managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organisations

Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects andproject organisations

Jyrki J.J. Kasvi*, Matti Vartiainen, Milla Hailikari

Laboratory of Work Psychology and Leadership, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Helsinki University of Technology,

PO Box 9500, FIN-02015 HUT, Finland

Received 23 January 2002; received in revised form 8 August 2002; accepted 1 October 2002

Abstract

While project organisations have become common, knowledge management of project organisations are still largely under-developed. Nevertheless, project organisations require particular systematic and effective knowledge management if they are toavoid knowledge fragmentation and loss of organisational learning. This study deals with knowledge management and knowledge

competences in project organisations, particularly framework programmes. In addition to a literature study, two programmes and areview project have been studied. Finally, a Learning Programme Model is presented.# 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Knowledge management; Project memory; Project organisation; Programme management

1. Introduction

Identification of critical knowledge and the ability toutilise it is a challenge for any project organisation.Successful project management is based, on the onehand on accumulated knowledge, and, on the otherhand, on individual and collective competences.Project management literature focuses on the private

sector, but often projects involve both private and pub-lic organisations, and receive public funding. Forexample, in the course of the V Framework Programmethe European Commission funds research and develop-ment projects with 13.7 billion euros. Organisationsproviding public funding often organise projects intospecial project organisations, programmes. Projects thatbelong to a programme have related goals and couldgain synergy benefits from information sharing. Facil-itating such intra- and inter-organisational interactionrequires not only new kinds of communication andknowledge management practices and competences butalso tools that support these practices. But informationsystems used to support project collaboration and reuseof past experiences are still mostly restricted to documentsharing [2].

1.1. Project knowledge and knowledge management

Every project has several potential outputs, not all ofwhich are necessarily intentional:

� A product (or service) delivered for an internalor external customer.

� Project knowledge related to the product, itsproduction and use:� Technical knowledge concerning the product,

its parts and technologies.� Procedural knowledge concerning producing

and using of the product and acting in aproject.

� Organisational knowledge concerningcommunication and collaboration.

People involved in projects are not only organisa-tionally but also geographically dispersed. They havediverse backgrounds and may speak several languages.For example, in order to develop a new product, acompany may bring in people from suppliers, clientsand universities. But projects are temporally limited,and the people involved, and the lessons learned aredispersed when the project ends. Often people changeeven during a project. Sometimes it is difficult to findpeople who have been involved in a project from its

0263-7863/03/$20.00 # 2003 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00057-1

International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 571–582

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +358-9-4512852; fax: +358-9-

4513665.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.J.J. Kasvi).

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman/a4.3d

mailto:[email protected]

beginning. Combined with employee empowerment andinformation decentralisation typical to project organi-sations, this results in organisational knowledgefragmentation and loss of organisational learning [1].One of the main challenges of project management is

the minor and tangled accumulation of knowledge. Thecontent and quality of the knowledge created vary, aswell as the ability of organisations to utilise it. In thisstudy, knowledge management in a project is consideredto consist of four groups of activities:

1. Knowledge creation, for example collection,
combination and refinement.
2. Knowledge administration, for example storage,
organisation and retrieval.
3. Knowledge dissemination within and outside the
project.
4. Knowledge utilisation and productisation, for
example integration into products and decisions,and application in other projects.
There are two basic strategies for managing knowl-edge [3]. The codification strategy is based on codifyingthe knowledge and storing it in artefacts and databaseswhere it can be accessed. In the personalisation strategy,the knowledge is tied to persons who develop it and it isshared by personal interaction. As the main focus inknowledge management concentrates on ICT tools andexplicit knowledge (codification), face-to-face interaction(personalisation), needs to be strengthened.

1.2. Project Memory and Project Organisation Memory

The concept of Project Memory originates from theconcept of organisational memory that is used to define(1) knowledge present in an organisation and (2) theprocesses by which this knowledge is managed [4]. Thisduality is underlined by two seemingly similar defini-tions: while Walsh and Ungson [4] define organisationalmemory as stored information from an organisation’shistory that can be brought to bear on present decision,Stein and Zwass [5] define organisational memory as themeans by which knowledge from the past is brought tobear on present activities.

