The Role of Organisational Culture, Trust and Mechanisms ... · The Role of Organisational Culture,...

The Role of Organisational Culture, Trust and Mechanisms in Inter-Project

Knowledge Sharing

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Anna Wiewiora

MA (Public Administration) University of Wroclaw

School of Urban Development

Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering

Queensland University of Technology

Australia

2011

iii

First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my lovely

parents Monika Wiewióra and Leszek Wiewióra

who have always believed in me, encouraged me and never let me

fall. Through the years you have instilled in me a desire to expand

my skills, build confidence and encouraged me to reach my dreams.

I would never achieve what I did, and would never be the

person I am without your love, encouragement, goodness,

sincerity and support. Thank you for this.

Tą pracę chciałabym zadedykować moim kochanym rodzicom

Monice i Leszkowi Wiewióra, ktorzy zawsze wierzyli we

mnie i w moje możliwości, motywowali mnie i dodawali mi sił

do dalszej drogi nie pozwalając się poddać.

Kochani rodzice, dziękuję Wam za to że zaszczepiliście we

mnie chęć poznania świata, budowaliscie poczucie mojej

wartości i dopingowaliscie mnie abym zawsze dążyła do

zdobycia wytyczonych celow i marzeń.

Nigdy nie osiągnełabym tego wszystkiego i nie byłabym tą

osobą ktorą jestem teraz bez Waszej miłości, wsparcia,

dobroci i szczerości jaka mnie obdarzaliście przez całe życie.

Za to wszystko dziękuję Wam z całego serca.

v

Acknowledgements

This journey would not be possible without the support of several wonderful people.

My sincere gratitude to my three supervisors: As.Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah, Prof.

Guy Gable, and Dr Glen Murphy. Bambang, thank you for believing in me, for your

encouragement, patience and understanding. You always provided me guidance and

practical solutions throughout the whole process. It was you who first encouraged me

to start the PhD and believed in me, in my passion and ability to undertake the

journey. I thank you for that. Guy I truly enjoyed our chats on methodology and

philosophical stance. They made me aware what PhD really is about. Glen, thank

you so much for your help and the opportunities that you have placed in front of me.

You always pushed me beyond my comfort zone and uncovered abilities I never

knew I have. It is because of you I learned how to think critically and analytically; I

believe this has helped me tremendously to become a better researcher. A warm

thank you to Dr Vaughan Coffey who provided me with great suggestions and has

been like a fatherly figure for me.

Thank you to supportive team from the Research Office, it was always pleasant to

deal with you guys. This study is funded by both the School of Urban Development

and the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Integrated Engineering Asset

Management (CIEAM). I gratefully acknowledge both for their financial assistance. I

wish to make a special note of appreciation for the industry participants who

contributed their time and effort to the case studies. Dennis, Eleonora, Nerida and

Peter — thank you, without you this research would not be possible. A warm thanks

to ISS team and in particular the amazing Karyn Gonano who helped a great deal in

improving my writing skills. You truly were a big part of my PhD journey! I would

also like to thank all those who have provided feedback for this work. I much

appreciate your time, support and interest in this study.

To my close friends from within and outside QUT with whom I have shared ups and

downs of this journey and who were always there for me. Special thanks to Melissa

Chan, Asrul Masrom and Kai Chen Goh. I learned so much about Malaysian culture

during our lunches and coffee breaks, you definitely made this journey enjoyable. I

also want to express my appreciation and thanks to Dr Liang Chen and Sofia Pemsel

— doing collaborative research with you has been such a pleasure. Our stimulating

discussions and brainstorming sessions on our common interest have broaden my

understanding about the field. Finally, I am greatly indebted to my parents who

always believed in me, for your unconditional love, goodness and encouragement,

and to my lovely David, who was there for me through the tough times and

difficulties I faced. Your love, understanding and perspective of life have been a

great help to the completion of my study.

I am grateful to have you all in my life.

vii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the

best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously

published or written by another person except where due reference is made.

…………………………………………………………..

Signature

Anna Wiewiora

…………………………………

Date

ix

Keywords

Knowledge sharing, inter-project context, organisational culture, trust, knowledge

sharing mechanisms, case study

xi

Abstract

Knowledge has been recognised as a powerful yet intangible asset, which is difficult

to manage. This is especially true in a project environment where there is the

potential to repeat mistakes, rather than learn from previous experiences. The

literature in the project management field has recognised the importance of

knowledge sharing (KS) within and between projects. However, studies in that field

focus primarily on KS mechanisms including lessons learned (LL) and post project

reviews as the source of knowledge for future projects, and only some preliminary

research has been carried out on the aspects of project management offices (PMOs)

and organisational culture (OC) in KS. This study undertook to investigate KS

behaviours in an inter-project context, with a particular emphasis on the role of trust,

OC and a range of knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) in achieving successful

inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). An extensive literature search resulted in

the development of an I-PKS Framework, which defined the scope of the research

and shaped its initial design.

The literature review indicated that existing research relating to the three factors of

OC, trust and KSM remains inadequate in its ability to fully explain the role of these

contextual factors. In particular, the literature review identified these areas of

interest: (1) the conflicting answers to some of the major questions related to KSM,

(2) the limited empirical research on the role of different trust dimensions, (3) limited

empirical evidence of the role of OC in KS, and (4) the insufficient research on KS in

an inter-project context.

The resulting Framework comprised the three main factors including: OC, trust and

KSM, demonstrating a more integrated view of KS in the inter-project context.

Accordingly, the aim of this research was to examine the relationships between these

three factors and KS by investigating behaviours related to KS from the project

managers‘ (PMs‘) perspective. In order to achieve the aim, this research sought to

answer the following research questions:

1. How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing?

xii

2. How does the existence of three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and

(iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?

3. How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project

management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project knowledge

sharing behaviours?

4. How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational culture,

trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve inter-project knowledge

sharing?

a. What are the relationships between the factors?

b. What is the best fit for given cases to ensure more effective inter-

project knowledge sharing?

Using multiple case studies, this research was designed to build propositions

emerging from cross-case data analysis. The four cases were chosen on the basis of

theoretical sampling. All cases were large project-based organisations (PBOs), with a

strong matrix-type structure, as per the typology proposed by the Project

Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) (2008). Data were collected from

project management departments of the respective organisations.

A range of analytical techniques were used to deal with the data including pattern

matching logic and explanation building analysis, complemented by the use of

NVivo for data coding and management. Propositions generated at the end of the

analyses were further compared with the extant literature, and practical implications

based on the data and literature were suggested in order to improve I-PKS.

Findings from this research conclude that OC, trust, and KSM contribute to inter-

project knowledge sharing, and suggest the existence of relationships between these

factors. In view of that, this research identified the relationships between different

trust dimensions, suggesting that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between

ability trust and knowledge sharing. Furthermore, this research demonstrated that

characteristics of culture and trust interact to reinforce preferences for mechanisms of

xiii

knowledge sharing. This means that cultures that facilitate characteristics of Clan

type are more likely to result in trusting relationships, hence are more likely to use

organic sources of knowledge for both tacit and explicit knowledge exchange. In

contrast, cultures that are empirically driven, based on control, efficiency, and

measures (characteristics of Hierarchy and Market types) display tendency to

develop trust primarily in ability of non-organic sources, and therefore use these

sources to share mainly explicit knowledge.

This thesis contributes to the project management literature by providing a more

integrative view of I-PKS, bringing the factors of OC, trust and KSM into the

picture. A further contribution is related to the use of collaborative tools as a

substitute for static LL databases and as a facilitator for tacit KS between

geographically dispersed projects. This research adds to the literature on OC by

providing rich empirical evidence of the relationships between OC and the

willingness to share knowledge, and by providing empirical evidence that OC has an

effect on trust; in doing so this research extends the theoretical propositions outlined

by previous research. This study also extends the research on trust by identifying the

relationships between different trust dimensions, suggesting that integrity trust

reinforces the relationship between ability trust and KS. Finally, this research

provides some directions for future studies.

xv

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... V

STATEMENT OF ORIGINAL AUTHORSHIP ........................................................................................ VII

KEYWORDS ..................................................................................................................................... IX

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... XI

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................XV

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. XIX

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. XX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................ XXI

DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................................................ XXIII

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND ................................................................................................. 1

1.2. RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RATIONALE .............................................................................. 3

1.3. RESEARCH AIM ................................................................................................................. 6

1.4. THE RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................... 6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING IN

PROJECT-BASED ORGANISATIONS .................................................................................................. 11

2.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 11

2.2. THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE......................................................................................... 12

2.3. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................... 15

2.4. THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING........................................................................................ 18

2.5. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND SHARING ........................................................................... 21

2.6. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN PROJECT-BASED ORGANISATIONS ......................................... 23

2.6.1. The Nature of Project-Based Organisations ........................................................... 23

2.6.2. Knowledge Sharing Practices in a Project Context ................................................. 28

2.6.3. Barriers in Inter-project Knowledge Sharing .......................................................... 32

2.7. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 35

3. INTER-PROJECT KNOWLEDGE SHARING FRAMEWORK ........................................................... 37

3.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 37

3.2. TRUST ............................................................................................................................ 39

3.2.1. The Nature of Trust ............................................................................................... 39

3.2.2. Trust Dimensions ................................................................................................... 40

3.2.3. Current Research on Trust In Project Management and Knowledge Management

Literature .............................................................................................................................. 42

3.2.4. Research Gap ........................................................................................................ 45

3.3. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS ............................................................................ 45

3.3.1. Existing Research on Relational, Technology and Project Management Related

Mechanisms ........................................................................................................................... 49

3.3.2. Research Gap ........................................................................................................ 51

3.4. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ........................................................................................... 52

3.4.1. Organisational Culture and Knowledge Management .......................................... 53

xvi

3.4.2. Organisational Culture and Knowledge Sharing in Project-based Organisations ... 54

3.4.3. Research Gap ........................................................................................................ 57

3.5. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 58

4. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 61

4.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 61

4.2. PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION .............................................................................................. 62

4.3. RESEARCH FLOW ............................................................................................................ 63

4.3.1. Research Reasoning .............................................................................................. 65

4.3.2. Research Approach — Inductive Theory Building .................................................. 66

4.4. RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................................................................... 68

4.4.1. The Rationale for Using a Case Study Method ....................................................... 69

4.4.2. The Use of Multiple Case Studies ........................................................................... 71

4.5. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH METHOD ....................................................... 72

4.5.1. Unit of Analysis and Case Selection ....................................................................... 72

4.5.2. Case Study Protocol ............................................................................................... 74

4.5.3. Entering the Field .................................................................................................. 75

4.5.4. Sources of Evidence ............................................................................................... 76

4.6. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH ............................................................................................ 79

4.6.1. The Use of NVivo in Data Coding and Analysis ...................................................... 79

4.6.2. Within-case Analysis ............................................................................................. 82

4.6.3. Cross-case Analysis ................................................................................................ 84

4.6.4. Analytical Techniques............................................................................................ 84

4.7. RESEARCH QUALITY ........................................................................................................ 87

4.7.1. Validity .................................................................................................................. 88

4.7.2. Reliability versus Consistency and Trustworthiness ............................................... 89

4.7.3. Analytical Generalisability .................................................................................... 90

4.8. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 91

5. WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 93

5.1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 93

5.2. WITHIN-CASE PROCEDURES ............................................................................................ 94

5.3. ALPHA ............................................................................................................................ 95

5.3.1. Alpha’s Profile ....................................................................................................... 95

5.3.2. Organisational Culture .......................................................................................... 97

5.3.3. Trust .................................................................................................................... 102

5.3.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ......................................................................... 105

5.3.5. Summary of the Alpha Case ................................................................................ 109

5.4. BETA ............................................................................................................................ 112

5.4.1. Beta’s Profile ....................................................................................................... 112

5.4.2. Organisational Culture ........................................................................................ 113

5.4.3. Trust .................................................................................................................... 116


5.4.5. Summary of the Beta Case .................................................................................. 120

5.5. GAMMA ....................................................................................................................... 123

5.5.1. Gamma’s Profile .................................................................................................. 123


5.5.3. Trust .................................................................................................................... 128


5.5.5. Summary of the Gamma Case ............................................................................. 135

xvii

5.6. DELTA .......................................................................................................................... 138

5.6.1. Delta’s Profile...................................................................................................... 138


5.6.3. Trust .................................................................................................................... 144


5.6.5. Summary of the Delta Case ................................................................................. 151

5.7. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 153

6. CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................... 155

6.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 155

6.2. CROSS-CASES PROCEDURES .......................................................................................... 156

6.3. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ......................................................................................... 157

6.3.1. Organisational Culture and the Willingness to Share Knowledge ........................ 157

6.3.2. Project Manager’s Geographical Location ........................................................... 162

6.4. TRUST .......................................................................................................................... 166

