhaven and Harzing, 2009). It is argued that it depends onthe characteristic of the sender unit, receiving unit, relationshipbetween sender and receiver, and the knowledge transferred(Joshi et al., 2007). Given certain conditions, knowledge willflow from one unit (individual/project) to another unit (individ-ual/project). These conditions are (Lin et al., 2005): (1) the senderunit is knowledgeable and willing to share its knowledge, (2) thereceiving unit possesses the capacity to absorb the knowledge,

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

and (3) the appropriate transmission channels between sender andreceiver for the flow of knowledge exist. Transmission channelsare appropriate if they allow the development of a commonlexicon between sender and receiver that “sufficiently specifies thedifferences and dependencies of consequences at the boundaries”(Carlile, 2004, p.558).

The sender/receiver approach relies to a great extent on thestorage, retrieval and transfer of explicit knowledge that canbe codified and reverts to transmission channels such aselectronic and document-based repositories. It also acknowl-edges the existence of tacit knowledge that is intuitive andunarticulated (Lam, 2000), but can be converted into explicitforms to make it transferrable (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).For example, social interactions in meetings or face-to-faceconversations are seen as channels for the externalisation oftacit knowledge and the transfer of this knowledge from anorganisational unit that has the knowledge to another unit thatdoes not have it (Kasper et al., 2013).

The notion of transferring knowledge appears to be appealing,since many studies on learning from projects adopted the sender/receiver approach and investigated the effectiveness of channelsfor the transfer of knowledge and lessons learned between projects(e.g. Koners and Goffin, 2007; Koskinen et al., 2003; Schindlerand Eppler, 2003). At the same time, barriers of knowledgetransfer are well documented. Reported problems include lack oftime and resources to capture lessons learned (Keegan and Turner,2001; Shokri-Ghasabeh and Chileshe, 2014), lack of usefulness ofcaptured knowledge (Chua and lam, 2005; Newell et al., 2006),focus on failures (Carrillo, 2004), lack of purpose (Storey andBarnett, 2000; Ruikar et al., 2007), and commitment of staff andmanagement to knowledge sharing initiatives (Bishop et al., 2008;Williams, 2008). We argue that these barriers represent majorlimitations rather than unresolved problems for the learning fromprojects. The prevalent production structure, business paradigmand management style in project-based industries evoke theselimitations. For example, lack of time can be traced back tothe very limited ability of project-based firms to balance demandfluctuations (through e.g. stock-keeping or creating markets fortheir services). Since it is the demand that directly determines theutilisation of resources, people are often involved in severalprojects with their own milestones and deadlines and, consequent-ly, face time pressure (Sydow et al., 2004; Swan et al., 2010). As aresponse to a changing demand rate, services, technologies andequipment are often outsourced and subcontracted per project.Many project-based firms follow a business paradigm of traderather than production and are technology-wise empty firms, whichmakes it difficult for them to define a clear purpose for learningfrom projects (Dorée and Holmen, 2004). In addition, manyprojects not only entail a variety of components and equipment, butalso have to process a wide range of technical, legal, environmentaland organisational information that, to some extent, varies withinand between projects. This makes it questionable whether a senderproject is able to articulate the knowledge that might be of valueto a future, but yet unknown receiving project and to generaliselessons learned to an extent that makes them digestible but stilluseful for several receiving projects (Bresnen et al., 2003; Swan etal., 2010).

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

3A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

2.2. The social learning approach

The social learning approach recognises the social andcontextual nature of learning and has its origin in social learningtheory (Bandura, 1977). The notion of social learning is coveredby a number of related concepts such as community of practice(Brown and Duguid, 1991), situated learning (Lave and Wenger,1991), and knowing in practice (Cook and Brown, 1999) thatsuggest that learning is not something that solely takes place in thehuman mind but occurs through the interaction of people duringtheir day-to-day activities and as an ongoing social accomplish-ment (Easterby‐Smith et al., 2000; Orlikowski, 2006). That is,learning emerges from collective actions and knowledge thatis enacted through the participation of individuals in socialprocesses (Gherardi, 2000). The social learning approach restson the understanding of knowledge as socially constructed andmanifest in and through practice.

The relationship between knowledge and practice is centralto this understanding, and three streams of conceptualising therelationship have emerged (Gherardi, 2006; Nicolini, 2011):social containment, mutual constitution and equivalence. Fromthe social containment point of view, knowledge is located in therelationship of practitioners who engage in specific practices. Itis the social context of these practices that informally bind peopletogether in communities (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Learningtakes place as a form of socialising through which normative rulesand ways of doing things in these communities of practiceare shared with newcomers. Themutual constitution view sees therelationship between knowledge and practice as the interaction oftwo distinct, but inextricably tied ontological entities. Knowledgeis possessed by individuals and groups and is used as a tool inknowing the actual engagement of individuals and groups inpractice (Cook and Brown, 1999). Knowledge and knowing aremutually constituted and it is this ‘generative dance’ (Cookand Brown, 1999) that is needed for learning to occur. Fromthe equivalence perspective, knowledge and practice cannot beseparated with knowledge as an entity existing outside practice(Gherardi, 2006). Knowledge becomes the active process ofknowing rather than being an object that can be transferredbetween organisational units (Plaskoff, 2003). It is tied to theengagement of people in interconnected practices (comparedto single practice from the containment perspective) throughwhich it is constituted (Nicolini, 2011). Knowledge and practiceare ontologically equivalent and always emergent (Marabelli andNewell, 2012). Consequently, learning is regarded as part ofpractice which cannot be separated from any of its activities. Itis bound to situations which posit “certain possibilities for someaction and not for others depending on individuals' formerexperiences and power in a specific context. Individuals areat one and the same time to be regarded as ‘products’ of theirsocial and cultural history and ‘producing’ situations mirroringthat. The individuals interact with selves, others, artefacts andcontexts as just that, ‘products’ and ‘producers’ of situations”(Elkjaer, 2003, p.43). Here, the conditions of the situation areproduced through reflexivity which “enables both cyberneticself-monitoring, the institutionalisation of knowledge and hencechange as the result of a learning process” (Gherardi and Nicolini,

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

2001, p.52). Through reflexivity the knowing subject and theobject of its knowledge become separated, leading to thetranslation of practical knowledge into theoretical knowledge thatis further transformed into normative knowledge representingthe operating conditions of practical knowledge (Gherardi andNicolini, 2001).