In order to keep content and system apart, we shalluse the term Project Memory to describe knowledgefrom a project’s history that can be brought to bear onthe present, and Project Memory System to describe themeans by which the Project Memory is realised(Table 1).Actually, a Project Memory System should be able to

handle two distinctively different kinds of knowledge. Itis not enough that a project manages technical andprocedural results. Organisational knowledge, the waythese results were obtained should be stored as well. If aProject Memory System captures only documents, thecontexts and the processes behind the documents arelost [6]. If these lessons are not stored for future pro-jects, the organisation cannot understand what hap-pened and why. In order to retain the context andprocess information, documents have to be appendedwith meta-knowledge that links knowledge items withtheir environment [7].Procedures and tools that systematically manage pro-

ject knowledge and meta-knowledge are needed. And ifother projects are to benefit from this knowledge, pro-cedures and tools that transfer knowledge from oneproject to other projects are needed, too. This inter-project approach requires us to expand our conceptsinto an organisational setting: Project OrganisationMemory is knowledge stored from an organisation’spast projects that is brought to bear on the present,and Project Organisation Memory System is themeans by which the Project Organisation Memory isrealised.

1.3. Research questions

In order to understand requirements and opportu-nities for Project Organisation Memory Systems inR&D programmes, two research questions weredefined:

1. How do framework programmes manage
knowledge?
2. What knowledge management competences are
required in framework programmes?
Table 1

Knowledge management strategies and project memories

Project memory system
Project memory
Codification strategy
Traditional and new information and
communication technologies (e.g. documents,

databases, email)

Explicit and declarative knowledge (e.g. specifications,

instructions, definitions)

Personalisation strategy
Memory representations, personal interaction
(e.g. mental models, dialogues workshops, seminars)

Tacit and procedural knowledge (e.g. competences,

values, norms)

572 J.J.J. Kasvi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 571–582

2. Data and methods

2.1. Cases A, B and C

The cases involved two national framework pro-grammes and one smaller review project. The pro-grammes and the project were organised by theFederation of Finnish Metal Engineering and Electro-technical Industries1 (MET), and they were partly fundedby Tekes, the National Technology Agency2 and partly bythe participating companies.MET is a prestigious nationalorganisation and has long experience in organisingresearch and development programmes and projects.The programmes (cases A and B) involved several

organisations including international companies, smalland medium sized enterprises, universities and researchinstitutions. Case A aimed to secure technological com-petitiveness of the Finnish shipbuilding and shippingindustry. The total volume of the 3-year programmewas EUR 2.5 million. Case B aimed to increase the effi-ciency of medium and heavy assembly. The totalvolume of the 3-year programme was EUR 17.6 million.The review project (Case C) mapped the preconditions toestablish a new framework programme in the field of pro-duct information in networked businesses. Case Cinvolved a single research institute that collected informa-tion from a large number of companies operating in a sin-gle branch of business. Its total budget was EUR 130000.The MET framework programme process consists of

five stages (Fig. 1):

1. Ideating process includes thinking up pro-
gramme content and potential participants.
2. Charting of requirements ensures that there is
interest and possibilities for the ideated pro-gramme.
3. Start-up includes programme planning and call-
ing for project proposals.
4. The carrying out stage consist of running the
programme and the involved projects.
5. Completion involves evaluation and dissemina-
tion of the results.
It should be noted that case study methodology limitsgeneralisability of our results. While the cases were notchosen for any particular virtue, they are not randomexamples of MET programmes. What is more, thenumber of the cases and interviewees was limited andthey came from a single cultural background. Never-theless, we believe that the results demonstrate theimportance of project knowledge management and offera good starting point for future research.