6.4.1. The Contingent Effect of Integrity Trust............................................................... 169

6.4.2. The Effect of Organisational Culture on Trusting Relationships ........................... 171

6.5. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS .......................................................................... 173

6.5.1. Issues with Lessons Learned Across the Cases ..................................................... 176

6.5.2. Wiki — the Avenue for Lessons Learned and Tacit Knowledge Sharing ............... 178

6.5.3. Project Management Office — the Facilitator for Inter-project Knowledge Sharing ..

............................................................................................................................ 181

6.5.4. Summary — Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms..................................................... 183

6.6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, KNOWLEDGE SHARING

MECHANISMS AND TRUST ........................................................................................................ 183

6.7. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 186

7. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................... 189

7.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 189

7.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE ..................................................................... 189

7.2.1. Culture and the Willingness to Share Knowledge ................................................ 190

7.2.2. Cultural Differences and Knowledge Sharing Between Co-located versus Dispersed

PMs ............................................................................................................................ 191

7.2.3. The Leadership Active Engagement in Improving Knowledge Sharing Between

Dispersed Projects................................................................................................................ 192

7.3. THE ROLE OF TRUST ...................................................................................................... 195

7.3.1. Practical Implications .......................................................................................... 196

7.4. THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS ........................................................ 196

7.4.1. Practical Implications .......................................................................................... 198

7.5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, TRUST AND MECHANISMS ........ 202

7.6. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRATED RESEARCH FINDINGS .................................. 203

7.7. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... 205

8. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................... 207

8.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 207

8.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, TRUST AND MECHANISMS IN INTER-PROJECT

KNOWLEDGE SHARING ............................................................................................................. 208

8.2.1. Cultural Influences on Inter-Project Knowledge Sharing ...................................... 209

8.2.2. Influence of Ability, Integrity and Benevolence Trusts on Inter-Project Knowledge

Sharing ............................................................................................................................ 210

xviii

8.2.3. Utilisation of Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Inter-Project Knowledge

Sharing Behaviours .............................................................................................................. 210

8.2.4. The Relationships Between Organisational Culture, Trust and Knowledge Sharing

Mechanisms in Improving Inter-Project Knowledge Sharing ................................................ 212

8.3. CONTRIBUTIONS .......................................................................................................... 213

8.3.1. Contributions to Theory and Methods ................................................................. 213

8.3.2. Practical Contributions ........................................................................................ 217

8.4. LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................................ 218

8.5. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH............................................................................. 219

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 221

APPENDIX A - STUDY OUTCOMES ................................................................................................. 233

APPENDIX B – THE CASE STUDY PROTOCOL.................................................................................. 235

APPENDIX C - CORRESPONDENCE WITH STUDY PARTICIPANTS .................................................... 241

APPENDIX D - CONSENT FORM ..................................................................................................... 245

APPENDIX E - QUESTIONNAIRE..................................................................................................... 249

APPENDIX F – EXAMPLE OF THE REPORT SENT TO PARTICIPATING ORGANISATION..................... 253

xix

List of Tables

TABLE 2-1: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROCESSES ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT AUTHORS ..................................... 17

TABLE 2-2: KNOWLEDGE SHARING VERSUS KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER .................................................................. 22

TABLE 2-3: PBO VERSUS FUNCTIONAL ORGANISATION.................................................................................. 27

TABLE 2-4: BARRIERS TO EFFECTING KS WITHIN AND BETWEEN PROJECTS .......................................................... 34

TABLE 3-1: SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH ON TRUST ..................................................................................... 47

TABLE 3-2: ATTRIBUTES OF CLAN, ADHOCRACY, HIERARCHY, AND MARKET CULTURES ......................................... 56

TABLE 5-1: DEMOGRAPHICS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT IN SA AND WA SITE ................................. 96

TABLE 5-2: SUMMARY OF ALPHA’S PROFILE ............................................................................................... 97

TABLE 5-3: THE PRESENCE OF THREE FORMS OF TRUST DURING KNOWLEDGE SHARING ENDEAVOURS ...................... 102

TABLE 5-4: IMPORTANT AND/OR PRIMARILY USED MECHANISMS FOR INTER-PROJECT KNOWLEDGE SHARING ACCORDING

TO ALPHA RESPONDENTS............................................................................................................. 106

TABLE 5-5: SUMMARY OF BETA’S PROFILE ............................................................................................... 113

TABLE 5-6: THE PRESENCE OF THREE FORMS OF TRUST DURING KNOWLEDGE SHARING ENDEAVOURS (MEAN AND

STANDARD DEVIATION VALUES) ..................................................................................................... 116


TO BETA RESPONDENTS .............................................................................................................. 118

TABLE 5-8: OVERVIEW OF GAMMA INFORMANTS ...................................................................................... 124

TABLE 5-9: SUMMARY OF GAMMA’S PROFILE........................................................................................... 124




TO GAMMA RESPONDENTS .......................................................................................................... 132

TABLE 5-12: SUMMARY OF DELTA’S PROFILE ........................................................................................... 139




TO DELTA RESPONDENTS ............................................................................................................. 149

TABLE 6-1: CULTURE PROFILES — CROSS-CASE COMPARISON ....................................................................... 159

TABLE 6-2: PMS GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION ACROSS-CASES ..................................................................... 163

TABLE 6-3: MAJOR REMARKS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST FROM RESPONDENTS ........................................... 168

TABLE 6-4: IMPORTANT AND/OR PRIMARILY USED MECHANISMS FOR I-PKS ..................................................... 174

TABLE 6-5: MAJOR REMARKS FROM RESPONDENTS ABOUT WHY THEY PREFER FACE-TO-FACE OVER OTHER KSMS ...... 175

TABLE 6-6: LL ISSUES ......................................................................................................................... 177

TABLE 6-7: PMO FUNCTIONS VERSUS PMS’ EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE PMO ................................................. 182

TABLE 7-1: RESEARCH FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE ................................................................ 204

xx

List of Figures

FIGURE 1-1: RESEARCH DESIGN .............................................................................................................. 10

FIGURE 3-1: I-PKS FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 38

FIGURE 3-2: I-PKS FRAMEWORK (REPEATED FROM FIGURE 3.1)..................................................................... 59

FIGURE 4-1: RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS USED TO APPROACH THEM .................................................... 70

FIGURE 4-2: CASES SELECTION ................................................................................................................ 74

FIGURE 4-3: EXAMPLE OF FIRST PHASE CODING PROCESS ............................................................................... 81

FIGURE 4-4: A FRAGMENT OF TREE NODES STRUCTURE WITH PARENT NODES AND CHILD NODES .............................. 83

FIGURE 4-5: THE USE OF ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND QUERIES FOR WITHIN AND CROSS-CASE ANALYSES ................. 84

FIGURE 4-6: THE EXPLANATION BUILDING TECHNIQUE PROCESS ...................................................................... 86

FIGURE 5-1: I-PKS FRAMEWORK (REPEATED FROM CHAPTER 3, FIGURE 3.1)..................................................... 95

FIGURE 5-2: CULTURE PROFILE OF ALPHA .................................................................................................. 98

FIGURE 5-3: CULTURE PROFILE OF BETA .................................................................................................. 114

FIGURE 5-4: CULTURE PROFILE OF GAMMA ............................................................................................. 125

FIGURE 5-5: CULTURE PROFILES OF DELTA ............................................................................................... 141

FIGURE 6-1: CULTURE PROFILES OF ALPHA, BETA, GAMMA, AND DELTA MIN AND IT ........................................ 158

FIGURE 6-2: CONSEQUENCES OF PMS GEOGRAPHICAL DISPERSION ................................................................ 165

FIGURE 6-3: SWOT ANALYSIS ON WIKIS ACROSS THE FOUR CASES ................................................................. 179

FIGURE 6-4: FACTORS WHICH ENSURE IMPROVED WIKIS .............................................................................. 181

FIGURE 7-1: SUGGESTIONS HOW TO ENSURE UPDATED AND DYNAMIC COLLABORATIVE TOOL FOR I-PKS.................. 201

FIGURE 8-1: INTEGRATED RESEARCH FINDINGS .......................................................................................... 209

xxi

List of Abbreviations

BIP Business Improvement Projects

CoP Communities of Practice

CVF Competing Values Framework

GOC Government Owned Corporation

I-PKS Inter-project Knowledge Sharing

IT Information Technology

KM Knowledge Management

KMS Knowledge Management Systems

KS Knowledge Sharing

KSM Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

KT Knowledge Transfer

LL Lessons Learned

OC Organisational Culture

OCAI Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument

PBO Project-based Organisation

PPO Project Portfolio Office

PM Project Manager

PMBoK Project Management Body of Knowledge

PMD Project Management Department

PMO Project Management Office

PRINCE2 Projects in Controlled Environments 2

SA South Australia

TCP Transition and Customer Projects

WA Western Australia

xxiii

Definition of Terms

The following concepts and their definitions relating to the I-PKS Framework are

used in this study:

Inter-project

knowledge

sharing:

The process through which a project is affected by the experience of

another project. This definition is informed by the definition

proposed by Argote and Ingram (2000, p. 151). Inter-project

knowledge sharing was examined by analysing the occurrence of

knowledge seeking and sharing behaviours from the perspective of

the project manager as a main knowledge source. Often this

research uses a term knowledge sharing behaviours when describing

actions of an individual, group or a company resulting in the

distribution and exchange of knowledge.

Organisational

Culture:

A set of basic assumptions developed by a group to cope with

problems. A way to perceive, think and feel in relation to the

problems (Schein, 1990). This research examined organisational

culture by focusing on the behaviours of the company that drive

effective knowledge sharing, discussed by Gamble and Blackwell

(2001) and De Long and Fahey (2000) including collaboration,

willingness to share knowledge, existence of silos, learning from

mistakes and teaching.

Trust: Trust is defined as ―the willingness of a party to be vulnerable‖

(Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). This study examines three

trust dimensions, namely ability, benevolence and integrity,

proposed by Mayer et al. (1995). Ability refers to a perception that

another party is knowledgeable and possesses a certain level of

competence and skills (Mayer, et al., 1995). Benevolence suggests

xxiv

that the trustee has some specific attachment to the trustor and

would keep the best interests of the trustor at heart (Mayer & Davis,

1999). Integrity is a perception that the trustee adheres to a set of

principles that the trustor finds acceptable (i.e., honesty and

credibility) (Mayer, et al., 1995). Consistent with other research

(e.g. Pinto 2009) this research refers to ‗trust dimensions‘ and ‗trust

forms‘ interchangeably.

Knowledge

Sharing

Mechanisms:

Are the means through which knowledge is shared. For the use of

this study KSM are categorised into relational (including all types of

face-to-face social networks), technology (including information

and communication technologies, or ICT, techniques) and project

management related mechanisms. Relational mechanisms include

face-to-face formal and/or informal communication during which

knowledge is shared. Technology mechanisms refer to information

technology (IT) or information systems (IS) tools used to facilitate,

capture and exchange knowledge. They include (1) IntellectWeb

Tools, which support collaboration and content management,

providing capabilities for messaging, calendaring, online chat,

application sharing and discussion forums, referred to as

collaborative tools; and (2) Enterprise Repositories that consist of

soft or hard copy documents and databases of codified knowledge

from internal and external sources (other than lessons learned)

(Alavi, Kayworth, & Leidner, 2006). Project management related

mechanisms are the sets of standards, techniques and processes

established to manage projects, including lessons learned, project

reviews, expert judgement, analogous estimating, benchmarking,

quality audit and interviewing.

Chapter 1 | Introduction

1

1.

Introduction

1.1. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

Knowledge is a powerful asset for organisations (e.g. Alavi & Leidner, 2001;

Liebowitz, 2005, 2008; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). To enable its identification,

sharing, application, and creation within the organisation, knowledge has to be

properly managed; otherwise, this valuable asset can be irretrievably lost.

Knowledge management (KM) is fundamental to maintaining organisational

performance (Brown & Gray, 1995; Lee & Choi, 2003). There is a number of

economic benefits related to effective management of knowledge such as

specialisation, co-ordination, and reuse of valuable information (Prencipe & Tell,

2001).

In identifying knowledge as a main resource, organisations are now attempting to

manage it in a more systematic and effective way. However, managing knowledge is

not an easy task as it is intangible, dynamic and involves many cultural issues. Thus,

KM requires intensive efforts to improve how knowledge is created, delivered, and

used (Davenport, Prusak, & Strong, 2008). The theory of KM and organisational

learning emphasises the importance of knowledge as a key to gaining better

performance and ultimately a competitive advantage (Argote, McEvily, & Reagans,

2003b; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Fiol & Lyles, 1985; Love, Irani, & Edwards,

2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).