Based on the extant learning literature, we argue that the sociallearning approach has the potential for enhancing our understand-ing of learning from projects and providing insights that the sender/receiver approach cannot provide. Our argument seems to besupported insofar as previous studies emphasise the important roleof social interaction and processes for learning within and fromprojects (e.g. Bakker et al., 2011). However, in many studies, socialinteraction remains a channel in the tradition of the sender/receiverapproach that accommodates the flow of knowledge “producedat one location and consumed at another” (Noorderhaven andHarzing, 2009, p.720). From the social learning point of view,social interaction is learning, i.e. the emergence and constitu-tion of knowledge through practice. In project-based indus-tries, practices are mainly related to the individual, social andorganisational context which forms projects. This context isdynamic, history-dependent and part of a wider institutionalenvironment. In other words, projects cannot be seen as 'islands'(Engwall, 2003); project-based practices emerge through thecontext they are producing. That also implies that learning fromprojects takes place within projects through practices that includeorganisational procedures and tools, symbolic artefacts, organisa-tional rules and norms, experience and competence of individualsand that are connected to other projects. For the learning acrossprojects the contextual setting of projects seems essential (Boyd,2013; Elkjaer, 2003), since the learning will emerge from andmanifest in project-based practice. It is the complex and dynamicnature of context that determines whether and how learningbetween projects will play out (Bresnen et al., 2004). This paperexplores the contextual setting of projects for the effectivenessof learning between projects. It intends to contribute to theproject-based learning literature by viewing learning betweenprojects from both the predominating sender/receiver perspectiveand from the neglected lens of the social learning approach.

3. Research method

We follow a qualitative approach in order to better understandthe specific circumstances of learning within project-based orga-nisations. Amultiple case study approach is adopted. Case studiesare a suitable researchmethod if deeper andmore detailed insightsare sought and the research is of an explorative nature (Eisenhardt,1989). Although the learning between projects and particularlythe transfer of lessons learned have received much attentionin previous research, the social learning approach has been lessaddressed. It is particularly the overemphasized sender/receiverapproach and the underexplored potential of the social learningapproach in project-based learning which suggests case studies.The cases allow us both testing and developing the argumentthat the effectiveness of the sender/receiver approach in projectenvironments is limited and that the social learning approach hasthe potential to better address the contextual setting of projects

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

4 A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

(cf. Flyvbjerg, 2006). In line with Yin (2009), we chose multiplecases to allow for replication of results but also contrastingfindings. We focused on one project-based industry, namelyconstruction, but covered different organisations as cases withinthis industry. Although the focus on one industry restrictsgeneralisation, it eases the case comparison in terms of contextualsimilarities and differences; the identification of the contextualnature of learning between projects.

Five cases in the Netherlands were investigated (Table 1). Thefirst case is a medium-sized Dutch contractor in the buildingsector including offices, hospitals and residential houses. Thesecond case study was conducted at the regional business unit ofa large Dutch contractor active in the infrastructure sector with amain focus on road construction. The third case is the engineeringcorps of the Dutch army responsible for the design, building andoperating of out-of-area bases. The fourth case is a functionalbusiness unit of a large Dutch contractor. Its core-business is theengineering, construction and management of civil, industrial andinfrastructure projects. The fifth case is the regional businessunit of a large Dutch public agency responsible for operating,managing and improving the national road. In addition, the unitof analysis also differs between the cases.We studied the learningprocess between projects (Cases I and III), the knowledge sharingbetween project phases (Case II) and the use of project evaluationsfor learning between projects (Cases IV and V). The variation ofcases and units of analysis offers the possibility to revealdifferences as well as similarities in the effectiveness of thesender/receiver approach and the social learning approach, both ofwhich can strengthen our argumentation.

In each case semi-structured interviews were conducted withpersons involved in project activities. The interviews were meantto put employees of the organisations in a position to reflexivelyreconstruct the conditions under which knowledge is generatedand shared. The selection of interviewees took place on the basis

Table 1Investigated cases.

Case I Case II Ca

Type of organisation Contractor Contractor EnProject activities Design, building and

maintenance of office,hospital and residentialfacilities

Building and maintenanceof roads, sewer systems,runways

Enof

Organisational unit Regional business unit Regional business unit SuNumber of employees—total (business unit)

280 (120) 2200 (120) 80

Unit of analysis Learning processbetween projects

Knowledge sharingbetween project phases

Leou

Data collection Document analysis Document analysis Do

15 interviews(2 unit manager 1 HRMmanager 1 marketingmanager 1 procurementmanager 3 projectmanagers 3 estimators4 foremen)

12 interviews(2 project managers, 3estimators, 3 planningengineers 4 foremen)1 group discussion(5 participants)

19(11sup

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

of the role they play in project activities of the organisations andthus their expected contribution to and benefit from inter-projectlearning. Interviews were held with employees from differentlayers (general, project, technical management) of the investigat-ed organisations and included unit managers, project managers,planning engineers, and foremen (Table 1). Persons with thesame organisational position were selected to avoid subjectivityand reduce inconsistencies (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Theinterviews were recorded and transcribed. In order to overcomecommon method bias and improve internal and external validityand case study rigour, the data were triangulated (Gibbert et al.,2008). Organisational documents such as project reports, projectevaluations, and strategy reports supplemented the interviews byproviding additional insights into the way the context of learningbetween projects is shaped. In three cases group discussions wereused as an additional means to further validate findings fromthe interviews. At the same time they were used as catalyst forcreating conditions for inter-project learning. The participants of thegroup discussions (5–10 persons) also took part in the interviews.

