Ki

Ma

b

a

A

KIKKOP

1

t2ieetk2tkttt

(

h0

International Journal of Information Management 34 (2014) 770–779

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journa l h om epa ge : www.elsev ier .com/ l ocate / i j in fomgt

nowledge sharing in project-based organizations: Overcoming thenformational limbo

aria Vaz Almeidaa, António Lucas Soaresa,b,∗

INESC TEC – Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores do Porto, Campus da FEUP, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias 378, 4200-465 Porto, PortugalFaculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:

eywords:nformation managementnowledge managementnowledge sharingrganizational learningroject-based organizations

a b s t r a c t

Project-based organizations (PBO) are nowadays widespread in almost all the activity sectors. This typeof organizations poses complex problems for information and knowledge management due to the frag-mentation and lack of uniformity of organizational structures, processes, practices, and technologies. Theineffectiveness of knowledge sharing over time, between project teams, is perhaps the most prominentissue that PBO must deal with. This strongly affects organizational learning, which seems to under-delivervalue to PBO. Therefore, relevant knowledge is trapped in an “informational limbo” out of reach, not beingcapitalized for the organization. This is particularly true in research and development (R&D) institutions,where knowledge sharing can be hindered by conceptual misunderstandings resulting from differentdisciplines, cultures and ways of working of project participants. This paper addresses such issues byanalyzing, in a comprehensive way, how information and knowledge management can better suit projectteam’s needs and at the same time improve organizational learning. An ethnographic study, based onimmersed participant observation, is performed at a Portuguese R&D Institute, in order to understand

the link between the way information is managed in a project and how people interact and learn bysharing knowledge between projects. Results provide a set of enterprise information management (EIM)recommendations. Findings also suggest that a PBO-wide EIM strategy, balancing knowledge codificationand personalization mechanisms, is a feasible solution to overcome the problems of knowledge sharingin PBO.

. Introduction

Knowledge sharing is today recognized as of utmost impor-ance to support organizational learning (Liebowitz & Megbolugbe,003). An organization that continuously increases its knowledge

s better prepared to face the uncertainties of the organizationalnvironment – market dynamics, economic cycles, technologicalscalation, and social needs – and stays competitive and sus-ainable. In project-based organizations (PBO), however, effectivenowledge sharing remains a challenge (Bartsch, Ebers, & Maurer,013). PBO involve the creation of temporary systems of action forhe performance of project tasks (Thiry & Deguire, 2007) wherenowledge is created (Boh, 2007). The challenge of a PBO is thus

o ensure effective processes of knowledge sharing and integra-ion, within and between projects, to avoid the risk of reinventinghe wheel or repeating past mistakes (Pemsel & Wiewiora, 2013).

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351222094326.E-mail addresses: mi.almeida88@gmail.com (M.V. Almeida), als@fe.up.pt

A.L. Soares).

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.07.003268-4012/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

In other words, PBO need to capitalize what it is learned in eachproject in order to continuously improve the organizational perfor-mance (knowledge as the main resource supporting the capabilitiesof the organization). Trying to face this challenge, there are evi-dences that PBO face substantial obstacles in capturing and reusing,organization-wide, project’s knowledge (Jackson & Klobas, 2008;Prencipe & Tell, 2001). These obstacles stem from the relatively self-contained, idiosyncratic and finite nature of project tasks (Bresnen,Edelman, Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003) that make difficult toadopt and deploy effective information and knowledge manage-ment strategies.

Knowledge sharing problems of PBO derive mainly from whatwe call the “informational limbo”. Projects execution generatesinformation at a high pace, from formal, official documents toinformal, unstructured personal or group notes (Caniëls & Bakens,2012; Prencipe & Tell, 2001). This information is usually structuredand organized according to the immediate needs of the project

management, being completely meaningful within the projectoperational and social context. Once the project ends, its context isdispersed and so it is the meaningfulness of the information struc-ture and organization. This information loses its direct usefulness

al of I

(sci(

tsTca(bcabMnpp(

saobswatooi

m(mNit(&aei

kdaeatepvgtaPcs

sKai

M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journ

the project ended) and may lack utility for other projects as itstructure and organization may not be adapted to the new projectontexts. Explicit and codified knowledge (information) generatedn the project is then “trapped” and hardly shared between projectsBakker, Cambré, Korlaar, & Raab, 2011).

On the other side, the project’s social system is also dispersed athe project end, which means that an amount of tacit knowledge,temming from the team social relations, is not active anymore.his is nonetheless less problematic as teams or parts of theman be reassembled in subsequent projects (Fong, 2003). However,nd considering projects as contexts for intensive social activitiesWang & Noe, 2010), troubles in knowledge sharing should alsoe analyzed upon other behavior and social organizational con-epts. The existent culture and the organizational social networksnd ties can facilitate or hamper project-to-organization learning,y positively affecting motivation, opportunity and ability (Argote,cEvily, & Reagans, 2003). By reinforcing social capital, the orga-

ization can help to overcome barriers to learning that stem fromroject teams’ lack of opportunity, motivation and ability to makeroject-based knowledge available to the organization as a wholeBartsch et al., 2013).

The informational limbo is upheld by an escalation in the diver-ity of the information and communication technologies (ICT)vailable today for project management, which fosters a high speedf content creation and absorption (Karim & Hussein, 2008). Also,ecause of the unique and temporary nature of project tasks, theedimentation of knowledge is difficult if the project is dissolvedithout conveniently document, organize, disseminate and make

ccessible all the generated information. On the other hand, theypical idiosyncrasies of project teams pose difficulties to the devel-pment of common understandings, which should be the basisf project’s collective activities (Jackson & Klobas, 2008) and verymportant for knowledge creation and sharing.

Current information management principles and tools, as pro-oted by professional areas like Enterprise Content Management

ECM) (Päivärinta & Munkvold, 2005), and knowledge manage-ent approaches addressing tacit knowledge exploitation (Hansen,ohria, & Tierney, 1999; Jackson & Klobas, 2008), are surely an

mportant contribution to shrink the informational limbo. Never-heless, the bridge between such related disciplines is still missingBakker et al., 2011; Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002; Coakes, Coakes,

Rosenberg, 2008). Also, very little is still reported in the liter-ture about how ICT and information management strategies cannable effective knowledge processes of creation, transfer and shar-ng (Neels Kruger & Johnson, 2010).

Clearly the connection between information management,nowledge sharing and organizational learning in PBO needs to beeeper understood. Our attempt is, therefore, to bridge this gap bynalyzing, in a comprehensive way, how information and knowl-dge management and sharing can better suit project team’s needsnd at the same time improve organizational learning. Followinghis drive, this paper reports the findings obtained through anthnographic study within the specific and challenging contexts ofrojects of an R&D institution (where the creation of new and inno-ative products or results enhances the information overload). Theoal of this research was to understand in detail the link betweenhe way information is managed in a project and how people inter-ct and share knowledge between projects. Findings suggest that aBO-wide enterprise information management strategy, balancingodification of knowledge with its personalization, is a feasibleolution to overcome the problems of knowledge sharing in PBO.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2

ynthesizes the main Project Management and Information andnowledge Management research results in the context of PBOnd how they crosslink, particularly in their shared concerns aboutnformation and knowledge management in project contexts.

nformation Management 34 (2014) 770–779 771

Section 3 describes the ethnographic study applied as well as thedata collection and analysis methods. Sections 4 and 5 present anddiscuss the empirical results, drawing meaningful recommenda-tions for an inclusive EIM strategy for the purpose of organizationallearning in PBO. The last chapter provides some conclusions andpoints future research work.