2

An important part of managing knowledge is its transfer to locations where it is

needed and can be used (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Knowledge sharing (transfer) is

one of the elements in the KM process. In the view of organisational context, it is

defined as ―a process in which an organisation recreates and maintains a complex,

causally ambiguous set of routines in a new setting‖ (Szulanski, 1996). Although the

two concepts, knowledge transfer (KT) and knowledge sharing (KS) are interrelated,

some authors distinguish between them (e.g. King, 2009). Overall, the purpose of

both KT and KS is to exchange and distribute organisational knowledge, thus this

research refers to both concepts as interrelated. This being said, however this

research uses the terminology ‗knowledge sharing‘ (KS) to avoid confusion.

KS can occur at various levels: between individuals, from individuals to explicit

sources, from individuals to groups, between groups, across groups, and from the

group to the organisation (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Renzl, 2008). Furthermore, KS is

more complex than communication, because (1) knowledge resides in organisational

members, tools, tasks and their networks (Argote, Ingram, Levine, & Moreland,

2000); and (2) much knowledge in organisations is tacit, and hard to access and

articulate (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

There is a plethora of real life evidence reporting failures or even disasters caused by

a lack of, or ineffective, KS. One such example, unfortunately tragic in consequence,

was the NASA Challenger disaster. The Challenger spacecraft was launched on 28

January 1986, and exploded 73 seconds after liftoff. It was found that

miscommunication resulting in ineffective KS was a leading cause of the disaster

(Winsor, 1988). More positive, is the success story of effective KS with a Xerox

technician who, by exchanging invaluable tips over water cooler conversations,

helped save the company thousands of dollars (Brown & Gray, 1995).

Literature in the project management field has also recognised the need for KS

within and between projects (Bower & Walker, 2007; Kotnour, 1999; Schindler &

Eppler, 2003; Walker, Wilson, & Srikanathan, 2004). Projects have been identified

as an important locus for organisational learning (Newell, Goussevskaia, Swan,

Bresnen, & Obembe, 2008). Lessons from past projects can offer valuable

knowledge due to unexpected actions, unique approach, or problem experiences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge


3

during project phases. Applying knowledge from past projects helps to avoid

unnecessary reinventions that are costly and time consuming (Carrillo, 2005; Fong,

2008; Walker, et al., 2004). Furthermore, Fong (2008) states that project can be seen

as generation of a new knowledge and as such can be utilised in other projects.

Accordingly, he argues that projects should not be view in isolation, but rather as

repositories of knowledge and experience for current and future projects.

1.2. RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RATIONALE

Although the importance of KS within project-based organisations (PBOs) has been

recognised, the KS between projects takes place to a limited extent, it is generally

poor, and results in knowledge wastage (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Newell, Bresnen,

Edelman, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2006; Turner, Keegan, & Crawford, 2000). PBOs

face serious knowledge needs in their projects, which could have been overcome by

more effective inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). Instead projects tend to

repeat the same mistakes because they do not learn from each other (Landaeta,

2008), which result in unnecessary reinventions, errors and time overrun. For

example, the cost of rework in Australian construction projects has been reported as

being up to 35% of total project costs and contributes as much as 50% of a project's

total overrun costs. In fact, rework is one of the primary factors contributing to the

Australian construction industry's poor performance and productivity (Love, et al.,

2003).

The argument of this thesis is that PBOs cannot entirely leverage KS practices from

functional organisations. This is because there are dissimilarities between PBOs and

functional organisations including organisational structure, duration of processes,

viewpoint of time, complexity and uniqueness of tasks and activities, as well as the

mobility of people. Firstly, in a project environment, the handling of time is different

than in functional organisations. Projects have temporary character and their end date

is known from the very beginning of its existence (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995;

Ngoasong & Manfredi, 2007). Thus, projects are subject to urgency, required to

deliver desired outcomes within a required timescale (Turner & Muller, 2003).

Functional organisations are survival rather than time orientated; they perceive the


4

future as eternal and continuous (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995) whereas in projects

time is literally limited. Having that in mind, project managers (PMs) are primarily

focused on the delivery of project rather than knowledge sharing or coding

endeavours.

Secondly, in functional organisations, specialisation along functional lines enables

learning. Moreover, functional organisations have already embodied mechanisms to

link functional departments and act as knowledge silos. PBOs lack such mechanisms

for knowledge acquisition and transfer from one project to another (Hobday, 2000;

Prencipe & Tell, 2001). In PBOs there are no formal links across projects or, at best,

the connection is weak; this hinders the knowledge sharing and learning process

causing ‗learning closure‘, and lack of inter-project knowledge sharing and

communication (Hobday, 2000).

Thirdly, in PBOs employees‘ frequent mobility hinders I-PKS endeavours. When the

project finishes, people go back to their previous functions or start working on new

projects. Members of the disbanded team often have little time and motivation to

reflect on their experience and document transferable knowledge for recycling in the

future (Brady & Davies, 2004). Consequently, as each new project starts, there is a

tendency to ‗reinvent the wheel‘, rather than to learn from the experiences of

previous projects (Prusak, 1997). These problems are not as common in functional

organisations where people remain in their positions; this can encourage the

development of expertise, as members specialise in a particular function.

Accordingly, it can be seen that there are differences between functional and PBOs

that appear to have an effect on knowledge sharing practices. Consequently, PBOs

cannot entirely apply KS approaches from functional organisations. Furthermore,

some existing project management tools and processes have been developed to

facilitate I-PKS, including the process of lessons learned (LL), end-of-project

reviews, and deployment of project management offices (PMOs). These features are

applicable solely in the project management context, and as such are not considered

in non-project organisations. They do, however, play an important role in I-PKS and

should not be ignored.


5

For over a decade the project management field has recognised the importance of KS

between projects, and some studies have been conducted in this area. However, these

studies focus primarily on mechanisms such as lessons learned (LL) and post project

reviews as the source of knowledge for future projects (Kotnour, 1999; Purdon,

2008; Sharif, Zakaria, Ching, & Fung, 2005; Turner, et al., 2000). Some preliminary

research has been carried out on the aspect of the PMO (Dai & Wells, 2004; Desouza

& Evaristo, 2006; Liu & Yetton, 2007; Walker & Christenson, 2005), Communities

of Practice (CoP) (Fong & Wong, 2009; Love, Edwards, Love, & Irani, 2011) and

organisational culture (OC) (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007) in

I-PKS. Also, the research on inter-project knowledge sharing in product development

literature is focused primary on mechanisms to share knowledge (Antoni, Nilsson-

Witell, & Dahlgaard, 2005; Nobeoka, 1995).

Nevertheless, not only mechanisms are important for effective knowledge sharing

and successful project delivery. For example Ndoni and Elhag (2010) suggest that

collaborative relationship can help to achieve effective KM and enhance project

performance. In reality, intellectual capital is often not well recognised and is not

entirely utilised in KS endeavours (Carneiro, 2000). Furthermore, existing literature

outside the project management area found other factors that influence KS, such as

trust (Ding, Ng, & Cai, 2007; Foos, Schum, & Rothenberg, 2006; Holste & Fields,

2010; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004). It is therefore unlikely that

effective I-PKS is simply a matter of better post project reviews and taking a LL

approach.

Accordingly, this research revisits other disciplines outside project management in a

search for drivers that can potentially influence I-PKS. No widely accepted,

comprehensive knowledge transfer or sharing framework exists in the KM literature;

the existing KS frameworks are either integrated as a part of larger KM models (e.g.

Argote, et al., 2003b; Carlile, 2004), or are focused solely on certain aspects of KS or

KS, such as on the transfer of LL (Kotnour, 1999; Purdon, 2008), or on social capital

dimensions (Levin & Cross, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Furthermore, KS and

learning frameworks for project specific environment developed thus far (Carrillo,

Robinson, Anumba, & Bouchlaghem, 2006; Chinowsky & Carrillo, 2007;

Chinowsky, Molenaar, & Realph, 2007) do not link project management to social


6

relationships, such as trust. Therefore, as a result of a wider literature search, an I-

PKS Framework emerged, which defines the scope of this research and shapes its

initial design. The Framework comprises three main factors including: organisational

culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM), and demonstrates more

holistic view of I-PKS.

1.3. RESEARCH AIM

In view of the research problem and rationale, the aim of this research is to

investigate how OC, trust and KSM influence I-PKS behaviours.

1.4. THE RESEARCH APPROACH

This research investigates KS behaviours from the project managers‘ perspective.

PMs are central to the project network and per se have knowledge about the project

issues (Blackburn, 2002). They typically have a high status and direct control over

business functions, personnel and other resources (Hobday, 2000) and as such play

an important role as connectors between projects and the organisation, and across

projects (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Loo, 2002). They also have KS responsibilities,

which include the requirement to produce LL and manage project communication

(Office of Government Commerce UK, 2005; Project Management Institute, 2008),

and have a strong capability to minimise errors, and enact reinvention by learning

from each other (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007). Therefore, the reason for focusing on the

PMs‘ perspective is their position in the centre of the project knowledge network and

their broad knowledge about project issues.

This research chose an inductive theory building approach advised by Eisenhardt

(1989) where multiple case studies were selected in an attempt to build theories from

cases. The use of theoretical (purposeful) logic allows for the selection of four cases,

which all, according to the classification proposed by the Project Management Body

of Knowledge (PMBoK) (Project Management Institute, 2008), were large PBOs


7

with strong matrix structures. Data were collected from the project management

departments of the respective organisations.

The research problem is further investigated in Chapter 2, focusing on KS practices

in organisations engaging in project management and underpins the identification of

the main research problem. The first key points of this chapter provide a

comprehensive understanding of the concept of knowledge. The second part

examines the theoretical foundation of the study and the literature closely related to

KM. Subsequent sections outline the nature of PBOs by examining this in contrast

with functional types of firms, and compiling a range of project typologies. The final

discussion of this chapter underpins the identification of the main research problem:

projects tend to repeat the same mistakes too often because of ineffective I-PKS

practices and insufficient use of project management processes that could facilitate

KS.

Chapter 3 then synthesises the literature related to KS within and outside the project

management field and develops the I-PKS Framework, which contains of three main

factors, organisational culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms that appear

to influence I-PKS behaviours. The framework defines the scope of the research and

shapes its initial design.

Based on these chapters, Chapter 4 outlines and discusses the rationale for choosing

the inductive theory building approach and the establishment of the research

questions set to achieve the research aim:

1. How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge

sharing?

2. How does the existence of the three forms of trust – (i) ability, (ii)

benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge

sharing?


management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project

knowledge sharing behaviours?


8

4. How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational

culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve inter-project

knowledge sharing?

a. What are the relationships between the factors?



The literature review demonstrated that the existing research related to these three

factors of OC, trust, and KSM is still inadequate to address the research questions by

applying a theory testing approach. Therefore, this research applied inductive theory

building, using a multiple case study method proposed by Eisenhardt (1989) who

developed a roadmap for building theories from case study research, which was

followed in this study. Inductive theory building allows investigating complex

phenomenon of I-PKS, in a specific, project-based environment. Rich data from the

multiple case studies make possible to better understand the problem and generate

practical solutions. The use of multiple case studies, as a research method gave the

possibility to compare data from a number of related cases and generate more

compelling results. Following the justification for choosing inductive theory building

from multiple cases; data management, analysis and research quality are also raised

in this chapter.

Chapter 5 reports the results of the within case analysis of the four cases and answers

the related research questions. In analysing the data, the main interest is in the factors

that influence I-PKS behaviours, illustrated in the I-PKS Framework. This chapter

comprises four sections in the same format, each representing the analysis of one

case. The aim of this chapter is to become familiar with each case as a stand-alone

entity before the cross-case analysis begins.

Chapter 6 reports the results of the cross-case examination of data related to the role

of I-PKS factors. This cross-case analysis aims to compare the cases looking for

similarities and differences between them, which is likely to bring more robust

outcomes, and help to strengthen the research findings. The outcome from the cross-

case analysis is seven propositions that form the main contribution of this research.


9

Chapter 7 discusses results from the analysis outlined in Chapters 5 and 6,

comparing emergent propositions with the prior literature. It also provides some

practical implications related to the improvement of I-PKS; it provides managers

with guidelines on how to build trust, proposes how to ensure the development of an

updated and dynamic collaborative tool as a substitute for static LL documents, and

provides insight into the role of leadership in promoting I-PKS.

Chapter 8 concludes the thesis by re-visiting the research questions and providing an

overview of the findings. It highlights contributions to the theory and practice, and

reports on the limitations of this research providing potential directions for future

research. The research design is illustrated in Figure 1.1.


10

Literature in project management field

Research Problem

Literature review outside project management

I-PKS Framework

Research Aim and Questions

Case Study Protocol

Case Study Alpha

Case Study Beta

Case Study Gamma

Case Study Delta

Within-case analysis




Cross-case analysis

Derive Propositions

Revise Theoretical

Position

Interpret findings and

write up

Implications for research and practice

Further research directions

CO

NC

EP

TIO

N P

HA

SE

CA

SE

ST

UD

Y P

HA

SE

TH

EO

RY

BU

ILD

ING

AN

D

WR

ITIN

G P

HA

SE

Figure 1-1: Research Design

Chapter 2 | Literature Review

11

2.