In all cases the analysis was driven by the aim to understand thecontextual nature of learning between projects and, consequently,the effectiveness of both the sender/receiver approach and thesocial learning approach. On the one hand, the aim was to identifythe channels used in the organisations for the transfer of knowledgeand the extent to which project-specific conditions were effectivein supporting knowledge flow. Tools (e.g. intranet), measures(e.g. project evaluations) or organisational structures (e.g. projectmeetings) were characterised as channels to determine if they areable to connect organisational units and transfer knowledgebetween these units. On the other hand, the case material wasexplored to determine indicators for social learning and conditionsconducive to it. Here, the focus was on interactive and socialmechanisms through which knowledge is enacted and thusexchanged and developed in projects.

se III Case IV Case V

gineering corps Contractor Public agencygineering and buildingmilitary bases

Engineering and constructionof civil, infrastructure andindustrial facilities

Preparation, tenderingand managing of roadand waterway projects

pport unit Functional business unit Regional business unit0 (70) 2800 (200) 9000 (250)

arning process betweent-of-area projects

Project evaluations Project evaluations

cument analysis 14 project evaluations(8 tender processes,6 project completions)

4 project evaluations(2 tender processes,2 project completions)

interviewsengineers, 8porting staff)

12 interviews (5 projectmanagers 7 tender manager)1 group discussion(7 participants)

11 interviews(1 unit manager,1 internal consultant,9 project managers)1 group discussion(10 participants)

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

5A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

4. Findings

The findings of the five case studies are summarised in Table 2.We elaborate more on them in the next sections.

4.1. Case I

4.1.1. Effectiveness of the sender/receiver approachWithin the contractor organisation, two main channels were

established to support the exchange of knowledge and lessonslearned between employees and projects: project documents andelectronic repositories. Project documents include standardisedwork procedures, and general documents about procurement,quality management and information technologies. They repre-sent accumulated knowledge with normative character and areaccessible to all employees via the intranet. Documents related tospecific projects such as procurement, planning and evaluationdocuments are stored in an ERP software and database. Here,employees can also find checklists for purchasing, workpreparation and execution and can make recommendationsand give tips related to checklist items. In addition, the employeeshave the possibility to make improvement suggestions. Whileinterviewees indicate that the availability of standardised docu-ments is supportive for project work, they also stress that thedissemination of lessons learned through the EPR system remainslimited. The system is rarely used for suggestions or tips; projectevaluations are incomplete or not stored. The interviewsrevealed that one reason for the ineffectiveness is the timepressure employees face. Although employees are encouragedto evaluate projects after completion, they often need to startworking on the next project before the ongoing project isfinished. Due to resource allocation problems of this kind,any activity such as evaluations and improvement suggestionsthat does not contribute to the immediate success of the currentprojects is given less priority. Another reason for thelimited use of the EPR system is that employees perceiveknowledge obtained in projects as not relevant for theircolleagues and thus do not share it. They either believe thattheir colleagues already possess the knowledge or they thinkproject peculiarities make the knowledge less relevant forother projects.

4.1.2. Effectiveness of the social learning approachIn this case study, meetings on different levels and with

different communities are arenas for social interaction of peopleactive in different projects and organisations. This includes weeklymeetings of construction foremenwho discuss cross-project relatedissues and problems such as resource allocation and planningbottlenecks. Since the meetings address immediate questions ofongoing projects, they are regarded as an integral part of theworking process. From the perspective of the interviewees the clearfocus of the meetings on planning coordination between projectsstimulates the integration of knowledge from different employeesand projects for the benefit and progress of the specific project.For the foremen, the meetings provide the possibility to reflexivelythink about their own projects, which is seen as particularlybeneficial for new colleagues and novices. Pull-planning meetings

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

of the contractor with subcontractors are another example that wasreported. In these meetings all parties involved in a specific projectwork on a joint planning and provide input to the time and costscheduling from their own disciplinary and organisationalperspective. Again, the interviews indicate that the willingnessto engage and the perceived effectiveness stem from the immediatebenefit of the discussions for the project. Joint planning is the basisfor the weekly work coordination on the construction site betweenthose parties that are active in this work.

4.2. Case II

4.2.1. Effectiveness of the sender/receiver approachFrom the sender/receiver perspective the case study revealed

two channels for the transfer of knowledge between project phases:working documents and transfer meetings. Working documentsinclude tender documents, calculations, work preparation, anddrawings which are accumulated during a project and handedover to the next project phase. These working documents arerequired for the progress of the project and are seen as an effectiveway of providing necessary information for the task accomplish-ment in project phases. However, although the information fromprevious phases is necessary, interviews revealed that it is notalways sufficient if the reasoning behind a specific calculation ordrawing is not traceable from the documents. For example, for aforeman it will remain difficult to determine the risk of costoverruns if he does not know the rationale of the estimator forallocating costs to activities. The knowledge of the estimator isembodied in the cost figures but is not immediately accessible tothe foreman.

Transfer meetings were introduced to give the possibility tounderstand the outcomes of previous project phases. They areespecially established for the time after winning a tender when theentire project team is expected to meet and transfer the knowledgefrom the tender and calculation phase to the work preparation andexecution phase. However, it was reported that the transfermeetings are ineffective. Employees do not participate; meetingsare cursory affairs or are completely cancelled. The interviewsrevealed that time pressure decreases the effectiveness of transfermeetings for knowledge transfer. The meetings are regardedas extra workload with little added value for the on-goingwork. In addition, the geographical separation of project teammembers and projects is regarded as an additional barrier for themeetings.

4.2.2. Effectiveness of the social learning approachIn this case organisation social learning mechanisms became

manifest in the estimator/planner interaction during the workpreparation phase. For the planners and foremen, as mentionedbefore, assumptions made during the tender and calculation phaseare not always comprehensible. From tender and calculationdocuments alone the chain of thought of the estimator is notvisible to them. The case interviews indicate that the underlyingreason becomes clear to the planning engineer through discussionwith the estimator preferably supported by the close proximity ofboth. This discussion is guided by the immediate questions theplanning engineer is dealing with in his work and the required

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

Table 2Summary of case findings.