2.2. Interviews

In all, 24 project participants were interviewed (CaseA, n=12; Case B, n=9; Case C, n=3) during the winter2000–2001. As a result of a tape recorder malfunction,one of the interviews was lost, and there is a differenceof one in the number of interviews and the number ofquestionnaires filled by the interviewees.The interviewees were selected to offer a selection of

all the notable groups involved: large and small compa-nies, primary and secondary project partners, uni-versities, research institutes, programme managers andprogramme steering groups. The interviewees wereasked questions about their tasks and roles in the pro-jects, what methods and tools were used to manageknowledge, what project competences were involvedand how people interacted and communicated. Thequestions were tested by two pilot interviews andadjusted accordingly. The interviews were semi-struc-tured with about 80 questions and lasted from 45 min to2 h. The interviewers were allowed to modify the ques-tions as the situation warranted.The stimulated recall interview method [8] was intro-

duced after the pilot interviews. The purpose of themethod was to provide the interviewee with stimuli ofthe original situation: a set of images was presentedduring interviews. One showed a project timeline withkey events, and the other showed the main partners withan empty area in between for the interviewees to showtheir communication links. In addition, a pie chart list-ing seven major areas of project competences identifiedfrom literature was used. The project competence list

Fig. 1. MET framework programme process spans from ideation to completion.

1 http://www.met.fi/english/.
2 http://www.tekes.fi/.
J.J.J. Kasvi et al. / International Journal of Project Management 21 (2003) 571–582 573

was adapted from Crawford [9]: knowledge manage-ment, interest groups, technology, process and proce-dures, leadership, project management, communicationand interaction, and a question mark to allowinterviewees to bring in additional competence areas.The interviews were coded with Atlas/ti software.

Firstly, the answers were classified by subject into 70different classes. Classes that addressed related issueswere grouped together, and quotations belonging toeach group were appended with comments summarisingthe main points. From these comments we were able toproduce, among other things, a list of the knowledgesources mentioned by the interviewees, and to calculatehow many interviewees mentioned each of them.

2.3. Questionnaires

Two questionnaires were used, both focusing on theseven competence areas identified from literature (seeprevious section) consisting of 34 individual competences.In this study, only those findings related to the knowledgemanagement competence area will be discussed.The questionnaires used a four-level scale with two

additional choices:

0=Not needed at all.1=I/they do not know this competence area at all.2=I/they know this competence area moderatelywell.3=I/they know this competence area well.4=I/they know this competence area very well.9=I do not know.

A paper-based questionnaire was presented to allinterviewees including the two pilot interviewees(n=25). The interviewees were asked to evaluate projectcompetence of the actor groups involved in their fra-mework programme. These actor groups included theinterviewee’s own project, the MET programme man-ager, projects of companies, research partners’ projects,and the programme steering group. The questions in theknowledge management competence area addressed fivecompetences:

Knowledge collection (from within and outside theorganisation).Knowledge combination, refinement and creation.Knowledge storage and administration.Knowledge distribution and dissemination.Knowledge utilisation.

As the questionnaire covered the 34 individual com-petences and the five actor groups mentioned earlier, ittook a long time to complete. As a result, several inter-viewees focused only on those actor groups they knewbest and answered ‘‘I do not know’’ for the rest.

A Web-based questionnaire was presented to all the11 programme managers working in MET. They wereasked to evaluate both their present and goal compe-tences in the seven project competence areas. In thesequestions the word project meant both projects andprogrammes depending on the individual MET pro-gramme manager’s tasks. This interpretation was con-sistent with the use of the word in the organisation. The‘‘I do not know’’ choice was removed as the programmemanagers were asked only to evaluate their own com-petences. In addition to those addressed in the inter-viewees’ questionnaire, the knowledge managementcompetences section included:

Knowledge sharing between project managers.Knowledge dissemination outside the project.Knowledge productisation and dissemination.

It should be noted that due to a bug in the SPSS DataEntry Web Server 3.0, the MET programme managershad problems filling out the questionnaire. This mayhave influenced their state of mind.

2.4. Other sources of data

The MET project development manager was inter-viewed in order to identify MET programme managers’knowledge management systems and practices. Theinterview was unstructured.A 2-day workshop was organised for the MET pro-

gramme managers. The findings of the interviews andquestionnaires were presented and supplemented withmore theoretical presentations. Based on these pre-sentations, group work sessions were conducted focusingon key areas of project management.