Literature Review on Knowledge Management and Knowledge

Sharing in Project-Based Organisations

2.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter explores the current literature on knowledge management (KM)

focusing on knowledge sharing (KS) practices in project-based organisations

(PBOs). The first key points of this chapter provide a comprehensive depiction of the

concept of knowledge, its taxonomy, evolution, management and its processes,

including KS. The second part examines the theoretical foundations of the study and

literature closely related to KM. Subsequent sections outline the nature of PBOs by

examining these in contrast with functional types of firms. Furthermore, this chapter

explores KM practices in PBOs, outlining the latest findings on KS in the context of

project management. The final discussion of this chapter underpins the identification

of the main research problem: projects tend to repeat the same mistakes too often

because of ineffective inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS) practices and

insufficient use of project management processes that could facilitate KS.


12

The reason for providing such a comprehensive overview of the literature is

motivated that this research is situated in the two broad fields of KM and project

management. Thus, potential readers‘ interest could be in one field, but not the other.

In order to respect the reader, a complete picture of the area of this research is

provided.

2.2. THE NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE

The definition of knowledge is an ongoing debate among philosophers in the field of

epistemology. The search for the meaning of knowledge began in ancient Greece

with an extensive debate between Theaetetus and Plato resulting in the oldest

definition, but one which remains in use: ―justified true belief‖ (Waterfield, 1987,

pp. 137-246). More recently knowledge has been defined by Davenport and Prusak

(1998, p. 137) as:

―a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and

expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and

incorporating new experiences and information. It originates in the

minds of knowledge holders and is transferred into documents,

organisational routines, processes, practices, and norms‖.

To better understand the nature of knowledge it is important to distinguish its

meaning from the concepts of data and information. Data is a set of discrete and

objective facts about events, it provides no judgement or interpretation. There is no

inherent meaning in data (Davenport & Prusak, 1998), whereas information is a

message, usually in the form of a document or an audible or a visible

communication. Unlike data, information has a meaning (Prusak, 1997). Once the

information is used and becomes actionable, it is transformed into knowledge

(Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Knowledge, unlike information, is about action, beliefs

and commitment; it is context-specific and relational. Knowledge, like information,

is about meaning. When knowledge is learned and shared among individuals and

adapted in organisational processes it becomes a valuable asset (Alavi & Leidner,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology


13

2001; Liebowitz, 2005, 2008; Love, Fong, & Irani, 2005; Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995).

There is a number of knowledge typologies proposed in the literature (Alavi &

Leidner, 2001; Frappaolo, 2008; Gamble & Blackwell, 2001; Sackmann, 1992), but

the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge is most often used (Davenport &

Prusak, 1998; Foos, et al., 2006; Koskinen, Pihlanto, & Vanharanta, 2003; Levin &

Cross, 2004; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Smith, 2001). Explicit knowledge implies

factual statements, technical information, and tool characteristics and can be

articulated in a formal language including grammatical statements, mathematical

expressions, specifications and manuals. This kind of knowledge can be transmitted

to individuals formally and clearly (Koskinen, et al., 2003; Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995). Polanyi (1967) recognised that knowledge has also a tacit dimension stating

that ―we can know more than we can tell‖ (p. 4).

―No matter how much we try, it is impossible to write a one page, easily

understood document that would help a young child to understand how

to ride a bicycle. There is no way that we could transcribe into document

feelings such as confidence and balance.‖ (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001

p.11)

Tacit knowledge refers to personal ideas, experiences, values and emotions (Nonaka

& Takeuchi, 1995), and is hard to articulate using a formal language. What is more,

many experts are unable to clearly articulate all they know and are able to do

(Koskinen, et al., 2003). Thus, often the only way of expressing knowledge is

through methods that require an informal use of language including metaphors or

drawings. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) divided tacit knowledge into two

dimensions: technical and cognitive. The technical dimension refers to ‗know-how‘

knowledge: hard to teach skills, crafts and talents an individual gains, but others

cannot posses without practising and experiencing. The cognitive dimension is the

subjective way we see the world around us, including mental models, beliefs and

perceptions unique for every individual (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 8). The key

distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge is that the former can be stored in an

artefact, such as a piece of paper, a drawing or a computer. Embodied, tacit


14

knowledge is more intangible; it involves personal beliefs, perspectives and values.

The storage medium for embodied knowledge is therefore generally people (Gamble

& Blackwell, 2001 p.11).

Early approaches to knowledge suggested that complex and hard to transfer tacit

knowledge firstly needs to be converted to clearer and easily-articulated explicit

knowledge to allow its access (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). More recent research

recognises a need to find ways to share tacit knowledge (Foos, et al., 2006;

Koskinen, et al., 2003; Smith, 2001), arguing that some tacit knowledge cannot be

converted into explicit form (Frappaolo, 2008). In fact, tacit knowledge has

tremendous value for organisations, and its sharing is a critical component of

successful KM efforts (Sharif, et al., 2005). This is because tacit knowledge is

complex and rich in context, it refers to personal ideas, experiences, values

(Davenport, Prusak, & Strong, 2008), and as such, it can determine to what extent

companies will be competitive in a turbulent market, and a global economy

(Johannessen, Olaisen, & Olsen, 2001; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Another knowledge typology, situated in the context of project management, was

proposed by Kasvi, Vartiainen, and Hailikari (2003), who distinguished three types

of project-related knowledge: technical, procedural and organisational. Technical

knowledge is about the product, its parts and technologies. Procedural knowledge

concerns production and action in a project. Organisational knowledge concentrates

on communication and collaboration (Kasvi, et al., 2003). This typology, although

related to project knowledge, is not sufficiently explained by its authors. For

example, it is not clear what organisational knowledge includes. Is it the knowledge

about how to communicate or collaborate between projects, with project stakeholders

or between projects and organisations? Furthermore, the typology does not consider

knowledge related to customer expectations, which play an important role in product

or service development. Consistent with PMBoK ―meeting customer requirements

by overlooking the project team may produce negative consequences in the form of

increased employee attrition, unfounded errors, or rework‖ (Project Management

Institute, 2004, p. 180). Accordingly, Kasvi, et al. (2003) typology cannot be as such

applied in this study.


15

2.3. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

In recent years, companies function in a rapidly changing and knowledge intensive

environment. In these conditions firms need to be highly competitive to achieve

continuous growth in the industry. To achieve this, companies need to ensure the best

use of their organisational knowledge. This can be achieved through KM that enables

the effective organisation of knowledge in a company by ―identifying, organising,

transferring, and using the information and knowledge both personally and

institutionally within the organisation to support strategic objectives‖ (Gamble &

Blackwell, 2001, p. 3). KM can improve knowledge creation, delivery and use

(Davenport, et al., 2008), leading organisations to more efficient product

development (Davenport & Prusak, 1998) and innovations (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995).

Although KM has only recently emerged as an explicit area of research in the

academic as well as practitioner fields, knowledge has been managed implicitly for a

long time (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Wiig, 1997). The view on knowledge in

organisations has been evolving over the last few decades or even centuries, but only

in the mid-1900s were employees recognised to be able to learn from experience.

This phenomenon was recognised in 1962 in Nobel Prize-winning, economist

Kenneth Arrow's article, "Learning by Doing" (Prusak, 2001). During the second

half of the 20th century, information technology (IT) became available, which led to

extensive knowledge gathering and the use of technology to store and share

knowledge. The view shifted again in the late-1980s, when employees began to be

viewed as knowledgeable resources and drivers for organisational performance

(Wiig, 1997). The current trend of KM is evolving in the direction of issues

concerning: what stimulates individuals to acquire and share knowledge (Koskinen,

et al., 2003; Levin & Cross, 2004; Maurer, 2010); how to motivate employees to

contribute their knowledge to an organisational KM system; and how to develop and

sustain KM so that it maximises success in the organisation (King, 2009).

In the KM-related literature it is widely accepted that KM forms a cycle of processes

(Liebowitz, 2005; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) including: (i) knowledge generation,

(ii) codification and coordination, and (iii) transfer (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). For


16

example, according to Alavi and Leidner (2001) KM process consists of four

elements: (1) knowledge creation, (2) knowledge storage, (3) knowledge transfer,

and (4) knowledge application; these are discussed below.

Knowledge creation is the ability of an organisation to develop novel and useful

ideas and solutions; Marakas, 1999, p. 440 (as cited in Kasvi, et al., 2003), which

also means to use or recombine existing knowledge to solve current problems.

Organisational knowledge creation involves developing new content or replacing

existing content within the organisation's tacit and explicit knowledge (Alavi &

Leidner, 2001). Similarly, Fong (2005) refers to knowledge generation as a process

of knowledge creation in which teams create, by generating new or developing

knowledge through interaction and communication.

While organisations create knowledge and learn, they also forget. Therefore,

knowledge storage and retrieval are important elements of knowledge management.

Alavi and Leidner (2001) refer to organisational memory including: written

documentation, reports, databases, codified human knowledge, documented

organisational procedures, and tacit knowledge acquired by individuals and networks

of individuals. Kasvi et al. (2003) describe that process as knowledge administration,

while Davenport and Prusak (1998) refer to it as knowledge codification and

coordination. The aim of codification is to put organisational knowledge into a form

that makes it accessible to those who need it. It literally turns knowledge into a code

to make it as organised, explicit, portable, and easy to understand as possible.

Codification gives permanence to knowledge that may otherwise exist only inside an

individual mind. It represents knowledge in forms that can be shared, stored,

combined, and manipulated.

An important part of managing the knowledge is its transfer to locations where it is

needed and can be used. Knowledge needs to be distributed and shared throughout

the organisation, before it can be exploited at the organisational level (Bhatt, 2001).

Transfer of knowledge occurs at various levels: transfer of knowledge between

individuals, from individuals to explicit sources, from individuals to groups, between

groups, across groups, and from the group to the organisation (Alavi & Leidner,

2001). More on knowledge transfer is explained in the next subchapter.


17

Knowledge application means making knowledge more active and relevant for the

firm in creating values (Bhatt, 2001). There are a number of ways through which an

organisation can employ its knowledge resources. For example, it could repackage

available knowledge in a different context, raise the internal measurement standard,

train and motivate its people to think creatively, and use their understanding in the

company's products, processes, or services (Bhatt, 2001). It is therefore important to

create organisational knowledge capacity. Describing knowledge application, Kasvi

(2003) refers to knowledge utilisation and productisation, for example; integration

into products and decisions, and application in other projects. The source of

competitive advantage resides in the application of knowledge rather than in

knowledge itself Alavi and Leidner (2001).

KM processes have also been proposed by other authors; some of the most often

cited classifications are summarised in Table 2.1. In general, the processes used by

these other authors are similar, differing only in scope and terminology. For example,

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Liebowitz (2005) and Fong (2005) use the term

‗knowledge sharing‘; Davenport and Prusak (1998), Argote et al. (2003b), and Alavi

and Leidner (2001) refer to ‗knowledge transfer‘ (KT); however, Kasvi, et al. (2003)

describe the process as ‗knowledge dissemination‘, while Bhatt (2001) refers to

‗knowledge distribution‘. Nevertheless, in all cases these processes contribute to

organisational learning by providing a framework for consolidating organisational

knowledge, facilitating its location and distribution, and providing easier access to

tacit knowledge.

Table 2-1: Knowledge management processes according to different authors

Authors Davenport and Prusak

(1998) Bhatt (2001)

Alavi and Leidner (2001)

Kasvi et al. (2003)

(King, 2009)

KM Process

Generation Codification & Coordination Transfer

Creation Validation Presentation Distribution Application

Creation Storage Transfer Application

Creation Administration Dissemination Utilisation & Productisation

Creation Acquisition Refinement Storage Transfer Sharing Utilisation


18

The focus of this research is on one element of the KM process: knowledge sharing,

which has been recognised as a critical component of knowledge management efforts

and seen as a vital source of competitive advantage in many industries (eg. Haas &

Hansen, 2007; Kogut & Zander, 1992; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

2.4. THEORETICAL UNDERPINNING

KM emerged as a scientific discipline in the 1990s. Significant input into KM theory

was contributed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), and Davenport and Prusak (1998).

These studies, along with the research which followed their lead (e.g. Alavi &

Leidner, 2001; Argote, McEvily, & Reagans, 2003a; Goh, 2002; Love, et al., 2005)

constitute the foundation of the KM discipline. Although widespread acceptance of

the concepts of KM exists across a range of fields including economics, information

systems, organisational behaviour and theory, psychology, strategic management and

sociology, thus far no single theory or model of KM is universally accepted.