Case I Case II Case III Case IV Case V

Sender/receiverapproach

Learning transferchannels used

Project documentationsabout tendering, planningand evaluation

Working documents fortendering, calculation,work preparation, design

Annual teambuilding sessions

Workshops forevaluating tendersand projects

Workshops forevaluating workprocesses andchange programmes

Project guidelines forprocurement, workpreparation, execution

Transfer meetingsbetween tendering,calculation andwork preparation

Evaluations ofout-of-area projects

Workshops forevaluating tendersand projects

Workshops forevaluating workprocesses andchange programmes

EPR software anddatabase

Design drawings ofprevious overseas bases

Documents of tenderand projectevaluations

Documents of workprocess and changeprogramme evaluations

Effectivenessconditions a

Time for documentation Time for participationin transfer meetings

Time for conductingevaluations

Time for accessingevaluation results

Time for providing andaccessing evaluations

Relevance of evaluationsand drawings for newprojects

Relevance ofdocumentation forother colleaguesand projects

Location ofproject teams

Accessibility ofevaluations

Relevance ofevaluations fornew projects

Relevance ofevaluation results

Social learningapproach

Project learningcontext

Project meetings forintra-organisationalcoordination

Interfaces betweentender, calculation andexecution phase

Transfer periodsbetween home andoverseas bases

Accessibility ofevaluations

Accountability forpublic infrastructure

Pull planning meetingsfor inter-organisationalcoordination

Design and constructionphase of out-of-areaprojects

Project meetings forintra-organisationalcoordination

Project start-ups

Effectivenessconditions a

Orientation towardsproject planning issues

Orientation towardsproject tasks

Change of personnelbetween projects andwithin organisation

Project meetings forproblem solving

Location of project team Involvement throughoutprojects

Orientation towardscurrent project issues

Involvement ofevaluator in currentproject

Commitment toproject and team

Location of project team Accessibility ofspecialisedemployees

Orientation towardsproblems withinprojects

a Conditions refer to factors that, if available, are conducive to learning and, if not available, limit learning.

6 A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

understanding of the calculation figures to answer the questions.It is this task-oriented interaction through which knowledge isenacted and learning can occur. The transfer meetings, althoughmeant to support the transfer of knowledge from the tender to thework preparation phase, are decoupled from the immediateworking process and evoke the perception of additional workload.However, the case also revealed that employees perceive a strongfunctional separation and lack of project identification whichappears to impede interaction. A cultural atmosphere of individ-ualism pervades projects and the moments of interaction aremainly problem-induced.

4.3. Case III

4.3.1. Effectiveness of the sender/receiver approachAt this military engineering organisation there are several

channels established and used to for the knowledge transferbetween employees and projects, such as team building sessions,project evaluations and design drawings. Team building sessionsare annual meetings at which specific engineering topics and newdevelopments are presented. These sessions are regarded as

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

beneficial, since they stimulate reflection and discussion amongpeers. However, they are seen as insufficient to regularly updatethe knowledge base. For this reason project evaluations wereintroduced, but their effectiveness appears to be small. Accordingto interviewees evaluations are done on an irregular basis, sincethey are not seen as necessary; task and time constraints regularlyprompt employees to neglect them. Evaluation outcomes arecentrally stored, but although interviewed employees know thatevaluation results are available, they have difficulties findingthem and rarely make use of them. Reasons that are mentionedinclude the outdated knowledge of evaluations, which isdirectly related to the irregular implementation of evaluations.In addition, interviewed employees criticise the unstructuredstorage of evaluation results, which makes it difficult for themto extract and transfer the knowledge in a new project context.Another channel are design drawings of military bases whichcapture design knowledge from previous projects and are used asa starting point for the base design in new projects. They areinsofar effective as they become tools in the design activityenabling the reuse and adjustment of design elements for the newproject.

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

7A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

4.3.2. Effectiveness of the social learning approachSocial learning is much connected with team interaction due to

changes in team composition between projects and continuousinvolvement within projects. For every project a new team isconstituted with team members from different disciplines such ascivil engineering and electrical engineering. The team membersare partly based at the overseas base and partly at the home base.Depending on the project phase and the work to be done, teammembers alternate between home and the overseas base. For thenecessary transfer of responsibilities and tasks, a certain period oftime is granted which due to the close proximity of teammembersin the overseas base support interaction and learning. This regularexchange of personnel in out-of-area projects becomes part of theworking process, and the needed transfer periods are regarded asconducive for enacting knowledge around the specific circum-stances of the out-of-area project. Although the main task isthe design of military bases, staff of the engineering corps is alsoinvolved as internal consultant in subsequent phases of a baseproject. Engineers become responsible for the quality of baseconstruction based on their design, which is seen as supportive forthe knowledge development within a project. It is this combinationof change and continuation which leads to work-related interac-tions crossing different projects and thus facilitating cross-projectlearning. Additional support comes from the policy that militarypersonnel must change its position every few years. Despite therisk of losing person-bound experiences, this is also perceived as achance of new perspectives and different experiences which can beunfolded in project work.

4.4. Case IV

4.4.1. Effectiveness of the sender/receiver approachThis case organisation, a functional business unit of a

contractor, follows a very structured and standardised evalu-ation process of tenders and projects in order to use evaluationdocuments and workshops as channels for the exchange ofknowledge and lessons learned. Steps are described and topicsto be evaluated are mentioned. An evaluation form is provided,but its use is not mandatory. Despite the existence of a detailedevaluation procedure with a number of guiding protocols andforms and the open atmosphere during evaluation workshops,evaluation reports of only a third of the annual projects couldbe found in the central quality management system. From theperspective of interviewees one reason for this is the unclearresponsibility for initiating and coordinating evaluations. Someinterviewed employees see the responsibility with the manage-ment team of the business unit whereas other employees placethe responsibility on the central quality management team. Thereported effectiveness of the evaluations conducted is mixed.Interviews indicate that there is willingness of project members toparticipate in and contribute to evaluation workshops that areregarded as useful, since they allow tender and project teamsto reflect on the process and outcomes and are occasions forthe learning within the teams. On the other hand, evaluationdocuments are rarely studied to extract lessons learned for acurrent project. The interviews revealed that three related factorsaccount for this: the low relevance of generally described lessons

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

for future projects, the difficulties in accessing very detailedevaluations of previous projects, and the insufficient time foraccessing these evaluations. It appears that the dilemma ofevaluation documents lies in the necessity of providing contextualproject information to allow for relevance judgement of lessonslearned while the extended description of project context increaseseffort and time to transfer lessons learned for the current project.