3. Results

3.1. Knowledge management practices

New inter- and intra-organisational work practiceswere considered to be the main area of new knowledgecreated (Fig. 2). This was partly due to the fact that oneof the main goals of case A was to develop new logisticalpractices for a distributed supply network.Paper documents and interaction with colleagues were

identified as the most important sources of knowledge(Fig. 3). The role of social interaction was underlined byseveral references to excursions, seminars and bench-marking visits, but interviewees from small enterpriseshad had problems participating in these occasions.No particular document management or groupware

systems were identified. Storage of new knowledgerelied on reports that the project contracts required:‘‘There is an interim report every half year. No other


written material exists or is needed.’’ Almost all theinterviewees in cases A and B mentioned reports as away to accumulate and store knowledge (Fig. 4). Actu-ally, two kinds of reports were produced, and it wassometimes difficult to discern which kind the intervieweemeant. Reports required by MET focused on resultswhile Tekes was interested in project accounts. Reporting

was often found to be a competence and resourceproblem. Documenting the work done required skillsthat were not necessarily available in a small company.For example, one medium-sized company had out-sourced reporting to another project partner. Reportswere also often considered a ‘dry bun’ as the peopleworking in individual projects were mostly interested in

Fig. 2. Frequencies of the various kinds of new knowledge produced in the case projects as mentioned by the interviewees (n=22).

Fig. 3. Frequencies of the knowledge sources used in the case projects as mentioned by the interviewees (n=22).


their own work and did not see a connection to the fra-mework programme. In some cases, people did notidentify themselves as a part of a programme at all.The reporting process followed the programme struc-

ture. New documentation was produced within theindividual projects. These documents were summarisedby project managers, who delivered their reports to theMET programme managers, who collected the inter-mediate and final reports in order to disseminate resultsbetween the projects and across the business field. Uni-versities and research institutes worked in parallel tothis process, producing research reports and theses forall the three levels.Knowledge was not systematically stored: ‘‘No kind

of an archive was created, even if such a thing mighthave been beneficial.’’ The final reports were the onlycomprehensive knowledge repositories. Documents cre-ated in the course of the projects were not managed inany way or the contents or the creation process of thedocuments systematically defined. Interviewees identi-fied no less than 20 different types of documents such asproject brochures and steering group minutes.Web documents are worth special mention. MET had

the capacity to manage both public and closed Web-pages, but case A did not utilise the possibility. Even incase B, the Web-pages were not used by all the partiesinvolved, even though the pages contained acomprehensive collection of project documents.

In addition to the documents produced within pro-jects, MET programme managers used several differentknowledge repositories and tools. For example, a Pro-ject Folder contains copies of all the contracts, reportsand minutes, and a Project Passport identifies all thecritical points of a starting programme. In addition,MET programme managers used different computerfiles to accumulate knowledge. Management of thesefiles was as unsystematic as document management:‘‘Our documents are stored unsystematically into ourcomputer systems.’’ What is more, information did notmove automatically between the various MET infor-mation systems, and in some cases, information had tobe transferred by hand. As a result, the information indifferent systems was not synchronised and there was aconsiderable possibility of errors.Many of the interviewees found the questions con-

cerning the utilisation of knowledge created in the pro-jects difficult, even puzzling (Fig. 5). As a result, thelargest group of answers was: Partly still unused.

3.2. Knowledge management competences

When the interviewees were asked about the problemsin their projects, and how competences of the peopleinvolved could be improved, knowledge managementand resource management rose clearly above the others.

Fig. 4. Frequencies of the tools used to accumulate and store knowledge created in the projects as mentioned by the interviewees (n=22).


Nineteen out of 25 interviewees mentioned problems orareas for improvement that involved knowledge man-agement. But when competence areas critical for suc-cessful projects were asked, only three mentionedknowledge management. The paper-based questionnaireprovided further evidence of inadequate knowledgemanagement competences. The knowledge managementcompetence area got the lowest rating of competencelevels in all the actor groups except in research partners’projects (Table 2). Finally, when MET programmemanagers were asked to evaluate their current projectcompetences and to set goal competence levels forthemselves, the greatest gap in competence area avera-ges (averages of all the specific competences belongingto a competence area) was in the area of knowledgemanagement (Fig. 6).