According to Argote et al. (2003b) the reason for this lies in the lack of research

providing cross-disciplinary perspectives. The same authors proposed a two

dimensional integrative framework for organising KM that fits across a range of

disciplines. The first dimension, knowledge management outcomes, includes (1)

knowledge creation, (2) retention, and (3) transfer. Second, KM context represents

properties of the context within which knowledge management occurs including (1)

the properties of a unit, (2) the relationships between units, and (3) the properties of

knowledge. The properties of a unit involved in KM span three levels: individual,

group and organisational level and include examining individual‘s absorptive

capacity and status (Shu, Chuang, & Sheng Lin, 2009; Szulanski, 1996), group or

team structure (Akgun, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005; Keller & Holland,

1983; Newell, et al., 2008; Sproull & Kiesler, 1986), and organisational culture (OC)

(Alavi, et al., 2006; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Fong &

Kwok, 2009). Properties of relationships between units include trust (Ding, et al.,

2007; Foos, et al., 2006; Holste & Fields, 2010; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Levin &

Cross, 2004) and tie strength (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006; Hansen, 1999; Levin &

Cross, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Properties of knowledge consist in

different knowledge types (e.g. tacit vs. explicit).


19

Even though much research on KM has been undertaken, the discipline is still

considered to be relatively new. Furthermore, spread across a range of fields, KM

theory lacks agreement about the meaning of the terminology used. For example,

concepts of KT and KS are sometimes used interchangeably (Dyer & Nobeoka,

2000; Levin & Cross, 2004) while at other times authors clearly emphasise the

differences between the two (King, 2006a, 2006b). The distinction between

knowledge transfer and sharing is discussed further in Section 2.5.

KM is closely associated with the theory of social capital. According to Nahapiet and

Ghoshal (1998, p. 243) social capital is ―the sum of the actual and potential

resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of

relationships possessed by an individual or social unit‖. It includes both

interpersonal relationships and the resources embedded in the relationships (Burt,

1992). It has been found that the characteristics of social networks including the

location of an actor's contacts in a social structure, strength of relationships and

assets rooted in these relationships, such as trust influence the level of KS between

individuals (Chiu, et al., 2006; Granovetter, 1973; Hansen, 1999; Levin & Cross,

2004; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Szulanski, 1996; Tsai

& Ghoshal, 1998). These associations have been widely studied on an individual

level (Granovetter, 1973; Hansen, 1999; Reagans & McEvily, 2003; Szulanski, 1996;

Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998). However, the interrelation between these two has seldom

been examined at the group or project level (Levin & Cross, 2004).

Information technology (IT) also plays an important role in the success of KM in

organisations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Advanced information technologies including

the Internet, intranets, browsers, data warehouses, data mining techniques and

software agents can be used to systematise, enhance and expedite large-scale intra-

and inter-firm KM. Earlier research in the IT literature focused primarily on the role

of IT mechanisms used in KM. More recent research shifted towards recognising the

role of soft factors including trust, in the context of virtual communities (Jarvenpaa,

Knoll, & Leidner, 1998; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002; Ridings, Gefen, & Arinze,

2002) and organisational culture (OC) (Alavi, et al., 2006; Issa & Haddad, 2008).


20

Many studies in the discipline of IT raised the issue of OC‘s influence on KM

success. However, only a few studies have investigated how it actually occurs (Alavi,

et al., 2006). For example, Scott and Gable (1997) investigated how to strengthen

knowledge links in alliances between two universities and one market leader in

Enterprise Software. Their observations brought to light that a lack of trust, and

incompatible OC hinder the success of alliances, which suggests that efforts to

manage trust and OC are likely to improve knowledge links. Furthermore, Nguyen,

Smyth and Gable (2004) suggested that although technology plays important role in

enabling effective KM, it is in fact the OC that foster KS behaviours in the

organisation. Furthermore, Alavi, et al.‘s (2006) findings revealed that OC influences

the way in which employees use KM technology. These findings on KM practices

are especially relevant in the context of project management, which can derive much

benefit from leveraging KM practices established in the IT field.

Finally, the literature on KM is closely related to that of Organisational Learning.

These two disciplines significantly overlap and some researchers do not clearly

distinguish between them (e.g. Argote, et al., 2003b). Organisational Learning is the

process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding (Fiol &

Lyles, 1985), but it is not simply the sum of each member's learning. Senge (2006)

argue that team learning is vital because teams, not individuals, are the fundamental

learning unit in modern organisations. Furthermore, organisations, unlike

individuals, develop and maintain learning systems that not only influence their

immediate members, but also are embodied into organisational histories and norms.

When teams are truly learning, not only are they producing extraordinary results, the

individual members are growing more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise.

March (1991) stated that mutual learning leads to convergence between

organisational and individual beliefs that is generally useful for both parties.

Research on Organisational Learning and KM focuses on a set of the same

fundamental questions, including how do organisations create knowledge and what

factors influence that process?; how do organisations retain the knowledge they

create?; how is knowledge transferred within organisations and what factors facilitate

(or inhibit) its transfer? (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Argote, et al., 2003a). King (2009)

refers to the view of Organisational Learning as the goal of KM. KM processes help


21

embed knowledge into organisational routines so that it can continuously improve its

practices and behaviours. From this perspective Organisational Learning ensures

sustainable improvement and utilisation of knowledge. KM focuses on the

organisation of knowledge in a company (Gamble & Blackwell, 2001), while

Organisational Learning concerns behavioural and cognitive development of

individuals and organisations (Fiol & Lyles, 1985). However, both Organisational

Learning and KM, in particular KM process of knowledge creation, are closely

related. The aim of both, knowledge creation and Organisational Learning is

knowledge development that occurs in a spiral process of socialisation,

externalisation, combination, and internalisation (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Due to

the common fundamentals and apparent similarities in both areas, this study views

Organisational Learning as integral part of KM.

2.5. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND SHARING

KT and KS are two elements of the KM process (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Bhatt,

2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Kasvi, et al., 2003; King, 2009) and components

of everyday organisational life (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). These two concepts

occur in organisations, whether managed or not, and as terms are often used

interchangeably. An evaluation of both KT and KS is the aim of this section.

One main distinction between knowledge sharing and transfer is that transfer implies

focus with a clear objective, and is unidirectional (King, 2006b). KS also relates to

the exchange of knowledge, but unlike KT, can be multidirectional and informal

(King, 2006a). King (2006b) conceptualises knowledge transfer and sharing as two

ends of a spectrum. The KT end is formalised, with a clearly defined purpose and is

unidirectional. The KS end is multidirectional, informal, has no clear objective and

few rules. Both the transfer and sharing of knowledge occur at various levels:

between individuals, from individuals to explicit sources, from individuals to groups,

between groups, across groups, and from the group to the organisation (Alavi &

Leidner, 2001; Renzl, 2008). Furthermore, the purpose of both transfer and sharing is

to exchange and distribute organisational knowledge. Both concepts are interrelated

and are often used as synonyms in the KM literature. Nevertheless, some patterns


22

exist. Scholars who normally examine KM in the context of social capital refer to

KS, except Inkpen & Tsang (2005) and Levin & Cross (2004) who refer to

‗knowledge transfer‘. However, the majority of project management literature

concerning KM, does not distinguish between them (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008;

Bresnen, Edelman, Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003; Foos, et al., 2006; Newell, et

al., 2006). Therefore, it would not be feasible to solely concentrate on one aspect —

either knowledge sharing or transfer — and ignore the literature examining the other.

Thus, this research refers to the majority of the KM literature regarding both

concepts as interrelated, however uses the terminology knowledge sharing (KS) to

avoid confusion. Table 2.2 compares both concepts.

Table 2-2: Knowledge sharing versus knowledge transfer

KNOWLEDGE SHARING KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

DIF

FE

RE

NC

ES

Interactive process Static process

Collective interaction between source and recipient

Static transmission of knowledge from source to recipient

Can be - Unintended - Without a specific objective - Multidirectional

- Implies focus - Has clear objective - Is unidirectional

SIM

ILA

RIT

IES

Transaction of a common resource: knowledge

Common aim: to exchange and distribute organisational knowledge involving individuals, teams, groups, organisational units and organisations

Often used interchangeably in the KM literature

No widely accepted, comprehensive knowledge transfer or sharing framework exists

in the KM literature. Most existing frameworks are integrated as a part of a larger

KM construct (e.g. Argote, et al., 2003b; Carlile, 2004), while others focus solely on

certain aspects of KT or KS, such as transfer of LL (Kotnour, 1999; Purdon, 2008),

or social capital dimensions (Levin & Cross, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Goh

(2002) introduced an integrative KT framework considering multiple factors

influencing effective KS; however, this conceptual KT approach targets functional,

not project-based organisations and lacks empirical validation. This research aims to

search for factors that could potentially influence KS in an inter-project context. This

effort is undertaken in Chapter 3 (I-PKS Framework).


23

2.6. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN PROJECT-BASED

ORGANISATIONS

This section outlines the nature of PBOs, compiles a range of project typologies,

examines PBOs in contrast with functional type of firms, and reviews KS practices

applicable solely for a project management context.

2.6.1. The Nature of Project-Based

Organisations

The second half of the 20th century has seen an evolution in the nature of

organisations, from the functional structure that was almost universally adopted in

the first half of the century to the PBO. This evolution was caused by the changing

nature of work from mass production, with essentially stable customer requirements

and slowly changing technology, to the current situation, where changes in product

design, technology and markets are continuous and rapid (Turner & Keegan, 2000).

Currently, many organisations across industries switch to matrixes or PBOs due to

innovative and rapidly changing environments. For example, in the building industry

the variability in work volume, geographic limitations and the site-based nature of

construction and infrastructure create a need to organise work on a project basis

(Stinchcombe, 1987; Taylor & Levitt, 2005).

In PBOs projects are launched in different departments within the organisation and

PMs select their teams to perform a project‘s activities (Project Management

Institute, 2004). An outmost form of PBO is a pure PBO structure (Hobday, 2000).

In this form the PBO is organised solely around projects (Prencipe & Tell, 2001) and

there is no formal functional coordination across project lines. Often the entire

organisation is dedicated to one or more projects, thus business processes and all

major business functions, including marketing, HR and finance, are coordinated

within the project (Hobday, 2000). Accordingly, PBOs can be grouped based on two

categories: (1) organisations that derive their revenue primarily from performing

projects for others under contracts, for example: architectural firms, consultants,


24

construction and government contractors; and (2) organisations that have adopted

management by projects and have management systems structured to facilitate

project management (Project Management Institute, 2004; Turner, et al., 2000). This

research focuses on the latter type. The former type includes a range of different

groups for instance contractors, owners and clients, which sometimes may be

managed as separate organisations, while at other times can constitute one large

PBO. This means that organisational boundaries of this type of PBO are often

unclear and are difficult to define. Thus, to ensure the research was manageable, this

study focused on the latter type.

2.6.1.1 A Project and Project Typologies

The key characteristic of PBOs is that they operate on projects. PMBoK defines a

project as ―a temporary effort undertaken to create a unique product, service or

result‖ (Project Management Institute, 2004). ‗Temporary‘ means that every project

has a definite beginning and end. Projects can last for several days as well as for a

few years; nevertheless, the duration of the project is finite. A project is complex,

composed of a number of activities and is goal-orientated. It has limited resources

and a budget, and involves many people across several functional areas in the

organisation (Weiss & Wysocki, 1992). A project is similar to an organisational

entity with its own budget, staff and performance criteria (Billows, 2006), and is

often referred to as a temporary organisation (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Turner &

Muller, 2003). Managing through projects has the advantage of speed and focus

(Lampel, Scarbrough, & Macmillan, 2008) and each project creates unique

deliverables (Project Management Institute, 2004). Despite their individual

differences, a project‘s activities can be reused in other projects, and can provide

valuable lessons due to the previous problems experienced and common

uncertainties.

Projects are very diverse, ranging from one or two people working on a small project

lasting a few days (sometimes even hours) to hundreds of people working to

complete multiple tasks over a period of a few years. There is a range of project

classifications available in the literature. For example, project taxonomy can be

determined by a project´s deliverables: product projects, service projects and


25

continuous improvement projects (Cleland & Ireland, 1994); by business experience:

projects that have been done before, that have not been done before, have some new

work, for which no experience base exists (Cleland & Ireland, 1994). Evaristo and

van Fenema (1999) introduced a matrix of seven types of projects across two

dimensions: the number of projects (singe project versus multiple) and location (one

site versus geographically spread in multiple sites). Furthermore, Newell et al. (2008)

classified projects accordingly to their complexity and, the extent of interaction

between projects. They found that as projects become more highly distributed along

the dimensions of space, time and organisations, the problems associated with

knowledge boundaries between the practices of different projects involved also

increase. In this research, it is also important to agree on a project typology that

accounts for the diverse project characteristics which determine KS practices.