4.4.2. Effectiveness of the social learning approachThe case study showed that social learning in project

evaluations is connected to the application of evaluation resultswhich are not stored in reports but which are made available duringregular project meetings. Interviewees reported that discussions ofcurrent project issues are supported with results from evaluationsof previous projects. The benefit and thus willingness to useevaluations emerged in the direct working process through theirconfrontation with context specific problems and challenges.However, evaluation results are bound to certain employees ratherthan linked to specific documents. It was stressed in the interviewsthat it is important to localise employees who are able to contributeto a project with disciplinary expertise stemming from previousprojects. In this sense, evaluations are regarded beneficial if theyfocus on specific functional disciplines or topics (e.g. contractissues, stakeholder management, cost estimation) and if evaluationresults are outlined in presentations. Although the latter can also beseen as a channel for the transfer of lessons learned, presentationsare rather perceived as an efficient way of getting to knowproblems and their solutions of a specific project and affiliatingstaff members to the project, who then can be more easilyapproached for discussions on similar problems in other projects.

4.5. Case V

4.5.1. Effectiveness of the sender/receiver approachProject evaluations are very prominent within the agencywhich

can be traced back to the accountability as public organisation.They are regarded as tools to check the efficiency of the agency'swork processes and the effectiveness of change programmes. Thishas become an important aspect in recent years, since the agencyhas been in a transition towards a network operator placing moreemphasis on the needs of infrastructure users and outsourcing coreactivities to private parties. Evaluations of regular infrastructureprojects aim at facilitating this transition by having a closer lookat different elements of the agency's new role (e.g. contract andperformance management) and informing policy making. Howev-er, although many projects are evaluated, there is no clearevaluation procedure, evaluation goals are rather general orcloudy, and concrete outcomes are often missing. Evaluationsbecome goals of their own and thus less relevant. Not surprisingly,there is the perception among the interviewees that results ofevaluations rarely find their way into new projects. Employeesfind it difficult and time-consuming to search for evaluation resultsfrom other agency units, but also to make their results available tothese units. Evaluation results are disseminated first of all withinthe own business unit and channels used to transfer these resultsare reports and workshops. Reports are seen as less effectiveand are rather project documentations used to inform higher

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

8 A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

management levels than starting points for learning in otherprojects or policy development. Workshops conducted afterlarger projects are perceived to be more effective, since highermanagement is not only informed about project results but alsoinvolved in discussions about implications for further projectsand policy.

4.5.2. Effectiveness of the social learning approachThe discussions held during the workshops are already

indicators for the existence of social learning. Lessons learnedare not purely transferred to higher management levels but in aninteractive way translated into consequences for the agency's workprocesses. Social learning also emerges in the application ofevaluation results. Evaluations become relevant at the start-up ofnew projects or if problems are encountered during projects. It wasreported that employees then revert to evaluations of previousprojects to make lessons learned available for the new project or thesolution of the problems through the discussion with colleagues.What this distinguishes from the sender/receiver approach is thepoint that these employees were often involved in the projectevaluations which are referred to. Learning does not occur throughthe extraction of knowledge from an evaluation report butrather through socially unfolding individual experiences froman evaluated project in the context of a new project. Intervieweesreport that the value of evaluations stems from the reflectionamong project team members that is triggered. Lessons learnedare embedded in the interactions of the project team about whichawareness is created through the evaluation task and to whichteam members revert in other projects.

5. Cross case comparison and discussion

We investigated the effectiveness of the sender/receiverapproach and the social learning approach of project-basedlearning in five case studies from the Dutch constructionindustry. Being from one industry but having different units ofanalysis, the five cases allow for comparative generalisationwith a finely nuanced discussion of empirical differences in thelearning approach.

5.1. The limitations of transferring lessons learned

The five cases are very much in line with previous studies interms of limitations of the sender/receiver approach in learningfrom projects. It became apparent that the transfer of knowledgefrom one project to another project via several channels isimpeded by characteristics that seem inherent to the contextualnature of project-based organisations. Two of these characteris-tics are particularly prevalent and appear to be interlinked: timeconstraints and obscured relevance or unclear purpose. In allcases, employees lacked time to either adequately capture, storeand transfer lessons learned (Case I, II, III) or search and extractuseful lessons from project and evaluation documents (Case IV,V). Even in organisations that are more forced to conductevaluations due to their public accountability (Hall et al., 2012),the actual provision and access of lessons learned are alsovulnerable to time constraints (Case V). The sender needs time to

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

capture and store lessons learned in a way that they can becomerelevant for the receiver, who needs time to determine whether theprovided knowledge is relevant for his/her project. The inherentuncertainties and fluctuations in resource demand of project-basedorganisations particularly prompt employees in periods of highwork load to neglect or omit activities which do not directlycontribute to the progress of a project (Swan et al., 2010). Besidesthe time that is needed to formulate (sender) and understand(receiver) the essence of project learning, it generally remainsdifficult for employees to determine the relevance and purpose ofparticular knowledge for subsequent projects. To some extent thismay be attributed to the lack of guidance and responsibility(Cases III, IV, V), but is additionally rooted in the delicatebalance between generalisation and specification (Cases I, IV).Through generalisation information is lost and lessons learned aremarginalised, but the potential application to future projectsis increased. On the other hand, specification enriches lessonslearned, but decreases their accessibility and their potential valuefor other projects (Bresnen et al., 2003).