2. Literature review

2.1. Projects, information and knowledge management in PBOs

Projects became the most important delivery vehicle for prod-ucts and services in a global economy, characterized by a strongcompetition and radically shrinking lifecycles (Jackson & Klobas,2008); organizing work by projects allow organizations to respondflexibly to changing organizational needs (Boh, 2007). A projectis defined as a temporary endeavor incorporating the work ofheterogeneous professionals undertaken to create a unique prod-uct, service or result (Project Management Institute, 2008). Keycharacteristics of projects are: the significant interdependence ofdifferent kinds of knowledge and skills, the complexity and unpre-dictability of many tasks and problems, and the time-delimitednature of project goals and, often, of employment (Ajmal, Takala, &Kekäle, 2008). Projects are becoming more complex, requiring theintegration of diffuse partners who are often physically separatedand from different cultural backgrounds, and precision, timelinessand congruence of communicated meanings become increasinglyimportant and challenging (Jackson & Klobas, 2008).

Because of their volatility, different from the usual organiza-tional tasks, projects became an interesting informational problem:they are transient settings, most of the times using distributedresources, partial or totally virtualized in respect to interac-tion, involving intensive information flows, and resulting in bigamounts of content to managed. IT platforms to support infor-mation management and communication are nowadays present inevery project, although in different scales. Projects are frequentlymultidisciplinary contexts for action and its members can haveseveral degrees of social relationships with each other, which canpose further challenges in managing information. Different pro-fessionals have different cultures and ways of working which canbe conflicting with the other participants or project culture (Ajmalet al., 2008). At the same time, project teams move from one projectto another usually without the time to conveniently assimilate anddocument all the knowledge that was acquired during the project(Bakker et al., 2011).

Although sparsely, research literature has consistently linkedproject management with information and knowledge manage-ment topics (Table 1). In PBO it is important that the informationproduced in one project will be accessible by a subsequent one,contributing to an effective knowledge sharing and linkage toavoid repeating mistakes or wasting resources in reinventing thewheel (Pemsel & Wiewiora, 2013). Nevertheless, it appears thatPBO face substantial obstacles in capturing knowledge and inthe re-cycling of project-based learning that stem from the rela-tively self-contained, idiosyncratic and finite nature of project tasks(Bakker et al., 2011; Bartsch et al., 2013; Bresnen et al., 2003).

The practical implementation of information management (IM)in organizations has been tackled, to a large extent, by the pro-fessional area of Enterprise Content Management (Päivärinta &Munkvold, 2005), having also been addressed in the research liter-ature, although more sporadically (see e.g., Alalwan & Weistroffer,

2012). Borrowing some concepts from this area, the more spe-cific term “EIM strategy” will be used in this paper to refer to thespecification, orchestration and coordination of goals, models, pro-cesses, and technologies (EIM artifacts) for information acquisition,

772 M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journal of Information Management 34 (2014) 770–779

Table 1Research about the importance of information management and knowledge management topics in project contexts.

Topics Paper Journal

The importance of communication of information in projects (Johannessen & Olsen, 2011) International Journal of InformationManagement

Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations (Boh, 2007) Information and OrganizationProcesses and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms (Prencipe & Tell, 2001) Research PolicyKnowledge sharing barriers in complex research and development projects (Santos, Soares, & Carvalho, 2012) Knowledge and Process ManagementKnowledge transfer in project-based organizations (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008) Project Management JournalInformation management strategies for project management (Back & Moreau, 2001) Project Management JournalKnowledge management and project-based knowledge in projects (Reich, Gemino, & Sauer, 2012)

(Jackson & Klobas, 2008)

International Journal of Project Management

The importance of ICT in global project teams (Shachaf, 2008)

Da Cu

Information and Management

o(icpn(EtsNemipsimbaw(

niNcp(bsdoie

ihttk&ca(

2

a

(

rganization, sharing, access and use (Detlor, 2010) in an enterpriseorganizational) context. EIM artifacts in an EIM strategy include:nformation architectures, meta-information structures, classifi-ation schemes, information life-cycle models, information reuserocedures, and several types of ICT platforms and their compo-ents. Other authors refer to some of these artifacts as IM toolsBouthillier & Shearer, 2002; Detlor, 2010; Gunnlaugsdottir, 2003).nterprise information can be materialized in several types of con-ent such as documents, records, video and audio. The object oftudy of information management is obviously the information.evertheless, information is conceptually inseparable from knowl-dge and data. In reviewing current perspectives of informationanagement, there is an implicit or explicit adoption of the data-

nformation-knowledge-wisdom pyramid model (DIKW). For theurposes of this paper, information and explicit knowledge are con-idered synonyms, being information regarded as data interpretedn a context and knowledge envisaged as a property of human

ind with potential to action (Rowley, 2007). Information thus onlyecomes “knowledge” when it is put into a logical and understand-ble context which we can verify and recall from our experience, orhen “it meets a need to finish an assignment or to solve a problem”

Gunnlaugsdottir, 2003).Implementing EIM in PBOs can thus help to improve commu-

ication within and between projects providing more and betternformation to the project managers and teams (Reich, 2007).evertheless, developing or applying EIM strategies in PBO is ahallenge. The context of a project surely adds complexity to theroduction and use of information: the heterogeneity of teamspeople with different backgrounds and informational culture andehavior), the hard constraints for budget and task plans, the tran-itoriness of the established social relations and the sense of theisposable character of results. This results in the lack of regularr, at least, expected information behavior within a PBO, mak-ng more difficult to implement PBO-wide EIM strategies (Bresnent al., 2003).

In addition, the massive use of ICT platforms and EIM artifactsn projects impose further challenges to project managers, as theyave to handle the existing overly loaded information. This is dueo the decrease ability of project managers in getting the relevant,imely, and accurate information, and in managing information andnowledge flows for future utilizations and developments (Karim

Hussein, 2008). Also, in projects, as the teams are continuallyhanging membership, the familiarity with various applicationsnd platforms will also change and thus need to be learnt againCoakes et al., 2008).

.2. Knowledge sharing and organizational learning in PBO

Project management early research was mainly focused on thechievement of individual project goals according with largely

nha & Orlikowski, 2008) Information and Organization

consolidated project techniques and tools (Turner, 2010). Morerecent literature has, however, been pointing out the organizationallearning as a key performance driver in PBO (Blindenbach-Driessen& van den Ende, 2006) as well as very relevant to the project success(Reich, 2007). Studies are particularly stressing out that knowledgemanagement and knowledge transfer in project management lit-erature is a field of research that that will have great attentionin following years (Holzmann, 2013). The outcome of a particularproject may be less important that an overall increase in the abilityof an organization to implement projects successfully (Reich, 2007).Also, empirically, there is strong evidence that the effective sharingof knowledge across projects will reduce the organizational costs ofduplicating efforts for the same problem-solving (Boh, 2007). EIMstrategies in PBO should not only support the specific project needsand contributing for a better project performance, but also and fore-most to facilitate knowledge creation and dissemination betweenproject instances (Fong, 2003). Once a project finishes, the knowl-edge created should then be transferred to the organization as awhole, for the purpose of organizational learning, and contributingin this way for a common knowledge-basis across projects.