2.6.1.2 Project Based Organisations versus Functional

Organisations

PBOs differ significantly from functional organisations in terms of their structure,

viewpoint on time, processes and employees‘ mobility. The classic functional

organisation is hierarchical, where each employee normally has one superior, who

further reports to an upper level manager in a chain of command. Functional

organisations can also have projects, but the scope of the project is usually limited to

the boundaries of the function. On the other hand, a PBO structure is more vertical,

the main organisational unit is a project and organisational resources are involved in

the project activities. Furthermore, projects work independently, hence there is

limited coordination across project lines, and in effect the learning process is

interrupted causing ‗learning closure‘ (Hobday, 2000). Moreover, the scale of

responsibility of a functional manager differs significantly from that of a PM. A

manager in a functional organisation supervises and is responsible for a group,

department or a function. PMs within a PBO typically have high status and direct

control over business functions, personnel and other resources (Hobday, 2000). They

play a role as connectors between projects and the organisation, and across projects

(Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Loo, 2002), having authority and independence in

managing the project. The PM is responsible for the delivery of a project from its


26

beginning to the end and is engaged in the processes of initiating, planning,

executing, monitoring, controlling and closing of a project.

For the reason that projects are time-orientated, people tend to focus on project

activities rather than KS activities (Davenport, De Long, & Beers, 1998; Kotnour,

1999; Loo, 2002). The temporary character of a project defines the end date from the

very beginning of its existence (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Ngoasong & Manfredi,

2007). For functional organisations, time is generally regarded as a limited resource

and is often referred to in terms such as ‗time is money‘ (Lundin & Söderholm,

1995). However, in projects, the handling of time is more complicated since their

time is literally limited. Therefore, the time is always running out because the life

span of project is agreed and calculated predicted from the beginning. Functional

organisations are survival- rather than time-orientated; they perceive their future as

eternal (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995).

Processes in PBOs are flexible and staged, whereas in functional organisations,

processes are continuous and stable. Stable functions are well defined because both

the work of the functions and the intermediate products which pass between them,

are well established and unchanging (Mintzberg, 1979) In functional organisations,

people specialise in performing certain duties and normally remain in their positions,

which encourages the development of expertise. Whereas, a PBO is weak in

coordinating processes, resources and capabilities across projects, because projects

act almost like separate organisations (Hobday, 2000). Moreover, in PBOs when a

project finishes, people reassign to their previous positions or start working on new

projects. Members of the disbanded team often have little time and motivation to

reflect on their experience and document transferable knowledge for recycling in the

future (Brady & Davies, 2004). Thus, as each new project starts there is a tendency

to reinvent the process rather than learn from the experiences of previous projects

(Prusak, 1997). Furthermore, in functional organisations, people working in a

department are usually co-located. In some PBOs, geographical dispersion of

projects reduces the amount of social communication occurring during projects,

resulting in limited KS activities. Table 2.3 summarises the differences between

PBOs and functional organisations that have been discussed above. These

dissimilarities between PBOs and functional organisations are suggested to shape KS


27

practices in both organisational settings. Within functional organisations there are

established departments and branches in which knowledge and experiences are

acquired and stored. The situation is different in PBOs where project team members

are the main carriers of project knowledge and experiences of daily work (Ajmal &

Koskinen, 2008). Furthermore, the finite character of projects causes PMs to bear in

mind time pressures and so they become primarily focused on a product or service

delivery, rather than on KS activities. This hinders the transfer of best practices,

causing a lack of cross-project learning and communication. Moreover, projects are

often geographically dispersed, which impedes frequent face-to-face interaction.

Table 2-3: PBO versus functional organisation

CHARACTERISTICS PBO FUNCTIONAL

ORGANISATION

Organisational Structure

Horizontal Vertical

Main Unit – Project Main Unit – Function, Department, and/or Division

Project manager is a chief executive of a temporary organisation

Manager of function reports to senior manager who further reports to executive manager in a chain of command

Viewpoint on Time

Finite character — the end date of the project is known from the outset

Future is perceived as eternal with no end time identified a priori

Time-orientated Survival- (continue existence) orientated

Time is existence Time is money

Processes Flexible and staged Stable and continuous

Employees’ Mobility

People move from several areas of the organisation to work on a project and are formed temporarily around the project

People remain in their positions and stay within a function

Geographical Proximity

Often distributed Usually co-located

Project versus Function

Project activities: unique, novel, transient and dynamic

Function activities: repetitive, routine, ongoing and less dynamic

Subject to change and uncertainty

High inertia to change

In the ideal case, project management processes should enable transfer of best

practices between projects. However, this ideal scenario is often far from reality. In


28

reality, project experiences are captured and shared infrequently (Ajmal & Koskinen,

2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Newell, et al., 2006; Turner, et al., 2000).

2.6.2. Knowledge Sharing Practices in a Project

Context

KS on the project level takes place as social communication between project

stakeholders and through different explicit information channels such as project

documents (Arenius, Artto, Lahti, & Meklin, 2003). Accumulated knowledge

throughout the project, if not effectively shared, can be irretrievably lost. Thus, the

risk of a knowledge loss at a project‘s end is a serious problem for organisations.

Considerable costs resulting from redundant work and the repetition of mistakes can

be avoided if companies master the project learning cycle (Schindler & Eppler,

2003).

According to PMBoK (Project Management Institute, 2004, 2008), historical

information from past projects can facilitate knowledge transfer at the early stage of

the project, and can be especially helpful in identifying potential risks. According to

PMBoK, historical information represents an input to following project management

processes including Project Plan Development, Scope Definition, Activity

Definition, Activity Duration Estimating, Resource Planning, Cost Estimating, and

Risk Identification. The available historical information about what actually

happened on previous projects, when accessible and verified during the project

planning, can provide useful knowledge for future and ongoing projects.

Furthermore, PMBoK distinguished several tools and techniques that can offer

valuable knowledge during project management processes; they include (1) expert

judgement, (2) analogous estimating, (3) benchmarking, (4) quality audit, and (5)

interviewing. According to PMBoK, expert judgement can be available from other

units within the organisation, consultants, professional and technical associations,

industry groups, and communities of practice (CoP). The use of expert judgement

can potentially minimise uncertainty and risky situations in projects. Analogous

estimating helps in producing process outcome by estimating the activity duration of


29

similar previous activities from other projects as the basis for estimating the duration

for future activities. Here, past project records are invaluable source for project

planning, time and cost estimation. Risk-orientated interviews with various

stakeholders or experts from outside the project may help to identify risks not

recognised during normal planning activities. Benchmarking can be used in the

Quality Planning process, it involves comparing actual or planned project practices

to those of other projects in order to generate ideas for improvement and provide a

standard by which to measure performance. A quality audit is a method used for

quality assurance, which is a structured review of other quality management

activities. The objective of a quality audit is to identify lessons learned that can

improve the performance of a current project or of other projects within the

performing organisation. Quality audits can be carried out in-house or by third party

auditors. Also, there are a range of quality strategies including error detection,

process control, measurement that can potentially facilitate inter-project knowledge

sharing. Additionally, product development literature proposes a range of mechanism

that could be used for I-PKS, they include concurrent design transfer strategy, where

inter-project learning activities take place during communications and interactions

and sequential design transfer strategy, where the transfer of technical knowledge

occurs either before or after the base project has completed its design phase

(Nobeoka, 1995).

Nevertheless, literature showed that in PBOs lessons learned are the predominant

mechanism used to transfer project knowledge (Carrillo, 2005; Purdon, 2008; Rose,

2007; Sharif, et al., 2005). Furthermore, recent literature focused on the role of

project management office (PMO) in knowledge sharing in project environment (Dai

& Wells, 2004; Desouza & Evaristo, 2006; Liu & Yetton, 2007; Walker &

Christenson, 2005). Therefore, among a range of processes and techniques used to

capture and share project knowledge, this research focuses on two techniques — LL

and PMO — both of which are recognised by leading project management

methodologies, PMBoK and PRINCE2 and acknowledged in the existing literature.


30

2.6.2.1 Project Management Tools and Techniques for

Inter-project Knowledge Sharing

One way to master this learning cycle is to capture and transfer LL beyond the

project. LL are defined as key project experiences, which have certain general

business relevance for future projects. Validated and reviewed by a project team, LL

represent a consensus on key issues that should be considered in future projects

(Project Management Institute, 2004). The aim for LL is to capture the positive and

negative aspects of projects in order to learn from the experiences (Kotnour, 1999).

As a result, LL constitute an essential part of project knowledge that can be utilised

by other projects during their planning phases (Kotnour, 1999). Leading project

management methodologies like PMBoK and PRINCE2 have already acknowledged

the importance of the transfer of LL by identifying project management processes

during which the transfer of LL should occur (Office of Government Commerce UK,

2005; Project Management Institute, 2004).

Ideally, the past lessons should provide practical learnings that assist in the planning

of new projects, preventing PMs from repeating mistakes, and ultimately assisting

business areas associated with the project to improve their operations (Purdon, 2008).

Unfortunately, this process only partly occurs or does not occur at all, as pointed out

by Purdon. The LL are not documented until the project is in the closure phase,

where each lesson is only documented as a simple statement, and the process stops

when the project closes. Furthermore, Newell, et al. (2006) found that end-of-project

reviews, which were supposed to reflect and capture lessons for the future, were not

performing effectively. Constant time pressures caused project team members to

focus primarily on deliverables rather than concentrate on storing LL.

Some empirical studies have been conducted stressing the importance of the transfer

of lessons beyond the project. Kotnour (1999) proposed a plan-do-study-act (PDSA)

cycle from quality management that can be used to define the learning process that

occurs within and between projects, while Schindler and Eppler (2003) focused

mainly on the importance of the review of LL documents. However, neither studies

focused on the access to LL beyond the project as a form of knowledge repository.

Purdon (2008) proposed a more comprehensive approach to the transfer of LL, yet


31

his study shows best practices from only one organisation. Therefore, more empirical

evidence needs to be gathered in that area. It has to be clear who is responsible for

transferring LL, as well as how and to whom LL have to be transferred.

2.6.2.2 Project Management Office

As previously noted, PBOs are inherently weak in coordinating processes, resources

and capabilities across the organisation (Hobday, 2000). Advanced (matured) PBOs

embody PMOs, known also as Centres of Excellence, designed to coordinate project

work and provide a formal link between top management and project management.

However, not many PBOs have established such a mechanism and those that have,

have done so only recently.

PMOs can vary widely in terms of size, structure and accountability. The most

effective are those that continuously drive project teams to improve on their

performance. One role of the PMO is to manage a project‘s knowledge by leveraging

the project‘s best practices and managing LL. This knowledge is further fed to other

projects or areas of the organisation, including engineering, research and

development, and product development to improve the products and services of the

organisation (Desouza & Evaristo, 2006). PMOs play the role of knowledge broker

in the organisation, establishing connections between communities. According to

Julian (2008) PMOs span at least three or more communities of practice: upper

management, project teams and the PMO personnel. In this role, PMOs develop and

maintain a set of standards and methods (Dai & Wells, 2004) by providing

centralised archives of systematically collected and stored project knowledge in the

form of LL and project templates. In addition, PMOs also provide project

administrative support, project management consulting and mentoring, as well as

arranging project management training.

Desouza and Evaristo (2006) categorised PMOs along two dimensions:

administrative and knowledge-intensive. Administrative PMOs provide PMs with

administrative support. Knowledge-intensive PMOs, on the other hand, take an

active role in managing the best practices of project management, learning from

projects (both failures and successes), and improving the maturity of project


32

management in the organisation. According to Desouza and Evaristo (2006),

choosing the right PMO is not a straightforward task. The choice of PMO archetype

depends on the maturity level of the organisation‘s project management practices.

Administrative PMOs are often found in organisations where project management is

comparatively immature and where the organisation has difficulty integrating multi-

functional projects with its management hierarchy; the perceived solution is to limit

the powers of the PMO to avoid internal conflict. Knowledge-intensive PMOs are

suitable for organisations that have developed mature project management practices.

This allows PMs enough flexibility for innovation, while the PMO continues to

coordinate and drive focused improvement in project management. Knowledge-

intensive PMOs (‗corporate project management office‘ as per Walker and

Christenson‘s (2005) classification), provide services to the entire company and

focus on strategic and corporate activities to coordinate and improve project

management within the organisation. They move towards the concept of a centre of

excellence in project management by creating an environment to deliver a continuous

stream of successfully managed projects (Kerzner, 2003; Walker & Christenson,

2005).

Although a great deal of research has been conducted on PMOs, there is still a lack

of empirical evidence on how PMOs facilitate I-PKS and what are the best practices

in KS in PBOs from the perspective of different PMO archetypes. Accordingly, this

research aims to empirically examine how these project management exclusive

endeavours support I-PKS practices.

2.6.3. Barriers in Inter-project Knowledge

Sharing

The main problem in unsuccessful KT within PBOs is that the knowledge acquired

during one project is not effectively transferred and utilised by other projects. As

each new project starts, there is a tendency to reinvent the process rather than learn

from the experiences of previous projects (Prusak, 1997), resulting in unnecessary

rework, errors and time wastage.