From our perspective, the limitations of the sender/receiverapproach emerge from the attempt to remove or at least to reduceconstraints inherent to projects. The managerial fallacy of theapproach lies in the assumption that the transfer of knowledge canbe easily improved by making more time available and providingadequate tools for collecting and disseminating lessons learned.Based on our cases, we suggest that time constraints and unclearrelevance will remain typical characteristics of project-basedindustries limited in their ability to balance changing demandrates. Of course, approaches to enhance the learning betweenprojects need to address these characteristics, but they should becareful in trying to overcome and deny production structuresinherent to project industries and conceptually and practicallyseparating the learning from its context (Bresnen et al., 2004). Inall five cases the ineffectiveness of learning from projects canbe related to the separation of the learning from the immediateproject work. Activities of capturing, disseminating and deter-mining lessons learned were not part of the working process. As aconsequence, the willingness to conduct them was very low; theyreceived low priority or were completely dismissed. As soon aslearning is understood as separate activity and detached fromactual project tasks, its relevance for projects is concealed and it isperceived as an additional workload rather than as a contributionto current and future projects.

5.2. Goal-oriented learning from projects in projects

The social learning approach regards learning as a contextualemerging practice, and the five case studies could provide evidencefor its theoretical and practical potential that is still underestimated.Learning from projects occurred when employees were engaged inproject work. From the social learning perspective that is notsurprising, since learning is seen as something that is “ubiquitousand part of human activity as such” (Elkjaer, 2003, p.43). It was theproject work that triggered learning through posing problems andquestions, and offering opportunities and challenges. Employeesneeded to coordinate project resources (Cases I, IV), understandthe outcomes of previous project phases (Cases II, III), and prepare

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

9A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

project start-ups (Case V). In order to accomplish their tasks, theyreverted to and engaged with project documentations (Cases I,II, III), evaluation results (Cases IV, V), and knowledgeablecolleagues (all Cases). Particularly the orientation towards thegoals of a project or single project tasks guided the integrationof documents and persons in the ongoing work and, by doingso, made use of the knowledge generated in previous projects.By incorporating the knowledge generated in previous projects,documents and persons represented mediating elements in theproject work rather than knowledge transfer channels betweenprojects. Instead of purely transferring knowledge, it was unfoldedthrough the interaction of project team members with thesemediating elements directed by the goals of the specific project ortask. Based on these findings, we see our initial argumentsupported that learning from projects takes place within projectsand that, given the contextual nature of learning, it seems essentialto give the learning in projects more focus and orientation so thatthe learning between projects is further facilitated. In this regard,reflexivity becomes an important ingredient in project work whichallows employees to make their experiences explicit in projectmeetings with peers (Case I), bilateral discussions with projectteam members (Cases II, III, V), and workshops with highermanagement (Case IV). As such, it also becomes part of theproject-related interactions of employees and should not bedecoupled from the immediate working practice. Althoughdistance from daily affairs can be supportive for scrutinizingtaken-for-granted presuppositions of project work, reflexivepractices organisationally separated from projects (e.g. thematicworkshops) should connect to reflexive practices within projects(Høyrup, 2004). Employees not only acquire meaning andunderstanding from project practice through reflexivity, but alsocreate this practice by institutionalising knowledge which istranslated into design principles, organisational structures andprocesses, or task responsibilities (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2001).Individual experiences and knowledge gained in past projectsthen emerge and are integrated in current project work (Cases III,IV, V), drawings and guidelines act as tools in the interaction ofemployees (Cases I, III), and involvement in and commitment toprojects are constituted (Cases II, III). The learning in previousprojects is contextually bound to the learning in ongoing projects.

5.3. Practical implications

Our research has three main practical implications for thelearning between projects.

First, managers in project-based organisations should put lesseffort in capturing knowledge from projects through imposingadditional activities in projects, and they should rely less ontransferring lessons learned via documents or electronic plat-forms to other projects. That is not to say the sender/receiverapproach is completely ineffective in project environments. It canbe effective if, first of all, it is regarded as a way of informingabout project results and pointing to knowledgeable personsrather than an instrument for stimulating learning. Learning willbe only facilitated if managers do not treat projects as isolatedsender and receiver entities and what is regarded as learningtransfer channels become part of the actual project work

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

(Noorderhaven and Harzing, 2009). Learning needs to beregarded as an evolving process embedded in project-basedpractice and should be facilitated through organising the context ofthis practice. Here, a possible contribution of the sender/receiverapproach might be the organisation of repositories by “practice”and the appointment of practitioners as moderator or ambassadorper practice. These practitioners are responsible for the progress ofthe practice and the provision of guidance on what informationshould be kept per project.

Second, our research suggests that managers of project-basedorganisations can support cross-project learning by linking projectsthrough strategic goals, which are translated to the specific project.They should be more explicit about the guiding goals of a singleproject and should relate them to the overarching goals of theorganisation. Goals then become important contextual elementsthat can act as binders between projects. That such deliberatecoupling of sequential projects may improve the learning betweenprojects is indicated by Dorée and Holmen (2004). In their studyon technology innovation they showed that a constructioncontractor followed a path-dependent process for developinga bridge technology through a number of sequential projects,but without having an explicit technology development strategyand being more backward-looking rather than future-oriented.They suggest a more proactive stance of contractors to becomeaware of their project-crossing trajectories and arrange couplingsbetween projects.

Third, our research also shows that people and documents(e.g. drawings, contracts, manuals) embody knowledge gainedin projects and that this knowledge is enacted through interaction.For managers of project-based organisation this means that theyshould pay more attention to the inflow and accessibility ofknowledgeable employees and documents in projects (Holzmann,2013; Swan et al., 2010). The composition of project teams,the creation of commitment and responsibility for projects, andthe integration of disciplinary and cross-disciplinary meetings inprojects can be suitablemeans to facilitate goal-oriented interactionof employees within projects. The latter should also providethe opportunity for reflexive discourses which direct attention tocritical aspects of project practice in the light of the project-specificgoals (Boyd, 2013). These discourses can support the identifica-tion and understanding of lessons learned but at the same time canstimulate the adjustment and modification of documents butalso organisational structures (e.g. task distribution, responsi-bilities) and technologies (e.g. software, machinery) withina project and the assessment of their implications for otherprojects and an organisation's strategy.