The interviewees’ perception of actor groups’ specificknowledge management competences (Table 3) corre-spond with each other. While people felt that they couldimprove knowledge distribution and dissemination intheir own projects, they also felt that the other compa-nies and the research partners might be lacking in thesame knowledge management competences. Corre-spondingly, knowledge utilisation was perceived to bethe best knowledge management competence in people’sown project, other companies’ projects and programmesteering group.When it comes to MET programme managers’ own

competences and their personal goal competence levels,the greatest gaps were identified in knowledge pro-ductisation and distribution and dissemination outsidethe programme (Fig. 7).

Fig. 5. Not nearly all the interviewees (n=22) felt that their project had managed to fully utilise new knowledge created in the project.

Table 2

Averages across perceived project competence areas and actor groups from the interviewees’ paper-based questionnaire (n=25) (1=not at all,

4=very well)

Own

project

MET programme

manager

Other companies’

projects

Research partners’

projects

Programme

steering group

Communication and interaction
3.04 3.19 2.98 3.23 3.16
Processes and procedures
3.19 3.34 3.10 3.22 3.29
Technology
3.03 3.19 3.30 3.29 3.32
Knowledge management
2.84 3.10 2.66 3.05 2.91
Leadership
3.18 3.22 3.03 3.24 3.25
Project management
2.89 3.20 2.73 2.92 3.13
Interest group connections
3.14 3.31 3.11 3.18 3.41

4. Discussion and conclusions

4.1. Knowledge management

Projects and project organisations require exception-ally efficient knowledge management, if they are to learnfrom their experiences. This was accentuated by amajority of the interviewees, who mentioned variousknowledge management problems and knowledge man-agement competence needs. Nevertheless, the observedknowledge management practices were weak andunsystematic, except for the retrospective reportingprocess. It does not benefit the projects in a programmethat the results are collected into an end-report whenthe programme has already ended.

It is interesting to note that technology is just onearea of new knowledge that the people working intechnology programmes found important. New organi-sational practices were considered to be the main newknowledge area created in the projects.In spite of the fact that there were universities and

research institutes involved, only one interviewee men-tioned scientific knowledge as new knowledge created inhis project. Actually, several theses and reports hadbeen written, but ‘‘One is not able to read all those longdissertations.’’Paper documents and interaction with colleagues were

identified as the most important sources of knowledge.That is, both codification and personalisation strategieswere used. But while the programmes organised

Fig. 6. The averages of project competence areas of the MET programme managers. The evaluation of the present and personal goal competence

levels (n=11).

Table 3

Averages of the knowledge management competence area and its sub-competences in various actor groups (1=not at all, 4=very well)

Own

project

MET programme

manager

Other companies’

projects

Research partners’

projects

Programme

steering group

Knowledge management
2.84 3.10 2.66 3.05 2.91
Knowledge collection (from within and

outside the organisation)

2.93
3.27 2.64 3.08 3.00
Knowledge combination, refinement and creation
2.93 3.07 2.82 3.15 2.86
Knowledge storing and administration
2.67 3.07 2.64 3.00 2.71
Knowledge distribution and dissemination
2.67 3.13 2.50 2.92 2.93
Knowledge utilisation
3.00 2.93 3.00 3.08 3.07

seminars and excursions in order to facilitate personalinteraction, codification strategy was not applied assystematically. No electronically codified, joint knowl-edge sources, for example computer-supported coop-erative work systems, were found. Even the public andclosed Webpages were not fully utilised. It is also worthnoting how few were actually able to identify whatknowledge sources had been used in their project.In addition to documents, promiscuous computer files

were the only noteworthy tools used to accumulate andstore knowledge. Management of these files was asunsystematic as document management. As a result,files and work reports were usually available only to afew people.Utilisation of results seemed to happen during the

project process but it was obvious that the results, forexample project reports, were not used as efficiently aspossible. New knowledge was clearly created, but itsaccumulation and storage was unsystematic.