33

Two studies investigated I-PKS practices (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Newell, et al.,

2006). Newell, et al. (2006) investigated inter-project KT practices of 13 unrelated

projects across six organisations in the United Kingdom (UK). While Eskerod and

Skriver (2007) conducted a single experimental case study to find out the problems

and challenges related to KS between five full-time PMs within a project-based

company. The results of the two studies showed that KS between projects and from

project teams to the rest of their respective organisations was generally poor. There

was limited evidence of knowledge creation and learning at the project-level.

Findings of these and similar studies revealed a range of barriers that prevented

successful KS within and between projects. These are summarised in Table 2.4

presented below.


34

Table 2-4: Barriers to effecting KS within and between projects

BARRIERS

RELATED TO THE

CAPTURE AND

TRANSFER OF

DOCUMENTED

LESSONS

LEARNED

Transfer of LL is fragmented (Purdon, 2008):

o Lessons are focused on what was achieved by a project team (product knowledge) rather than how this had been achieved or why it worked or did not work (process knowledge) (Newell, et al., 2006).

LL are not included in the project scope and/or budget (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008).

End-of-project reviews do not effectively capture lessons for the future:

o Team members are focused on deliverables or start working on new projects rather than reflecting on LL (Newell, et al., 2006).

Lack of LL repositories (Newell, et al., 2006).

Lack of time to produce and review LL (Brady & Davies, 2004; Davenport, et al., 1998; Kotnour, 1999; Parker & Craig, 2008).

BARRIERS

RELATED TO

ORGANISATIONAL

FACTORS

Integration of KM strategies into the company goals is missing or unclear (Riege, 2005)

Existing OC does not provide sufficient support for sharing practices (Riege, 2005).

Lack of awareness of the importance of KT (Walker, 2004).

Lack of time for meetings and communication (Riege, 2005).

Time pressure in general (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Riege, 2005).

Closed office design does not encourage KS (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).

Weak communication links between geographically dispersed projects hinders KS (Hobday, 2000).

Project plans do not explicitly assign sufficient time and resources to KM activities (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Brady & Davies, 2004).

RELATIONAL

BARRIERS

Lack of trust (Foos, et al., 2006; Levin & Cross, 2004).

Lack of honesty and open analysis of failures and mistakes (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008).

Lack of social networks (Newell, et al., 2006).

Lack of individual motivation to document LL (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Brady & Davies, 2004).

BARRIERS

RELATED TO

KNOWLEDGE

SHARING

MECHANISMS

Shortage of appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing practices (Riege, 2005).

Lack of integration of IT systems (Newell, et al., 2006).

Lack of knowledge on how to use IT applications, lack of training to familiarise with systems, and lack of communication and demonstration of all advantages of the new or existing systems (Newell, et al., 2006).

BARRIERS

RELATED TO

PROJECT

MANAGERS

PMs‘ values do not encourage KS:

o PMs are highly independent individuals, and do not rely heavily on colleagues (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).

o PMs expose masculine cultural values, they are focused on accomplishing tasks, dealing with challenges, meeting personal deadlines; while the feminine values, such as teamwork, collaboration, openness and discussion, are those that support KT (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).


35

2.7. SUMMARY

This chapter reviewed two broad fields of KM and project management, focusing on

KS practices in organisations engaging in project management. This review showed

that PBOs cannot entirely leverage KS practices from functional organisations.

Apparent dissimilarities between PBOs and functional organisations have been

identified, including organisational structure, duration of processes, viewpoint of

time, complexity and uniqueness of tasks and activities, as well as the mobility of

people. Furthermore, the literature review showed that some existing project

management processes, applicable solely in a project management context, have

been developed to facilitate I-PKS, including the process of LL, end-of-project

reviews, tools and techniques for KS, and deployment of PMOs. Nevertheless, these

distinct project processes are insufficiently utilised. A range of barriers have been

identified, which hinder I-PKS and these can be grouped into barriers related to: the

capture and transfer of documented LL, organisational factors, mechanisms to share

knowledge, PMs, and relational barriers.

This chapter demonstrated that there is still limited research in the area of KS

between projects. Existing literature on project management primarily focuses on

post project reviews and LL as the source of knowledge for future projects.

Preliminary research on the role of PMOs in I-PKS is minimal, and only recent

studies emphasise the importance of soft, human-related factors including OC.

The following chapter investigates the three factors that influence KS activities,

including trust, knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) and OC from a range of

literature within and outside the project management discipline.


36

Chapter 3 | Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework

37

3.

Inter-project Knowledge Sharing Framework

3.1. INTRODUCTION

The discipline of KM is relatively new and stems from a variety of fields including

project management, general management, IT, construction management,

psychology, social capital and organisational learning. Examination of these

interrelationships identified three factors: trust, knowledge sharing mechanisms

(KSM) and organisational culture (OC) that appear to influence inter-project

knowledge sharing (I-PKS). The primary objectives of this chapter are to synthesise

literature related to these factors, and to propose a framework that provides the scope

of this research.

Regardless of the school of thought, core components of KM include social

perspective (culture, structure, and people) and technological perspective (IT)

(Davenport, et al., 1998; Lee & Choi, 2003). The knowledge sharing literature

outside project management field focuses on OC (Alavi, et al., 2006; Bhagat, Kedia,

Harveston, & Triandis, 2002; De Long & Fahey, 2000; Keskin, Akgun, Gunsel, &

Imamoglu, 2005; Triandis, 2002; Yang, 2007), trust (Abrams, Cross, Lesser, &

Levin, 2003; Holste & Fields, 2010; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Kotlarsky & Oshri,

2005; Levin & Cross, 2004; Renzl, 2008), and technology (Garcia-Perez & Ayres,

2009; Jasimuddin, 2008; Newell, et al., 2006; Shu, et al., 2009) as enablers

influencing knowledge sharing behaviours. To some extent, these factors were also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought


38

investigated in the field of construction management and project management (Ajmal

& Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Foos, et al., 2006; Issa & Haddad,

2008; Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Sharif, et al., 2005). This is further discussed in this

chapter. Accordingly, this research focused its inquiry on the role of culture, trust

and knowledge sharing mechanisms in inter-project knowledge sharing. Outlined in

Figure 3.1 framework demonstrates the scope of this study.

Figure 3-1: I-PKS Framework

Section 3.2 examines trust, and is followed by a comparison of relational,

technology, and project management related KSM. An investigation of OC, outlined

in Section 3.4, concludes the literature review. The final section, Section 3.5

proposes an I-PKS Framework that integrates the three factors and sets the scope for

the empirical investigation.

ABILITY TRUST

BEEVOLENCE TRUST

ITEGRITY TRUST

ABILITY TRUST

BENEVOLENCE TRUST

INTEGRITY TRUST

RELATIONALMECHANISMS

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

RELATED MECHANISMS

TECHNOLOGY

I-PKS

CLAN ADHOCRACY

HIERARCHY MARKET


39

3.2. TRUST

This section examines the literature on KS related to trust. Trust in the last decade

has gained attention among researchers in the fields of social science and

psychology. Mayer and Davis (1999) measured employees' perception of top

management trustworthiness and found that ability, benevolence and integrity

mediated the relationship between perceptions of the appraisal system and trust. A

similar study conducted by Becerra and Gupta (2003) examined the moderating role

of communication frequency on the perceived trustworthiness between top managers.

Findings from this study showed that as communication frequency increases,

employee contexts within the organisation, including organisational tenure and

decision-making autonomy, become important determinants of perceived

trustworthiness, while the trustor's general attitudinal predisposition towards peers

becomes less important. Trust has also been researched in the context of virtual

communities. Kasper-Fuehrer and Ashkanasy (2001) theorised that appropriate

information technologies facilitate the building of trust in inter-organisational virtual

communities. While Ridings et al. (2002) examined antecedents and explored the

effect of trust on information exchange in virtual communities, their empirical

findings revealed that trust is a significant predictor of virtual community members‘

desire to exchange and obtain information. Furthermore, in a broader field of social

science, trust has been found to improve KS (Ding, et al., 2007; Foos, et al., 2006;

Holste & Fields, 2010; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004). Nevertheless,

project management literature provides limited evidence on the role of trust in KM.

The next section examines literature related to trust and evaluates research from a

range of disciplines including IT, social capital, general management, KM,

construction management and project management.

3.2.1. The Nature of Trust

There are many attempts to define trust in the current literature and the three most

commonly cited definitions have been proposed by McAllister (1995), Mayer et al.

(1995), and Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998). According to McAllister

(1995) interpersonal trust is ―the extent to which a person is confident in, and willing


40

to act on the basis of, the words, actions, and decisions of another‖ (p. 25). Mayer, et

al. (1995) defined trust as ―the willingness of a party to be vulnerable‖, and

Rousseau, et al. (1998) concluded that ―trust is a psychological state comprising the

intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or

behaviour of another‖ (p. 395). Smyth (2006) went further to propose a definition of

trust in a project setting, based on Rousseau. According to Smyth ―trust is a

disposition and attitude concerning the willingness to rely upon the actions of or be

vulnerable towards another party, under circumstances of contractual and social

obligations, with the potential for collaboration‖ (p. 84).

All four definitions agree that trust arises from a situation of vulnerability; where

being vulnerable implies there is something of importance to be lost, and risk is the

perceived probability of loss. Therefore, making oneself vulnerable is taking a risk

(Mayer, et al., 1995). Furthermore, Mayer et al. (1995) exemplified that trust is not

taking the risk per se, but rather the willingness to take that risk. That is, there is no

risk taken in the willingness to be vulnerable, to trust, but that risk is inbuilt in the

behavioural manifestation of the willingness to be vulnerable. One does not need to

risk anything in order to trust; however, one must take a risk in order to engage in

any action of trust (Mayer, et al., 1995).

Additionally, Inkpen and Tsang (2005) stated that trust is based on social judgments,

for example assessment of the other party‘s benevolence or competence. Smyth,

Gustafsson and Ganskau (2010) however criticised this view, arguing that trust is

assessed intuitively; it is not a calculation or a rational cognitive process, but rather a

‗gut feel‘. The trustor is not always fully aware that such judgment about

trustworthiness is being made (Smyth, et al., 2010).

3.2.2. Trust Dimensions

Previous research highlighted that trust is multidimensional (Bhattacherjee, 2002;

Lewis & Weigert, 1985; Mayer, et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995; Sako, 1992). In the

literature, there is a range of trust typologies. Mayer et al. (1995) categorised trust in

the three domains of ability, benevolence and integrity. Ability trust includes skills,

competencies and characteristics that allow a person, group or organisation to have


41

influence within some area (Mayer & Davis, 1999). It is rooted in the perception that

another party is knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of skills (Mayer, et al.,

1995) and answers the question, ―can you do the work?‖ (Pinto, Slevin, & English,

2009). Ability is domain-specific, in that the trustee can be highly proficient in one

area, but viewed as having little experience in other areas. For instance, engineers are

trusted with engineering tasks, but not with administrative skills. Benevolence trust

is the extent to which a trustee is believed to look for the best interest of the trustor,

aside from an egocentric profit motive, and suggests the trustee has some specific

attachment to the trustor and will keep the best interests of the trustor at heart (Mayer

& Davis, 1999). A benevolent trustee is one who selflessly helps the trustor, without

expectation to be rewarded. Benevolence introduces faith and altruism in a

relationship, which reduces uncertainty and the inclination to guard against

opportunistic behaviours (Bhattacherjee, 2002). Benevolence trust answers the

question, ―will you consistently look after my interests?‖ (Pinto, et al., 2009).

According to Blomqvist (2009) the signs of benevolence, that is moral responsibility

and positive intentions towards the trustee, are necessary for the trustor to be able to

accept a potentially vulnerable position. One example of benevolence trust is when

an employee turns for advice to a colleague because they trust that person‘s good

intentions and willingness to help beyond their own profit motive. The colleague is

seen as having benevolence for the employee. The third trust domain is integrity

trust. It is a trustor's perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the

trustor finds acceptable (Mayer, et al., 1995). Perceived integrity instils the trustor's

confidence in trustee behaviour, and so reduces the perceptions of risk

(Bhattacherjee, 2002). Integrity answers the question, ―will your behaviour always be

ethical?‖ As noted by Bhattacherjee (2002) integrity is similar to honesty, fairness,

credibility, consistency, predictability, reliability and dependability. Evidence of

integrity is when the employee is known to be credible and honest; they are seen to

have a high level of integrity.

According to Blomqvist (1997), trust in a business context is an expectation of the

other party's competence (i.e., technical capabilities, skills and know-how) and

goodwill (moral responsibility and positive intentions towards the other). Blomqvist

(1997) concludes that these two forms, competence and goodwill, are critical in a

business context, and in her model competence trust is similar to ability trust as


42

proposed by Mayer et al. (1995), whereas goodwill refers to moral responsibility and

positive intentions, and it is similar to benevolence and integrity trusts combined. In

her latest research,

Another trust typology was introduced by McAllister (1995) who developed and

empirically tested two forms of trust: affect-based and cognition-based, concluding

that both forms represent distinct forms of interpersonal trust. Affect-based trust is

grounded in mutual care and concern between workers. It involves emotional

elements and social skills of the trustee, and describes close social relationships

(Akgün, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005). Cognition-based trust, on the

other hand, is evident in a cognitive choice of whom and when to trust, and is based

on good reasons and evidence for trust (Lewis & Weigert, 1985, p. 970). Cognition-

based trust processes are grounded in analytical evaluation providing a rational basis

for trust (Blomqvist, 2009).