5.4. Research limitations

This research has some limitations because learning was notinvestigated as part of the evolvement of project practice. It reliedon the ability of practitioners to reflect on their practice and theoccurrence of learning. In their accounts the sender/receiverapproach got more attention, which may be explained with theappealing promise of the approach to engineer and control thelearning process. The social and contextual aspects of learningbecame primarily apparent through narratives around project work.

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

10 A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

Although narratives are suitable vehicles for grasping com-plexity and alternative views of practice in a reflective manner(Heylighen et al., 2007; Koners and Goffin, 2007), they remainex-post representations of practice that may miss part of thispractice through which learning occurs. Possible alternativesare ethnographic-based studies that are able to address theevolving and transformative nature of project practices andthus the contextual emergence of learning. They can providemore intimate insights into the historical-infused interplay ofindividual, organisational and institutional factors in projectsand their interrelatedness with learning. Of particular interestcould be how cross-project trajectories are formulated andtranslated into activity-guiding objectives within projects andwhich role individuals and tools play in connecting differentprojects. A further worthwhile direction for research is the extentto which characteristics of project work are relaxed in organisa-tions that are not completely structured around projects. Thus, theeffectiveness of learning approaches may play out differently.Compared to our five cases from the construction industry, otherorganisations may use projects along other organisational formsand are less vulnerable to uncertainties and fluctuations in resourcedemand. Single projects may receive other priorities for knowledgedevelopment (e.g. R&D projects) and in the institutionalisation ofknowledge (e.g. change projects). The learning may then oscillatebetween the project and the organisational level, and organisationsmay embark on different learning trajectories (Hartmann et al.,2010). Nonetheless, the learning will remain part of the immediateproject practices, and the challenges for learning from projectslie in transcending these practices by identifying and establishingmechanisms that are able to contextually connect projects.

6. Conclusion

The sender/receiver approach of learning appears to be veryattractive for the learning between projects, since projects seemto form distinctive entities of temporary nature and withorganisational boundaries, which make the transfer of lessonslearned between them necessary and plausible. Although fromthe sender/receiver perspective the difficulties of cross-projectlearning are well recognised, both research and practice continueto predominately rely on the approach. However, as our five casestudies from the construction industry revealed, if projects areperceived as sender/receiver islands, then lessons learned remain“messages in bottles”— freely afloat on the ocean of knowledge,arriving at new shores by chance. Our case findings suggest thatan approach of learning between projects should consider theindividual, social and organisational context through whichprojects are formed and which is constantly produced byproject activities. Projects are not sender/receiver islands.They are connected through their organisational setting, toolsand norms, and the experiences of project team members. Ourresearch clearly indicates that particularly the orientation towardsproject goals, project-overarching ambitions or developmentaltrajectories helps in facilitating the learning. Learning betweenprojects then becomes more than sending and receiving lessonslearned. It is a social accomplishment taking place within projects

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

and through goal-oriented activities that enact knowledge embed-ded in the interlinking project context.

References

Ayas, K., Zenuik, N., 2001. Project-based learning: building communities ofreflective practitioners. Management Learning 32, 61–76.

Bakker, R.M., Cambré, B., Korlaar, L., Raab, J., 2011. Managing the projectlearning paradox: a set-theoretic approach toward project knowledge transfer.International journal of project management 29, 494–503.

Bandura, A., 1977. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall,New York.

Bishop, J., Bouchlaghem, D., Glass, J., Matsumoto, I., 2008. Ensuring theeffectiveness of a knowledge management initiative. Journal of KnowledgeManagement 12, 16–29.

Boyd, D., 2013. Using events to connect thinking and doing in knowledgemanagement. Construction Management and Economics 31, 1144–1159.

Bresnen,M.,Edelman, L.,Newell, S.,Scarbrough, H.,Swan, J., 2003. Social practicesand themanagement of knowledge in project environments. International Journalof Project Management 21, 157–166.

Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., 2004. Embedding new managementknowledge in project-based organizations. Organization studies 25, 1535–1555.

Brown, J.S., Duguid, P., 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation.Organization science 2 (1), 40–57.

Carlile, P.R., 2004. Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrativeframework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organizationscience 15 (5), 555–568.

Carrillo, P., 2004. Managing knowledge: lessons from the oil and gas sector.Construction Management and Economics 22, 631–642.

Chua, A., Lam, W., 2005. Why KM projects fail: a multi-case analysis. Journalof Knowledge Management 9, 6–17.

Cook, S.D., Brown, J.S., 1999. Bridging epistemologies: The generative dancebetween organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organiza-tion science 10 (4), 381–400.

Dorée, A.G.,Holmen, E., 2004. Achieving the unlikely: innovating in the looselycoupled construction system. Construction Management and Economics 22,827–838.

Easterby‐Smith, M., Crossan, M., Nicolini, D., 2000. Organizational learning:debates past, present and future. Journal of management studies 37, 783–796.

Edmondson, A.C.,Nembhard, I.M., 2009. Product development and learning inproject teams: the challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 26, 123–138.

Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academyof management review 14, 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases:opportunities and challenges. Academy of management journal 50, 25–32.

Elkjaer, B., 2003. Social learning theory: learning as participation in social processes.In: Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learningand knowledge managementBlackwell Publishing. Malden, MA, pp. 38–53.

Engwall, M., 2003. No project is an island: linking projects to history and context.Research policy 32, 789–808.

Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitativeinquiry 12, 219–245.

Gherardi, S., 2000. Practice-based theorizing on learning and knowing inorganizations. Organization 7, 211–223.

Gherardi, S., 2006. Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of WorkplaceLearning. Blackwell, Oxford.