To enable an effective sharing of knowledge across projects, sev-eral knowledge-sharing mechanisms can be used. We adopt thedefinition of knowledge-sharing mechanisms in PBO as “the formaland informal mechanisms for sharing, integrating, interpreting andapplying know-what, know-how, and know-why embedded in indi-viduals and groups that will aid in the performance of project tasks”(Boh, 2007). Knowledge sharing mechanisms can be analyzed upona “codification versus personalization” dimensions, which distin-guishes between mechanisms that enable the sharing of codified(i.e. explicit) knowledge versus tacit knowledge (Boh, 2007; Hansenet al., 1999; Liebowitz & Megbolugbe, 2003). In the codificationperspective, knowledge should be carefully codified and stored indatabases and documents, where it can be accessed and (re)usedby employees in the company. Knowledge-sharing mechanismsare implemented by means of a “people-to-document” approach:knowledge is provided by the person who “knows”, made indepen-dent of that person by inscribing it in a “document” and reused forvarious purposes by someone else who access the “document”. Thisapproach allows many people to search for and retrieve codifiedknowledge without having to contact the person who originallydeveloped it (Hansen et al., 1999). On the other hand, by usingpersonalization mechanisms, knowledge will be closely attachedto the person who developed it and shared mainly through directperson-to-person contacts (Boh, 2007). ICT platforms and theircomponents, in this perspective, are used to help people to com-municate their knowledge rather than storing it, supporting the

organization to focus on the dialog between individuals and notknowledge objects (information) in a database, helping to transferknowledge using, for instance, brainstorming sessions and one-on-one conversations (Hansen et al., 1999). People will scan databases

al of I

ata

tdtiAkaztZ

ctucooOiEckt

ibpto

3

wotdmaaoftdtarsSSuMocnmc

M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journ

nd document bases in order to get the crucial information in a par-icular area and to find out who has done work on a topic, and thenpproach those people directly.

Knowledge creation is connected with the concept of organiza-ional learning. Proof of such consideration is that, during the pastecade, the focus in theory and research on those concepts, par-icularly in the field of management and organization studies, hasncreased (Lyles, 2013; Sense, 2011; C.-W. Yang, Fang, & Lin, 2010).s knowledge is created and captured, learning takes place andnowledge is hopefully applied and embedded within individualnd organizational processes. Following this, a learning organi-ation is an organization where creating and using knowledgeo enhance competitive advantage occurs (Calantone, Cavusgil, &hao, 2002).

Organizational learning in PBO specifically refers to the pro-ess of making “newly created project-level knowledge available tohe organization as a whole by sharing, transferring, retaining, andsing it” (Bartsch et al., 2013). While projects are where knowledgereation takes place, the overall process of learning in project-basedrganizations involves the subsequent transfer, retention and usef this knowledge within the project-based organization as a whole.rganizational learning is considered a key performance driver

n project-based organizations (Blindenbach-Driessen & van dennde, 2006); previous projects present valuable experiences thatould be applied in similar future projects or even generate newnowledge about the organization’s technology and market basehat could lead to new business opportunities.

Developing appropriate EIM and knowledge sharing strategiess then crucial for the purpose of organizational learning in project-ased organizations, and prefigure the main subjects at hand in thisaper. Next section presents the research design used to develophis study as well as the project-based setting chosen to undertakeur analysis.

. Research design

As previously mentioned, our research goal was to understandhich EIM strategies will better suit project team’s needs in terms

f information and knowledge management and sharing in ordero obtain a better organizational learning. A case study was con-ucted in a Portuguese research institute – RD Institute1 – whoseission was to undertake research and technological development

nd innovation targeted to private and public organizations. This is typical PBO deploying both R&D and consultancy projects, mostf them being funded by national or European funds and rangingrom direct contracts with companies to large and multiorganiza-ional R&D consortiums. RD Institute has about 700 collaboratorsistributed through different R&D Units which areas ranged fromelecommunications, multimedia, robotics, manufacturing systemsnd artificial intelligence, among others. The scope of our study wasestricted to one single organizational unit of the institution, whichpecifically conducts R&D and consultancy projects in Enterpriseystems Engineering along the dimensions of Decision Support,trategy, Operations Management and Collaborative Networks. Thenit had about 50 people, including academic researchers, PhD orasters students, and organizational consultants. They were most

f the time working in at least one project at the time. The type ofonstituted teams varied: for instance consultancy projects were

ormally based on 2 or 3 participants of the unit and 2 or 3 externalembers. On the other hand, in European or multiorganizational

onsortia the number of external members of the project team was

1 Fictitious name.

nformation Management 34 (2014) 770–779 773

larger, while the number of RD Institute participants could rangebetween 2 and 6.

Within this organizational unit, a specific R&D project inprogress was also analyzed in order to address project-executionspecific issues. Project X,2 a multi-organizational R&D project waschosen for being strongly representative of the type of technicaldevelopments undertaken by this organizational unit, and also foraggregating team members from distinct organizations and withdifferent areas of expertise. Project X purpose was to developtools to support the development of simulation models for pro-duction systems, to be used by manufacturing companies. In orderto accomplish these goals, the project relied in a multidisciplinaryteam of 7 different entities, between R&D institutions and industrialassociations, software companies and a manufacturing company. 4collaborators of the RD Institute unit were working at the project.RD Institute was also the project coordinator, meaning that it wasresponsible for performing several project management activities.The project was divided into 5 tasks, with different goals, respon-sibilities and deliverables.

In order to study the mentioned settings, an ethnographicapproach was adopted as the more adequate to address theresearch goals. Following Atkinson and Hammersley (1994),ethnography is a qualitative method which is especially concernedabout exploring the nature of particular social phenomena in aninductive way, and usually focusing in one single case in detail.In the last decades, ethnography research has been used by ITresearchers to study the implementation of technology withinsocial systems, by focusing on how the professionals act, think andfeel during their daily work (Hartmann, Fischer, & Haymaker, 2009)and where the intention is often to show how work is organizedby a team (Hughes, Randall, & Shapiro, 1992). Distinguish char-acteristics of ethnography are also the recognition of the role oftheory as precursor, medium and outcome of the study (Willis &Trondman, 2000). There is no one method of ethnographic analy-sis (Hughes et al., 1992); following previous studies, our approachwas based in a immersed participant observation, which some-times resembles action research (Baskerville & Pries-heje, 1999;Howell & Annansingh, 2013), as the researchers were immersed inthe work by spending several months observing people’s activities,talking and discussing with them (Hughes et al., 1992). Given tothe fact that we were also workers of this organizational unit, thisimmersion was also benefic in terms of a better acceptance fromthe observed people.