4.2. Knowledge management competences

One may speculate that the failure to identify knowledgemanagement as a critical project competence area mayhave contributed to the observed knowledge manage-ment problems. Particularly when it came to knowledgeutilisation, there was an intriguing conflict between per-ceived and observed competences: while the interviews

pointed out that new knowledge had not always beenutilised in full, in the questionnaire the intervieweesestimated knowledge utilisation competences higherthan other knowledge management competences inthree actor groups.A project knowledge management system should

address all the various stages of knowledge managementfrom knowledge collection to utilisation. But the moti-vation to use it would be intrinsic, if it focused particu-larly on those stages that the people have most troublewith, where they most lack competences. In our cases,special attention should be given to two knowledge man-agement stages: knowledge distribution and dissemina-tion, and knowledge utilisation and productisation.

4.3. Towards a learning project organisation

In order to systematically manage knowledge createdin a project, the projects themselves must be system-atically managed. This is demonstrated by the ProjectLearning Model [10] that relies on systematic repetitionof Project Workshops that update the contents of twodynamically evolving project documents: the ProjectPlan and the Team Contract.The Project Plan can be seen as a repository for ‘hard’

project knowledge including project definition, activitiesand results. The Team Contract contains organisationalknowledge like experiences and capitalisation of lessons

Fig. 7. MET programme managers’ evaluation of their specific present and goal knowledge management competence levels (n=11).


learned. When both are managed systematically, theproject learns (Fig. 8).People working in projects may not always find time

or motivation to write down detailed reviews andassessments. They are fully occupied with pressing pro-ject tasks, and documenting and reporting is often notconsidered to be one of them. For example, when theProject Learning Model was experimented in practice,Project Plan and Team Contract were not utilisedenough [11]. People need to feel that they gain personalbenefit from experience documentation and perceive itsutility [12]. Maintaining motivation to provide a steadystream of knowledge contributions is especially difficult,if the knowledge content is highly structured and peopleare required to append appropriate keywords and othermeta-data to their documents [13].The Learning Project Model is applicable only in the

Carrying Out stage of the MET programme process(Fig. 1). But it can act as a basis for a Learning Pro-gramme Model if results and lessons learned in oneproject are transferred to other projects (Fig. 9). Thiscan be achieved if the Learning Project Model isexpanded to cover the whole programme process fromIdeation to Completion.Like the Learning Project Model, the Learning Pro-

gramme Model divides project knowledge into twoparts: (1) the Programme Plan contains mainly explicit

knowledge on programme goals and results while (2) theProgramme Contract contains explicit and codified tacitknowledge on procedures and organisational issues,experiences and lessons learned. As with the LearningProject Model, the dynamic Programme Plan and theProgramme Contract form a kind of a ProgrammeMemory. When these plans and contracts are usedin preparation of future programmes, the organisa-tion is on its way to becoming a Learning ProjectOrganisation.In order to systematically adopt the learning pro-

gramme approach, organisations have to carefullydefine those key documents and processes that transferessential knowledge from one programme stage toanother. What knowledge and meta-knowledge isrequired on each stage? Who is responsible for provid-ing each piece of knowledge? One solution does not fitall. Instead, the resulting models will be as different asthe organisations adopting them. For example, in thecase of the MET programme process, the proposedmodel would develop the Programme Plan thoughseveral stages:

1. The first version of the Plan is conceived during
the Ideation Process when a Programme man-ager collects thoughts and ideas that could formthe basis for a new framework programme.
Fig. 8. Project Learning Model includes two knowledge repositories, the Project Plan and the Team Contract. Together they act as a Project

Memory. Together with the Workshops, Milestone Reviews and Teamwork Assessments used to update them, they form a project knowledge

management system.