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., 2001. The sociological foundations of organizationallearning. In: Dierkes, M., Antal, A.B., Child, J., Nonaka, I. (Eds.), Handbookof Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp. 35–60.

Gibbert, M.,Ruigrok, W.,Wickie, B., 2008. What passes as a rigorous case study?Strategic Management Journal 29, 1465–1474.

Hall, M.,Kutsch, E.,Partington, D., 2012. REMOVING THE CULTURAL ANDMANAGERIAL BARRIERS IN PROJECT‐TO‐PROJECT LEARNING: A

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/

11A. Hartmann, A. Dorée / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

CASE FROM THE UK PUBLIC SECTOR. Public Administration 90 (3),664–684.

Hartmann, A., Davies, A., Frederiksen, L., 2010. Learning to deliver service‐enhanced public infrastructure: balancing contractual and relational capabil-ities. Construction Management and Economics 28 (11), 1165–1175.

Heylighen, A., Martin, W.M., Cavallin, H., 2007. Building stories revisited:unlocking the knowledge capital of architectural practice. ArchitecturalEngineering and Design Management 3, 65–74.

Holzmann, V., 2013. A meta-analysis of brokering knowledge in projectmanagement. International Journal of Project Management 31, 2–13.

Høyrup, S., 2004. Reflection as a core process in organisational learning.Journal of Workplace Learning 16, 442–454.

Joshi, K.D., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., 2007. Knowledge transfer within informationsystems development teams: examining the role of knowledge sourceattributes. Decision Support Systems 43, 322–335.

Kasper, H.,Lehrer, M.,Mühlbacher, J.,Müller, B., 2013. On the different “worlds” ofintra-organizational knowledge management: understanding idiosyncratic vari-ation in MNC cross-site knowledge-sharing practices. International BusinessReview 22, 326–338.

Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2001. Quantity versus quality in project-based learningpractices. Management learning 32, 77–98.

Koners, U., Goffin, K., 2007. Learning from postproject reviews: a cross caseanalysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24, 242–258.

Koskinen, K.U.,Pihlanto, P.,Vanharanta, H., 2003. Tacit knowledge acquisition andsharing in a project work context. International journal of project management21, 281–290.

Kumaraswamy, M.M., Thorpe, A., 1996. Systematizing construction projectevaluations. Journal of Management in Engineering 12, 34–39.

Lam, A., 2000. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societalinstitutions: an integrated framework. Organization studies 21, 487–513.

Lave, J.,Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.Cambridge University Press.

Lin, L., Geng, X., Whinston, A.B., 2005. A sender-receiver framework forknowledge transfer. MIS quarterly 197–219.

Liyanage, C.,Elhag, T.,Ballal, T.,Li, Q., 2009. Knowledge communication andtranslation–a knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge manage-ment 13 (3), 118–131.

Newell, S.,Edelman, L.F., 2008. Developing a dynamic project learning and cross-project learning capability: synthesizing two perspectives. Information SystemsJournal 18, 567–591.

Maqsood, T., Finegan, A., Walker, D., 2006. Applying project histories andproject learning through knowledge management in an Australianconstruction company. Learning Organization, The 13 (1), 80–95.

Marabelli, M., Newell, S., 2012. Knowledge risks in organizational networks:The practice perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21(1), 18–30.

Please cite this article as: A. Hartmann, A. Dorée, 2014. Learning between projects: Mj.ijproman.2014.07.006

Newell, S.,Bresnen, M.,Edelman, L.,Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., 2006. Sharingknowledge across projects limits to ICT-led project review practices.Management Learning 37, 167–185.

Nicolini, D., 2011. Practice as the site of knowing: insights from the field oftelemedicine. Organization Science 22 (3), 602–620.

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995. The Knowledge-creating Company: HowJapanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford UniversityPress, New York.

Noorderhaven, N.,Harzing, A.W., 2009. Knowledge-sharing and social interactionwithin MNEs. Journal of International Business Studies 40, 719–741.

Orlikowski, W.J., 2006. Material knowing: the scaffolding of human knowledge-ability. European Journal of Information Systems 15, 460–466.

Paranagamage, P.,Carrillo, P.,Ruikar, K.,Fuller, P., 2012. Lessons learned practicesin the UK construction sector: current practice and proposed improvements.Engineering Project Organization Journal 2, 216–230.

Plaskoff, J., 2003. Intersubjectivity and community building: learning to learnorganizationally. In: Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. (Eds.), Handbook ofOrganizational Learning and Knowledge ManagementBlackwell Publishing.Malden, MA, pp. 161–184.

Roth, J., 2003. Enabling knowledge creation: learning from an R&D organization.Journal of Knowledge Management 7, 32–48.

Ruikar, K., Anumba, C.J., Egbu, C., 2007. Integrated use of technologies andtechniques for construction knowledge management. Knowledge ManagementResearch & Practice 5, 297–311.

Schindler, M., Eppler, M.J., 2003. Harvesting project knowledge: a review ofproject learning methods and success factors. International Journal of ProjectManagement 21, 219–228.

Shokri-Ghasabeh, M., Chileshe, N., 2014. Knowledge management: barriers tocapturing lessons learned fromAustralian construction contractors perspective.Construction Innovation: Information, Process, Management 14, 108–134.

Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., Newell, S., 2010. Why don't (or do) organizationslearn from projects? Management Learning 41, 325–344.

Storey, J., Barnett, E., 2000. Knowledge management initiatives: learning fromfailure. Journal of knowledge management 4 (2), 145–156.

Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., DeFillippi, R., 2004. Project-based organizations,embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: Editorial. OrganizationStudies 25 (9), 1475.

Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., Coffey, V., 2013. Organizationalculture and willingness to share knowledge: a competing values perspectivein Australian context. International Journal of Project Management 31,1163–1174.

Williams, T., 2008. How do organizations learn lessons from projects—and dothey? Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on 55, 248–266.

Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, vol. 5. SAGEPublications, Incorporated.

ore than sending messages in bottles, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/