3.1. Data collection

Based on Yin (2003) recommendations, evidences relied onthree main sources. The immersed participant observation was themain method used, as the authors were collaborators of the unitand shared the everyday life and activities of the chosen setting(Eriksson & Kovalainen, 1994). A research diary was then writtenby each of the researchers, in order to keep a detailed account ofthe ethnographic process as it unfolded. The authors’ viewpointsand reflections, most of the times derived from more informalconversations with people from the unit, were then carefullyregistered (Beynon-Davies, 1997). Secondly, a set of 4 informal andsemi-structured interviews (Harper, 2000) with the unit employ-ees who were also members of Project X team was also performed,

essentially to corroborate and augment evidence from the othersources. They had different backgrounds (logistics, computerscience and production systems) and different roles (1 projectmanager, 1 project coordinator and 2 project members) and were

2 Fictitious name.

7 al of I

wolihtHktadawatamfiatE

3

ptqatju(fiuetwrtactc

pkpmocotet

4

4

4

aft

74 M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journ

orking in the institution for at least 5 years. The average lengthf interviews was 50 min; they started with pre-defined questionsike: What are the main problems regarding managing informationn projects? Why do you think they happen? Can you please describeow your team usually collects and shares information? Will you sayhat the organization is learning through the projects that are made?ow do you usually acquire and share knowledge? Do you use anynowledge management software? What are the main deficiencieshat you can identify? How would you improve it? Interviews wereudio recorded and later transcribed. Lastly, Project X specificocumentation was collected (the application document, technicalnd management reports, and minutes of project meetings) asell as other content exchanged by the project team (emails

nd working documents). According with Fetterman (2010), datariangulation was crucial in order to avoid biased views by theuthors, as collaborators of the unit. On the other hand, and asentioned in previous studies (Howell & Annansingh, 2013), this

rst-hand experience in the chosen setting of research, as well as more particular empathy into the subjects at hand, provided tohe ethnographic study a richer and native interpretation of facts.vidences were collected over a period of 5 months.

.2. Data analysis

Data analysis in ethnographic research is based on explicit inter-retation of meanings and functions of human actions, meaninghat the qualitative explanation of facts is predominant over theuantitative techniques (Atkinson & Hammersley, 1994). Contentnalysis was made by text interpretation regarding the interviewsranscriptions, documentation and the field notes of the researchournal. NVivo 10, a qualitative analysis software program, wassed to support the coding and analysis of the collected dataEriksson & Kovalainen, 1994): all the textural evidences and audioles from the interviews (connected to their transcriptions) wereploaded to the software and the creation of nodes identified themergent concepts. Each time that a new concept was identified inhe data a new node was created. As a considerable number of nodesere reached, and a sense started to be made out of them, they were

eorganized in broader and abstract categories. NVivo has proveno be a very helpful tool to support the coding and analysis tasks, byllowing to find and cross coded data corresponding to the definedriteria, retrieving and presenting results in a comprehensive wayhat facilitates the data comparison and the identification of relatedoncepts.

During the data analysis, two major categories emerged: (a)roject-based EIM artifacts used in a project execution and (b)nowledge-sharing mechanisms widely used in PBO for the pur-ose of organizational learning. The scope of the first category wasainly the EIM strategies, processes and tools used by members

f Project X as the micro setting we have observed. The secondategory addressed, outside the project and in a broader sense,n which and how knowledge sharing mechanisms were usedo disseminate project knowledge in the organizational unit,nvisaged as the macro context of PBO. Next sections develop eachheme with detail.

. Results

.1. Project-based EIM artifacts

.1.1. Classification, organization of content

Project X content was stored in Dropbox folders that reflected

functional classification and organization of information. Theolders were shared by the team and used in day-to-day activi-ies to store and retrieve project content as needed. The content

nformation Management 34 (2014) 770–779

organization was based in a hierarchic structure of folders. Thefirst level divided the content into two categories: coordinationand development. Coordination was mostly related with projectmanagement documents, like the project planning, and progressreports, and development folders were about the technical devel-opments within the project tasks (where the big volume ofinformation relied). It was noticeable that the most importantconcern of Project X members about managing content was that,as the project evolved, the content volume increased leading todifficulties in finding and accessing it as needed by the projectmembers. “There’s a lot of information and sometimes it is diffi-cult to find it” (interviewee1). Nonetheless, project team membersseemed to be satisfied with the organization and the repositoryitself, mostly because they felt that it was a “familiar” tool touse; since “it was nothing more than a shared folder in everyone’spersonal desktop”, and thus “the learning period was quite small”(interviewee2). In fact, practically all team members were alreadyusing Dropbox before the project started, whether in their ownorganizations or for personal purposes, which was one importantincentive to choose that platform to manage the project con-tent.

Under the development folder, the hierarchical organizationreflected the tasks division of the project. This was also envisaged aseasy to use, because all the activities were organized under specificproject tasks, and all the participants were aware of the tasks theyneeded to perform: “since the project is organized by tasks and folderstoo, it is not hard to know the folders” (interviewee1). “In the projectI am working on a specific task and I know where I can find the docu-ments created or developed under that specific task where I am workingon.” (interviewee2). The project structure itself, i.e. the differenttasks, subtasks and related deliveries, made the information organi-zation very tied to the project’s task structure. As project memberswere focused on immediate deliverables (Holzmann, 2013) theyneeded to access information related with the tasks which werealso oriented to the respective result, so the content organizationstructure was aligned to that concern.

Summarizing, the participants discourse regarding the impor-tance of information organization and classification in the scopeof projects is twofold: in one way it reports the experienceof increasing difficulty in finding efficiently the needed contentbecause of increasingly larger volumes of generated content;in other way it shows the familiarity with an organizationand classification scheme that mimics the project’s task struc-ture.

4.1.2. ICT platformsProject activities, encapsulated under the project tasks, were

developed within a strong collaborative environment using audioand videoconference (Skype mostly) for weekly meetings amongall the partners, and developing the project tasks with collaborativetools like Google Drive, Dropbox, discussion forums and also a Wikiplatform, provided by one of the partners. Dropbox was the maintool used by the Project X team for storing and use content createdwithin the project. The team was also using other ICT tools, namelyGoogle Drive for collaborative writing, Google Groups as a discus-sion forum about some project themes, and also a Wiki platform,for the creation and discussion of related concepts in a continu-ous way. This multiplicity of mediums to manage information wassometimes envisaged as problematic: “We start having an overloadof things [ICT tools] and it gets very difficult to manage all these things.Maybe it would be better to have only one thing” (interviewed1). Nev-

ertheless, positive aspects were also pointed out: “we are talkingabout a group of people disperse not only in our own institution butalso in other organizations across the country, where communicationis often difficult” (interviewee2).