2. Launch Pass collects the results of the Ideation
Process and forms the basis of the Plan used inthe Charting stage.
3. A Planning Group is formed to evaluate the
necessity of the proposed programme. SeveralAnalyses may be made or subcontracted.
4. A Decision to start or abandon the Programme
is based on the Charting stage. The Decisiondocuments transfer all the required knowledge tothe Start-up stage.
5. During Start-up, a Steering Group is formed to
maintain and develop the Plan. The Plan is spe-cified through Applications of projects seeking toparticipate in the Programme.
6. The specified Programme Plan acts as the basis
for the Carrying Out stage. At this stage, thePlan corresponds to a traditional programmeplan.
7. In the course of the Carrying Out stage, the
Steering Group updates the Plan: The goals areadjusted and appended with results.
8. In the Completion Stage the collected results are
delivered with End Reports.
9. The Reports form the basis for utilisation and
productisation
Corresponding evolution of the MET ProgrammeContract would start in the Start-up stage:

1. The Contract is based on Programme Contracts
of previous projects.
2. Best practices and guidelines from previous pro-
jects are integrated into the Cooperation Dealsnegotiated between participating organisations.
3. During the Carrying Out stage the Contract is
maintained by the Programme Group.
4. In the Completion Stage the Programme Group
distils the lessons learned into an End Evaluation.
5. The Evaluation is utilised in the Start-up stage of
future programmes.
4.4. Final notes

In order to allow a project to learn, we have to man-age both substance and context knowledge throughoutthe whole project process. Particularly systematic pro-ject knowledge management is needed, if we want toturn a project organisation into a learning organisation,if we want to distil results and lessons from one projectand deliver them into another. Some sort of a knowl-edge repository and work practices that facilitate the useof this repository are being called for. But in spite ofincreasing prevalence of project work, literature andresearch on project knowledge management or learningproject organisations are still sparse.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the people of the Federation ofFinnish Metal Engineering and Electrotechnical Indus-tries, especially Veikko Kajaste and Merja Lattila.Without their support this study would have beenimpossible. In addition, we would like to express ourgratitude to our colleagues, Karlos Artto, Inkeri Ruuskaand Marko Hakonen for their input and feedback.

Fig 9. A Learning Programme Model has to cover the programme process from ideation to completion.


References

[1] Jarvenpaa SL, Ives B. The global network organization of the

future: information management opportunities and challenges.

Journal of Management Information Systems 1994;10(4):25–57.

[2] Park SJ, Cho K, Ahn H. VWSS: an activity-oriented virtual team

support system for building project memory. A white paper.

1999. Available from http://cscw.kaist.ac.kr/vwss/doc/en/

vwss.htm.

[3] Hansen MT, Nohria N, Tierney T. What’s your strategy for

managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review 1999;77(4):106–

16.

[4] Walsh JP, Ungson GR. Organizational memory. Acadamy of

Management Review 1991;16(1):57–91.

[5] Stein EW, Zwass V. Actualizing organizational memory with

information systems. Information Systems Research 1995;6(2):

85–117.

[6] Conklin J. Capturing organizational memory. In: Coleman DD,

editor. Groupware ’92. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann; 1992.

p. 133–7.

[7] Te’eni D, Weinberger H. System development of organizational

memory: a literature survey. In: Hansen HR, Bicheler M, Mahrer

H., editors. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on

Information Systems, Vienna, Austria, 2000. p. 219-227.

[8] Bloom BS. Thought-processes in lecture and discussions. Journal

of General Education 1953;7:55 –71.

[9] Crawford L. Profiling the competent project manager. In: Pro-

ceedings of the PMI Research Conference. 2001. p. 3–15.

[10] Vartiainen M, Hakonen M, Simola A, Kokko A, Rantamaki T.

Learning project model and transfer of experiences. In: Proceed-

ings of the 6th International Product Development Conference,

Cambridge, UK; 1999. pp. 1085–1095.

[11] Kokko N, Vartiainen M, Hakonen M, Simola A, Rantamaki T.

The learning project model. A tool for managing and developing

R&D project work. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Pro-

duct Development Conference, Leuven, Belgium; 2000. p. 291–

299.

[12] Landes D, Schneider K, Houdek F. Organizational learning and

experience documentation in industrial software projects. Inter-

national Journal of Human-Computer Studies 1999;51:643–61.

[13] Hahn J, Subramani MR. A framework of knowledge manage-

ment systems: issues and challenges for theory and practice. In:

Proceedings of the twenty-first international conference on infor-

mation systems, Brisbane, Australia; 2000. p. 302–312.