al of I

4

2itnthi1bssdtlpIw(pfprwtpbasIrops“(

soavotsyaettisv

irlwoanowip

M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journ

.2. PBO-wide knowledge-sharing mechanisms

Both types of knowledge-sharing mechanisms emerged (Boh,007), with prevalence to the personalization perspective. Gener-

cally people working at projects in the unit were more open tohe idea of talking someone directly and by using typical perso-alization mechanisms, instead of reading documents archived inhe project repositories and tools, which they found “boring, andeavy to read” (interviewee3). Also, “sometimes is hard to read for

nstance a project technical report with 40 or 50 pages while in a5 minutes meeting we can discuss and understand what’s written,ecause everyone who has contributed for writing the document areharing the ideas and knowledge in it” (interviewee2). Knowledge-haring in the unit was then basically made through personal andirect contacts, whether in meetings or more informal conversa-ions, and even when people reuse previous project informationike proposals or document templates, they usually found it byersonal referrals “Normally if I need a document template I know

can talk with that specific person which I usually ask for help (. . .)e are close and I already know he will give me that tool quickly”

interviewee4). Also within a particular project, meetings or theersonal network were mentioned as the preferred means to trans-er knowledge and obtain important information for the projecterformance: “Technical meetings are important for me to share andeceive knowledge acquired from members from other organizations,hich are not in the place that I do, and there we can all share informa-

ion and knowledge, which I think is important” (interviewee2). Thehysical proximity among people of the unit, working in the sameuilding and many times in the same room, was another encour-gement to this informal knowledge sharing: “since we are in theame building, when I am working in something and I have a doubt

can immediately meet my colleague and asked him, trying, in thatight moment, clarify my doubt” (interviewee2). This seemed to bef utmost importance because it allows clarifying and solving aroblem immediately, without the need of sending e-mails (thatometimes are not clear enough), and with a more sense of trust:talking directly with someone is the best to avoid misunderstandings”interviewee3).

The main need for seeking project information was to find outome past experience for a specific problem or area where some-ne was working on at the moment. Here, specific skills, experiencend opinions that people possess intrinsically was the more rele-ant to recover. Technical “how to” information was easily foundn the web, by “googling it” – and they seemed to use it all theime: “If you need fast and accurate information about how to solveome technical problem in some MS Office tool, for instance, you knowou can find it on Google, without the need of bothering someonebout it” (interviewee3). On the other hand, the “usability” experi-nce of some technology, viewpoint or opinion is not always easyo reflect in a written document – tacit knowledge is not alwaysranslated in words and texts: “I see rather difficult people manag-ng at structuring all their projects experience and knowledge insideome kind of platform or document – it is very complicated!” (inter-iewee4).

Using personalization mechanisms reflected, however, a majorssue that was the fact that it was very difficult to search useful andeusable past project information (for instance, budgets, lessonsearned or templates). Most of the times they wouldn’t even know

here to start looking, because of the lack of centralized platformsr repositories: “We don’t have any platform that assure the man-gement and archival of all this information. In a project, what weormally do is to store all the created documentation in folders in

ur laptops, “Dropboxes” or at the institution servers, but after thate don’t have any tool which allow us to recover all this disperse

nformation. That is the worse difficulty in managing and reusingroject information around here” (interviewee4). Some individual

nformation Management 34 (2014) 770–779 775

initiatives were sometimes made in order to keep some usefulinformation registered, for instance, user manuals of some tech-nologies or some specific procedures and “how-to”, but most ofthe times they remained attached to the people, project or groupof people who have created it. In this sense, some organizationalcodification components could “provide direct channels where themembers of the unit could recover, for instance, past knowledge” with-out a middleman in the process. They would help to sediment someproject-based knowledge in a broader way in the organization andprevent situations where people are reinventing the wheel: “Weshould have an infrastructure that helped us to work better. It’s annoy-ing when you need to make something from scratch because you don’tknow that someone already had made that and you could reuse thatinformation instead.” (interviewee 4).

Another crucial aspect is that most of the people are not evenaware of which projects are going on at the time, or who the expertson a specific area are. Therefore, they first needed to find out if therehas been any project specifically related with what they want tofind out, and then they communicate with their team members inorder to clarify their doubts: “there isn’t any place where I can easilyknow which projects are going on right now or that have been, in whichareas, etc. If I want to know that I can (. . .) talk with some experts thatare aware of what are the projects related with those topics, and thenI need to know who worked or is working on those projects” (inter-viewee3). So, when it comes to sharing project knowledge, peoplefirst used their personal network of contacts inside the institution,and only after this first contact, they could use some supportivewritten information: “I think all starts with a conversation, becausewhen I know that someone inside has some knowledge that I need, isthe one to whom I look up. Also because then that person can showme a specific document that I can read, because the project I want toknow more about may have a large number of documents (which iswhat usually happens)” (interviewee4). A more open communica-tion of which projects are going on in the unit could even lead tonew business opportunities: “if I knew that a company of a specificsector is working in a project here in the unit, and I needed preciselya company from that sector to another project, I could immediatelymake a bridge and capitalize that contact.” (interviewee3).

5. Discussion

Knowledge creation in PBO occurs, in a first moment, during theprojects execution and, in a second moment, the created knowl-edge should be disseminated to the whole organization, hopefullyincreasing the organizational capability. Within a project, an EIMstrategy has the main purpose of ensuring that the project’s infor-mation is easily created, organized and accessed by its memberscoping with the project idiosyncrasies of temporariness, fastnessand uniqueness. Such a strategy addresses explicit and codifiedknowledge and needs to support knowledge sharing. We distin-guish between two different realities with particular informationalneeds: (1) within the temporary nature of a project execution and(2) in the overall organization, where projects occur as smallerorganizational forms.

EIM artifacts are useful to overcome the challenges presentedby heterogeneous team members (Shachaf, 2008) and the choice ofusing mainstream tools which were familiar to all project memberswas positive. This is consistent with previous studies: perceivedease of use is a critical determinant to decide organizationalmembers’ acceptance of newly adopted information technology(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003; also, Lee, Kim, & Kim,

2006) pointed out that user-friendly IT applications and a highlevel of organizational member use of IT applications can improveinformation sharing. Therefore, if the implemented informationtechnology is not easy and efficient to use, project member’s IT

7 al of I

ak

wodtiufieisfi

iiomguatiz

cecmnvprssameaaiebpabvmikgc2a

stawiitoiw

76 M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journ

cceptance will be lower, which can compromise information andnowledge sharing.

The reverse of the coin of this positive usage of ICT in Project Xas that they have contributed for the creation of large amounts

f information, dispersed by different platforms and tools. Stan-ardization of EIM artifacts in projects is quite difficult, and findinghe most feature-impressive or user-friendly tool to be used dur-ng a temporary moment in time and with so different types ofsers is far from project managers primary concerns. In order toll this gap, project teams end up using the artifacts which areasier and familiar to them. Managers are not worried about choos-ng the best possible content management system or classificationcheme to manage their project documents; they simply want tond information fast in order to fill their temporary needs.

What was perceived in this study is that EIM strategiesn projects need to be closely aligned with the predom-nant knowledge-sharing mechanisms of its environment inrder to improve the intrinsic cycle of information manage-ent → knowledge-sharing → organizational learning. In fact, if the

oal of a PBO regarding information/knowledge management is,ltimately, the organizational learning, the selection, articulationnd use of EIM artifacts should not be restricted to project dura-ion. When a project finishes, the EIM lifecycle should assure thatnformation produced is organized in order to fulfill future organi-ational needs.

The organizational unit seemed to be facing substantial obsta-les in the re-cycling of project-based learning (Boh, 2007; Bresnent al., 2003). By not having a coherent strategy for organizing thatontent, the process of retrieving and reusing past project infor-ation is hard. We have clearly identified, in several moments, the

eed of the participants to find meaningful information from pre-ious projects to be applied to their current project tasks. A curiousaradox was found here. In one hand, the favorable social envi-onment characterizing the unit (and which relied under a strongense of trust), is a threat to knowledge codification (informationharing). Knowledge was more easily shared through conversationsnd consequently it was hard to motivate people to write downeaningful information that can, eventually, be valuable later. Ben-

fits of being at the same physical place were also confirmed as itllowed immediate feedback so that understanding can be checkednd interpretations corrected, and misinterpretation of meaningss less likely (Koskinen, Pihlanto, & Vanharanta, 2003). Also, knowl-dge related with people’s viewpoints, beliefs and experiences (aseing what people were more interested in acquiring from itseers), was more easily shared by social and informal interactionsnd gatherings. Therefore, knowledge acquired by project mem-ers throughout the time, although shared frequently, remainedulnerable and could be easily lost. By relying in personalizationechanisms, people are dependent on other’s availability, which

s not guaranteed at every moment. Because of this, if some of thatnowledge was codified through EIM artifacts, according to an inte-rating EIM strategy, the ease of knowledge transfer increases andosts associated with such transfer will decrease (Prencipe & Tell,001). An adequate EIM strategy implemented through flexible EIMrtifacts could make such knowledge transfer more effective.

The other side of this paradox is that the richness of knowledgeharing in the unit is precisely this social-intensive creation andransfer of knowledge. People are used to get up from their chairnd go talk with other colleagues and friends in a very informalay, which is faster and easier than reading technical documents

n existent repositories: “I am not saying that documents are notmportant! But, as a computer professional, sometimes is hard for me

o read some 40/50 pages document, when, I can have a conversationf 15 minutes, discuss the topics of that same document and sharensights and ideas about it in a lighter and easier way” (intervie-

ee2). Social capital facilitates project-to-organization learning,

nformation Management 34 (2014) 770–779

by positively affecting motivation, opportunity and ability (Argoteet al., 2003). The perceived voluntarism about sharing informationrelies on this sense of trust among organizational members (T. M.Yang & Maxwell, 2011) which, on the other hand, derives from theexistent strong social ties. Social networks at the organizations aredescribed as subsets of established informal relations that existwithin teams and across subunits (Hansen Morten, Mors, & Løvås,2005) and they include individual and group contacts, communica-tions, and interactions that foster relationship and trust to enhancesharing behaviors. Social networks at RD Institute were then veryimportant for the promotion of sharing information and knowledgebetween its members. By allowing and reinforcing such social tiesbetween project teams and their intra-organizational colleaguesoutside the project, the organization can help to overcome barriersto learning that stem from project teams’ lack of opportunity,motivation and ability to make project-based knowledge availableto the organization as a whole (Bresnen et al., 2003).

A balance between this voluntarism of knowledge sharing andthe identified need to instrumentalize it needs to be found. UsingEIM artifacts to support more formal ways of knowledge sharingshould be embedded in a sense of usefulness and in a belief thatsuch structures will contribute to a collective good (Wang & Noe,2010), without forgetting the role of social bounds and behaviorsthat allow stronger project communities.

Here we must mention the importance of the existent intrinsiclearning culture of RD Institute. Organizational learning suggeststhat meaning and actions and learning (both individual and orga-nizational) are a result of the conversations and interactions ofindividuals within their socio-cultural settings (Sense, 2011), whichmeans that the interaction among the members of an organiza-tion is central to the process of learning. Consequently, and if, inone hand, the organizational culture should foster and encour-ages knowledge sharing for the purpose of learning, a successfulknowledge sharing strategy (whether by using codification orpersonalization mechanisms) also needs to have in mind the orga-nizational culture and people’s beliefs, because understanding howlearning happens in the workplace may help contrive improvedways of sustaining and fostering learning processes (Sense, 2011).The way people were naturally willing to share knowledge witheach other, and how that willingness is related with the organi-zational culture and a sense of trust (Pemsel & Wiewiora, 2013)reflects a “knowledge friendly culture”, that is a very importantpart of successful KM projects (Davenport, Long, & Beers, 1998).Knowledge sharing is a social phenomenon, it involves interper-sonal relationships and social interactions (Lin, Wu, & Lu, 2012). Asa result, an EIM strategy to improve knowledge sharing needs to beembedded within the social organizational practices and culture.

5.1. EIM-specific recommendations

Consistent with previous studies (Boh, 2007; Hansen et al.,1999), RD Institute, as a typical R&D context, was generically moreopen to the idea of sharing knowledge in an informal way, mainlythrough unmediated social interaction. Nevertheless, the percep-tion of some knowledge gaps made people aware of the need tocreate improved mechanisms to disseminate important knowledgeabout some aspects, such as: which projects are going on at themoment? Which people are involved? With which companies?What are the areas being developed under those projects? Impor-tant information like this one seemed to foster new opportunitiesof collaboration, whether by collaborators from the unit or withexternal partners.

By connecting EIM with the specific knowledge-sharing behav-ior of project actors, major advantages can be achieved in providingto project teams and to the PBO the necessary ICT platforms, com-ponents and procedures to improve the process of knowledge

M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journal of Information Management 34 (2014) 770–779 777

Table 2Recommendations for EIM at RD Institute.

IM processes (Detlor, 2010) Recommendations:During a project execution

Recommendations:After a project execution

Creation

“where individuals andorganizations generate andproduce new informationartifacts”

Creating content in the scope of a project needs to be donewith some degree of collaboration between the teamelements. In this process, EIM artifacts such as Wikiplatforms, e-mail and Skype communication can enhancethe dynamics of this process and also contribute to a moreuniform language throughout the project execution, whichis so important in such multidisciplinary contexts. Othercommon and easy to use tools like Google Drive or othercollaborative content creating tools should also beconsidered.

The organization of a project generated information needs to have inmind its long-term retrieval after the project end. Therefore, it isimportant to understand how the information created during a projectexecution will migrate to more long-term storage tools.When the project ends, project results (e.g., requirementsspecification, models, technical documents, etc.) should be preservedin a central CMS, associated to the project file. It should be importantto reflect about the contents that are important to preserve among theoverload of information a project produces.

Acquisition

“consists in the process whereinformation items areobtained from externalsources”

Digital platforms envisaging both the project executionand the knowledge sharing across projects should enablethe access of external content. For instance, they canprovide hyperlinks to other ICT tools in the institute (forinstance, for the institutional newsletter related with aproject or theme) or to other external and useful webpages such as BPM or other domain communities.

Organization

“addresses the classificationschemes and ways oforganizing information tosupport easy retrieval at laterpoints in time”

During a project execution, an information architecturebased on the project structure will suffice in most of thecases to organize content. Making this architecture astandard to all performed projects in the unit will bebeneficial.

In order to improve knowledge sharing across projects, a facetedclassification, using categories to organize and access content seemseffective. Categories could reflect many different things, related withdifferent informational needs: the document type, the projectattributes (date, technical and scientific domains, industrial sector,etc.).The ability of intersecting those categories when searching forinformation will be a plus: “Example: I need to find information aboutpast projects using simulation in the shoe industry. If content areorganized in such categories, I will find the right information”.(interviewee3).

Distribution/dissemination

“is the process of circulatinginformation of interest toend-users”

During a project execution, dissemination of information iscrucial especially for the accomplishment of deadlines, andthe digital tools should provide, for instance, automaticalerts to users according with their particular interestsinside the project. This will be useful, for instance, if atechnical report from one particular task is ready to bevalidated by the rest of the team, or if a delivery deadline isapproaching.

For the purpose of knowledge sharing across projects, disseminationfeatures in a CMS could deliver newly updated project informationaccording with a member particular area of interest. This will allowpeople to be better informed about what projects are going on in theunit.In order to “help people to find other people” (Hansen, Nohria, andTierney 1999) a good feature to a CMS in the unit will be to presentcontact information of the team members of a specific project, or thepeople who have worked within a particular area. The personalizationstrategy of getting people talking with each other will be, in this way,enhanced by the IM strategy. This feature is very important because itdirectly relates with the organizational culture and provides the userthe means to directly contact other people and, consequently,

titfiaauki

PvolpIdikmstpA

ransfer. With regard to both perspectives, EIM should focus onmproving the codification mechanisms of knowledge-sharing, ashe way people “store large amounts of knowledge, carefully codi-ed and stored in databases and documents, where it can be easilyccessed and used” (Hansen et al., 1999). EIM artifacts should beddressing those issues, by providing direct channels where thenit members can retrieve, for instance, information conveyingnowledge acquired in past projects, and without a middle mann the process.

Table 2 organizes a set of recommendations regarding EIM inBO, based on opinions and suggestions listened during the inter-iews and in the participant observation. Recommendations wererganized according with Detlor (2010) main processes of the IMifecycle, and divided into “during a project execution” and “after aroject execution”, since a big difference was perceived concerning

M processes in these two moments in time. These recommen-ations also bring together the dichotomist relation between the

nstrumentalism VS voluntarism about sharing information andnowledge in PBO. Formal instruments to create and share infor-ation need to be aligned with the existent motivation to naturally

hare knowledge, and need to have in mind how people will usehem within their daily project tasks. Also, in a project company oneroject might need more explicit knowledge than another project.lternatively there might be differences in the degree to which

spreading the network of contacts which it seems to be very strong inproject contexts.

projects are able to utilize tacit or explicit knowledge (Koskinenet al., 2003). In a context where the sources of expertise andknowledge distributed by so many different groups of people, itis very tough to predict what people want and what they knowin advance. Tools for creating, sharing and disseminating informa-tion and knowledge need to have the necessary features to allowusers to navigate in their own pace and requirements. Therefore,IM and KS strategies just have to empower people by facilitatingparticipation and success.

6. Conclusions

Three different literature domains were intersected in thispaper: project management, information management and knowl-edge management. An important bridge was created, which canstrives a better awareness of the challenge of organizing informa-tion in project-based contexts, and, above all, the importance ofhaving the appropriate EIM and knowledge sharing strategies. Therole of socialization was also addressed; projects seem to have the

ability to create new relations among people because they allowdifferent people from different surroundings to work together,sometimes for the very first time, which enhances new social inter-actions and consequently new knowledge transfers. Knowledge

7 al of I

ap

taipemjdwwitttawadartfl

scstconEs

A

NNtnp

R

A

A

A

A

A

B

B

B

78 M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journ

nd information management in PBO need to be aligned with thiserception of knowledge as intensively socially constructed.

This study has demonstrated the issues, difficulties and prac-ices in R&D project contexts concerning information managementnd knowledge sharing, and contributes to a deeper understand-ng on how practices of EIM and knowledge sharing occur in sucharticular PBO. Although the personalization perspective of knowl-dge sharing is prevalent, more structured strategies involving theanagement of codified knowledge are urgent. Therefore, only a

oint strategy, where a more technology-supported and strategy-irected project’s information management will be connectedith the more social aspects of knowledge sharing processes,ill allow its significant success in leverage organizational learn-

ng in this kind of organizations. EIM can be regarded withinhe scope of a “learning” PBO as providing the relevant informa-ion to be used “strategically in order to generate new knowledgehrough organizational learning” (Choo, 2003). In such change-ble environments, knowledge is created in a very dynamicay and it spreads around the organization through formal

nd informal processes of creation, discovery, archive, retrieval,issemination and reuse. Only conceptualizing information man-gement in PBOs within all this idiosyncratic connections andelations will allow that EIM provides consistent technologies andools to take the best profit of the project-made informationalows.

Since the concepts of information management, knowledgeharing and organizational learning are themselves intrinsicallyomplex and adhere to several assumptions in the literature, futuretudies should reflect their characteristics in more PBO, which arehemselves new organizational forms (Gareis, 1991), in order toomplement the conceptualization we have addressed. Regardingur research, in particular in what concerns to RD Institute, theext step will be to take in our main conclusions (particularly theIM recommendations) and apply them by implementing an EIMtrategy to be developed and deployed by the overall organization.

cknowledgements

Project “NORTE-07-0124-FEDER-000057” is financed by theorth Portugal Regional Operational Programme (ON.2 – O Novoorte), under the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF),

hrough the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), and byational funds, through the Portuguese funding agency, Fundac ãoara a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT).

eferences

jmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008). Knowledge transfer in project-based orga-nizations: An organizational culture perspective. Project Management Journal,39(1), 7–15.

jmal, M. M., Takala, J., & Kekäle, T. (2008). Role of organizational culture for knowl-edge sharing in projects. In PICMET 2008 proceedings Cape Town, South Africa,27–31 July.

lalwan, J. A., & Weistroffer, H. R. (2012). Enterprise content management research:A comprehensive review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 25(5),441–461.

rgote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003). Introduction to the specialissue on managing knowledge in organizations: Creating, retain-ing, and transferring knowledge. Management Science, 49(4), v–viii.http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.0.14421

tkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation.In Y. S. Lincoln, & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (pp.248–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

ack, W. E., & Moreau, K. A. (2001). Information management strategies for projectmanagement. Project Management Journal, (March), 10–20.

akker, R. M., Cambré, B., Korlaar, L., & Raab, J. (2011). Managing the

project learning paradox: A set-theoretic approach toward project knowl-edge transfer. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 494–503.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.002

artsch, V., Ebers, M., & Maurer, I. (2013). Learning in project-based organi-zations: The role of project teams’ social capital for overcoming barriers

nformation Management 34 (2014) 770–779

to learning. International Journal of Project Management, 31(2), 239–251.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.06.009

Baskerville, R., & Pries-heje, J. (1999). Grounded action research: A method for under-standing IT in practice. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9,1–23.

Beynon-Davies, P. (1997). Ethnography and information systems development:Ethnography of, for and within is development. Information and Software Tech-nology, 39(8), 531–540. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-5849(97)00008-6

Blindenbach-Driessen, F., & van den Ende, J. (2006). Innovation in project-basedfirms: The context dependency of success factors. Research Policy, 35(4),545–561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.02.005

Boh, W. F. (2007). Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. Information and Organization, 17(1), 27–58.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2006.10.001

Bouthillier, F., & Shearer, K. (2002). Understanding knowledge management andinformation management: The need for an empirical perspective. InformationResearch, 8(1).

Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003).Social practices and the management of knowledge in project envi-ronments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157–166.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00090-X

Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innova-tion capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6),515–524. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6

Caniëls, M. C. J., & Bakens, R. J. J. M. (2012). The effects of project man-agement information systems on decision making in a multi projectenvironment. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 162–175.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.05.005

Choo, C. W. (2003). Gestão da Informac ão para a Organizac ão Inteligente. Lisboa:Caminho.

Coakes, E. W., Coakes, J. M., & Rosenberg, D. (2008). Co-operative workpractices and knowledge sharing issues: A comparison of view-points. International Journal of Information Management, 28(1), 12–25.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.10.004

Da Cunha, J. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2008). Performing catharsis: The use of onlinediscussion forums in organizational change. Information and Organization, 18(2),132–156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.02.001

Davenport, T. H., De Long, Long, & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful knowledge man-agement projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43–57.

Detlor, B. (2010). Information management. International Journal of Information Man-agement, 30(2), 103–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.12.001

Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative Methods in Business Research. Lon-don: Sage.

Fetterman, D. M. (2010). . Ethnography: Step-by-step (Vol. 17) SAGE Publications, Inc.Fong, P. S. W. (2003). Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project

teams: An empirical study of the processes and their dynamic interre-lationships. International Journal of Project Management, 21(7), 479–486.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(03)00047-4

Gareis, R. (1991). Management by projects: The management strategy of the newproject-oriented company. International Journal of Project Management, 9(2),71–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(91)90062-Z

Gunnlaugsdottir, J. (2003). Seek and you will find, share and youwill benefit: Organising knowledge using groupware systems.International Journal of Information Management, 23(5), 363–380.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0268-4012(03)00064-1

Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for manag-ing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116, 187. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10387767

Hansen Morten, T., Mors, M. L., & Løvås, B. (2005). Knowledge sharing in organi-zations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal,48(5), 776–793.

Harper, R. H. R. (2000). The organisation in ethnography – A discussion of ethno-graphic fieldwork programs in CSCW R. Computer Supported Cooperative Work,9, 239–264.

Hartmann, T., Fischer, M., & Haymaker, J. (2009). Implementing information systemswith project teams using ethnographic-action research. Advanced EngineeringInformatics, 23(1), 57–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2008.06.006

Holzmann, V. (2013). A meta-analysis of brokering knowledge in projectmanagement. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1), 2–13.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.05.002

Howell, K. E., & Annansingh, F. (2013). Knowledge generation and sharing in UK uni-versities: A tale of two cultures? International Journal of Information Management,33 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2012.05.003

Hughes, J. A., Randall, D., & Shapiro, D. (1992). Faltering from ethnographyto design. In CSCW 92: Sharing perspectives: Proceedings of the conferenceon computer supported co-operative work (pp. 115–122). New York: ACMPress.

Jackson, P., & Klobas, J. (2008). Building knowledge in projects: A practicalapplication of social constructivism to information systems devel-opment. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 329–337.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.05.011

Johannessen, J.-A., & Olsen, B. (2011). Projects as communicating systems: Creatinga culture of innovation and performance. International Journal of InformationManagement, 31(1), 30–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.04.006

Karim, N. S. A., & Hussein, R. (2008). Managers’ perception of information man-agement and the role of information and knowledge managers: The Malaysian

al of I

K

L

L

L

L

N

P

P

P

P

R

R

R

S

M.V. Almeida, A.L. Soares / International Journ

perspectives. International Journal of Information Management, 28(2), 114–127.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.08.003

oskinen, K. U., Pihlanto, P., & Vanharanta, H. (2003). Tacit knowledge acquisitionand sharing in a project work context. International Journal of Project Manage-ment, 21(4), 281–290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00030-3

ee, J.-H., Kim, Y.-G., & Kim, M.-Y. (2006). Effects of managerial drivers and cli-mate maturity on knowledge-management performance: Empirical validation.Information Resources Management Journal, 19(3), 48–60.

iebowitz, J., & Megbolugbe, I. (2003). A set of frameworks to aid theproject manager in conceptualizing and implementing knowledge manage-ment initiatives. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 189–198.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00093-5

in, T.-C., Wu, S., & Lu, C.-T. (2012). Exploring the affect factors of knowledge sharingbehavior: The relations model theory perspective. Expert Systems with Applica-tions, 39(1), 751–764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.068

yles, M. A. (2013). Organizational learning, knowledge creation, problem for-mulation and innovation in messy problems. European Management Journal,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.05.003

eels Kruger, C. J., & Johnson, R. D. (2010). Information management asan enabler of knowledge management maturity: A South African per-spective. International Journal of Information Management, 30(1), 57–67.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.06.007

äivärinta, T., & Munkvold, B. E. (2005). Enterprise content management: An inte-grated perspective on information management. In Proceedings of the 38thHawaii international conference on system sciences.

emsel, S., & Wiewiora, A. (2013). Project management office a knowledge broker inproject-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 31(1),31–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.03.004

rencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomesof knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30(9),1373–1394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00157-3

roject Management Institute. (2008). PMBOK guide 4th edition. Pennsylvania:Project Management Institute, Inc.

eich, B. H. (2007). Managing knowledge and learning in IT projects: A conceptualframework and guidelines for practice. Project Management Journal, 38(2).

eich, B. H., Gemino, A., & Sauer, C. (2012). Knowledge management andproject-based knowledge in it projects: A model and preliminary empir-ical results. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 663–674.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.12.003

owley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy.Journal of Information Science, 33, 163–180.

antos, V. R., Soares, A. L., & Carvalho, J. Á. (2012). Knowledge sharing barriersin complex research and development projects: An exploratory study on the

nformation Management 34 (2014) 770–779 779

perceptions of project managers. Knowledge and Process Management, 19(1),27–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1379

Sense, A. J. (2011). The project workplace for organizational learning devel-opment. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 986–993.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.012

Shachaf, P. (2008). Cultural diversity and information and communication tech-nology impacts on global virtual teams: An exploratory study. Information &Management, 45(2), 131–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2007.12.003

Thiry, M., & Deguire, M. (2007). Recent developments in project-basedorganisations. International Journal of Project Management, 25(7), 649–658.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.02.001

Turner, J. R. (2010). Evolution of project management research as evidencedby papers published in the International Journal of Project Man-agement. International Journal of Project Management, 28(1), 1–6.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.10.009

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance ofinformation technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.

Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directionsfor future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001

Willis, P., & Trondman, M. (2000). Manifesto for ethnography. Ethnography, 1(1),5–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14661380022230679

Yang, C.-W., Fang, S.-C., & Lin, J. L. (2010). Organisational knowledge creation strate-gies: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Information Management,30(3), 231–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2009.08.005

Yang, T. M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public orga-nizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational andinter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2),164–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.008

Yin, R. K. (2003). Yin – Case study research – Design and methods (3rd ed.). London:SAGE Publications.

Maria Vaz Almeida is a researcher at INESC TEC in a research group on CollaborativeNetworks. She received her M.Sc. degree in Information Science from the Universityof Porto, Faculty of Engineering. Her research interests are information and knowl-edge management in project-based organizations, project management, knowledgeorganization and collaborative networks.

António Lucas Soares is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the Uni-versity of Porto, Faculty of Engineering. He is also a Senior Researcher at INESCTEC where he coordinates a research group on Collaborative Networks. Its currentresearch interests are social semantics, collaboration and information management,collaborative networks governance.