Of the range of trust models presented in the literature, the model proposed by Mayer

et al. (1995) is the most suitable for this study. Firstly, because it can be applied to a

business environment; secondly, because it has been validated and used by scholars

to examine relationships in organisational settings (Becerra & Gupta, 2003;

Bhattacherjee, 2002; Mayer & Davis, 1999), including the context of project

management (Pinto, et al., 2009) and finally, because it has been used to investigate

trust in relation to KS (Levin & Cross, 2004). Consistent with other research (e.g.

Pinto 2009) this research refers to ‗trust dimensions‘ and ‗trust forms‘

interchangeably.

3.2.3. Current Research on Trust In Project

Management and Knowledge Management

Literature

The project management literature identified that trust has a positive impact on the

success of new product development projects (Akgün, et al., 2005) and is a predictor

of positive working relationships between project stakeholders, increasing the

willingness of various project stakeholders to cooperate (Pinto, et al., 2009).


43

However, trust has received limited attention within the field to date (Maurer, 2010).

Wong, Then, and Skitmore (2000) examined antecedents of trust within construction

project management teams. Their findings were consistent with those proposed

earlier by Shaw (1997), and demonstrated a correlation between trust and the three

antecedents of trust, ‗achieving results‘, ‗acting with integrity‘, and ‗demonstrating

concern‘. Similarly Ding et al. (2007) interviewed nine architects and identified four

factors influencing interpersonal trust and willingness to share knowledge including

‗team member‘s attitude towards work‘, ‗team member‘s ability with regard to

work‘, ‗team member‘s personality‘, and ‗team member‘s social interaction‘.

Furthermore, Akgun et al., (2005) found that team interpersonal trust had a positive

impact on the Transactive Memory System, team learning, and product success in

new product development projects. Pinto, et al. (2009) later examined the effects of

competence and integrity trust on enhanced owner/contractor satisfaction of working

relationships and project success. Their findings revealed that for project owners,

both integrity and competence trust were necessary predictors of positive working

relationships, while for contractors only integrity trust was important. Maurer‘s

(2010) research examined both outcomes and antecedents of trust in inter-

organisational projects. These findings showed that trust between project team

members working on an inter-organisational project impacts positively on the

acquisition of external knowledge.

The literature related to KM also identified trust as an important factor for

successful KS (Ding, et al., 2007; Foos, et al., 2006; Holste & Fields, 2010; Inkpen

& Tsang, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004). Koskinen et al. (2003) noted that the greater

the level of trust, the greater the level of people accessibility, and the greater the

chance knowledge is shared in the team. Furthermore, Inkpen and Tsang (2005)

agreed that an atmosphere of trust contributes to the free exchange of knowledge,

because people do not feel they have to protect themselves from others‘ opportunistic

behaviours. Abrams et al., (2003) interviewed personnel in 20 organisations to

examine how interpersonal trust develops in a KS context from the perspective of

employee trust in managers. They recognised that trust in another person‘s

benevolence allows one to query a colleague in depth without fear of damage to self-

esteem or reputation. Additionally, people must also trust that the person they turn to


44

for knowledge has sufficient expertise to offer solutions. Abrams, et al. (2003)

concluded that ability and benevolence trusts are essential in KS. Levin and Cross

(2004) studied the link between strong ties and the receipt of useful knowledge,

examining the mediating role of competence- and benevolence-based trust from the

knowledge seeker perspective. They found that benevolence- and competence-based

trust mediate the link between strong ties and the receipt of useful knowledge. Their

analyses also revealed that benevolence-based trust consistently matters in

knowledge exchange and that competence-based trust matters most when the

exchange involves tacit knowledge.

The empirical studies of Foos et al. (2006) were based on interviews and

questionnaires which provided evidence that trust was critical in the perceived

success of the transfer of tacit knowledge. However, the limitation of this research

was that authors measured trust as a one-dimensional concept. A similar study was

conducted by Holste and Fields (2010) who examined the impact of affect-based and

cognition-based trust of co-workers on the willingness of professionals to share and

use tacit knowledge. Their findings revealed that both affect-based and cognition-

based trusts are positively related to a person‘s willingness to share and use tacit

knowledge. Affect-based trust had a greater influence on willingness to share tacit

knowledge, while cognition-based trust impacted more significantly on willingness

to use tacit knowledge.

The social science literature focuses on both the antecedents of trust (Ding, et al.,

2007; Ridings, et al., 2002; Wong, et al., 2000), and their outcomes including on KS

(Levin & Cross, 2004), Transactive Memory Systems (Akgün, et al., 2005) and

positive working relationships (Pinto, et al., 2009).

Mayer and Davis (1999) and Jarvenpaa et al. (1998) examined ability, benevolence

and integrity as additive antecedents of trustworthiness. Scholars in more recent

literature have investigated trust dimensions and their direct influence on knowledge

transfer (Levin & Cross, 2004) or on relationships between contractors and owners

(Pinto, et al., 2009). Additionally, Mayer et al. (1995) imply that the three

dimensions, though related to each other, are separable, and in some situations one

trust dimension can be more dominant than the other two. Mayer et al. (1995)


45

explain that if ability, benevolence and integrity were all perceived to be high, the

trustee would be ―deemed quite trustworthy‖. In addition, trustworthiness should be

perceived as a continuum, rather than the trustee being either trustworthy or not

trustworthy. Therefore, each of the three trust dimensions can vary along a scale.

3.2.4. Research Gap

The research conducted on trust in projects identified that trust is a part of the human

dimension of project management: it is one of the most important determinants of

project success (Hoffman, Kinlaw, & Kinlaw, 2001), it is positively related to the

development of project teams (Akgün, et al., 2005) and improves the strength of

working relationships (Pinto, et al., 2009). However, project management literature

focuses primarily on trust within projects (Kadefors, 2004; Pinto, et al., 2009; Smyth,

et al., 2010) examining trust as a one-dimensional concept (Foos, et al., 2006; Issa &

Haddad, 2008; Kadefors, 2004), whereas research from other fields found that there

are in fact many trust dimensions (Bhattacherjee, 2002; Mayer, et al., 1995;

McAllister, 1995; Sako, 1992). Furthermore, there is only limited research available

on the impact of different dimensions of trust on KS in a project environment (Ding,

et al., 2007; Koskinen, et al., 2003; Maurer, 2010). Drawing this data together means

that to date, trust dimensions have not been adequately investigated in an I-PKS

context, and only limited research has been conducted relating to trust dimensions in

the project management context. Ultimately, this study investigated how the three

trust dimensions of (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and (iii) integrity trusts influence I-

PKS, explored which of these trust dimensions is perceived to be superior in I-PKS,

and most importantly, how they interrelate with each other. Table 3.3 summarises the

current research on trust.

3.3. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS

One element of the KT process is the existence and richness of transmission channels

(Gupta & Govindarajan, 2000), referred to here as knowledge mechanisms. The

channel is the medium used to transmit the signal from transmitter to receiver

(Shannon, 2001). The channels can be wireless and wired, and can take many forms


46

including face-to-face contacts, staff meetings, policy statements, memos, e-mails,

telephone conversations, intranet, wikis and other electronic tools. One stream of

research signifies the importance of social networks, emphasising the need for face-

to-face mechanisms (Cook & Brown, 1999; Foos, et al., 2006; Liebowitz, 2005;

Newell, et al., 2006), while the other argues that advanced technology is essential for

organisational KS (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Sharp, 2003). Fong and Kwok (2009)

investigated knowledge flow at project and organisational levels and found that both

strategies personal interactions and technology means were equally utilised by

practitioners in the construction industry.

Table 3-1: Summary of the research on trust

Field Author Finding Type of

research Research focus

PR

OJE

CT

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

Wong, Then & Skitmore (2000)

There are three antecedents of trust: achieving results, acting with integrity and demonstrating concern in construction teams.

Empirical, Hypothesis testing

Examined antecedents of trust within construction project management teams.

Koskinen et al. (2003)

Factors of mutual trust and proximity affect the use and level of tacit knowledge in project work.

Conceptual paper

Investigated what kind of social engagements allow for tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing to take place.

Akgün et al. (2005)

Interpersonal trust had a positive impact on the Transactive Memory System, team learning and new product success.


Examined new product development teams to determine the antecedents and consequences of the Transactive Memory System.

Ding et al. (2007)

Four factors influence interpersonal trust and willingness to share knowledge within a design team: team members‘ ‗attitude towards work‘, ‗ability with regard to work‘, ‗personality‘ and ‗social interaction‘.

Empirical, Interviews

Examined antecedents of trust.

Pinto, et al. (2009)

Integrity and competence trust are important determinants of healthy relationships for owners, but only integrity trust is a predictor of positive working relationships for contractors.


Examined the impact of integrity and competence trust on satisfaction with working relationships between owner and contractor.

Smyth (2010) Trust provides an important resource for creating greater probability and certainty, hence building operational and dyadic confidence.

Conceptual paper

Investigated the value of trust in the project management context.

Maurer (2010) Trust between project team members working on an inter-organisational project positively impacts on the acquisition of external knowledge.


Examined both outcomes and antecedents of trust in inter-organisational projects.

Field Author Finding Type of

research Research focus

OT

HE

R D

ISC

IPLIN

ES

Mayer & Davis, (1999)

Ability, benevolence and integrity mediated the relationship between perceptions of the appraisal system and trust.


Measured employee perception of top management trustworthiness and the appraisal system.

Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy (2001)

Appropriate ICT facilitates communication of trustworthiness and trust building in the virtual organisation.

Conceptual paper

Examined trust in virtual communities.

Ridings et al. (2002)

Trust is a significant predictor of a virtual community member‘s desire to exchange information, and especially to obtain information.


Explored the relationship between trust and information exchange in virtual communities.

Becerra & Gupta (2003)

Communication frequency, organisational tenure and decision-making autonomy are important determinants of perceived trustworthiness.


Examined moderating role of communication frequency on the perceived trustworthiness between top managers. The study was conducted within one organisation only.

Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin (2003)

Proposed a list of managerial behaviours that promote interpersonal trust.

Empirical, Interviews

Conducted interviews to identify how interpersonal trust develops in a KS context.

Levin & Cross (2004)

Benevolence- and competence-based trusts mediate the link between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge.


Examined the link between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge and the mediating role of competence- and benevolence-based trust from the knowledge seeker perspective.

Foos, et al. (2006)

Trust was critical in the perceived success of the transfer of tacit knowledge.

Empirical, Interviews and questionnaire

Examined factors that influence the transfer of tacit knowledge between two product development partners. Examined only one trust dimension.

Holste & Fields (2010)

Affect- and cognition-based trusts are positively related to a person‘s willingness to share and use tacit knowledge.


Examined the impact of affect- and cognition-based trust of co-workers on the willingness of professionals to share and use tacit knowledge. Surveyed staff in only one organisation.


49

3.3.1. Existing Research on Relational,

Technology and Project Management Related

Mechanisms

Existing research found that social networks such as informal meetings, coffee

breaks and workshops are essential for effective KS (Abrams, et al., 2003; Cook &

Brown, 1999; Foos, et al., 2006; Liebowitz, 2005; Newell, et al., 2006). Databases

have grown to large proportions, but are often underutilised as employees are much

more likely to turn to peers and colleagues than to impersonal sources for necessary

knowledge (Abrams, et al., 2003). Additionally, Mintzberg (1973) indicated that

people prefer to turn to other people rather than documents for information. More

recently, the same tendency has been found even for people with ready access to the

Internet and their firm‘s IT-based knowledge repository (Cross, Parker, & Borgatti,

2000). Newell et al. (2008) recognised that social networks and informal dialogue are

more efficient than IT techniques and that IT should only complement social

networks in KS activities. However, people work under pressure and often have no

time for social interaction. Moreover, specific characteristics of projects such as tight

schedules and geographical dispersion of projects reduce the amount of direct

communication which can take place during projects. When this social

communication is missing, the project must develop specific means to increase it

(Arenius, et al., 2003). Furthermore, Irani, Sharif, & Love (2009) argue that in

project-based organisations (PBOs) IT mechanisms have been unable to deliver the

essence of tacit knowledge that is often required to meet organisational deliverables.

Firms are increasingly using information and communication technologies as

strategic enablers of KM initiatives. These knowledge management systems (KMS)

incorporate various technologies (for example information repositories, data

warehouses, intranets, search engines, data filters, collaboration tools, intelligent

agents) to facilitate the creation, storage, transfer and sharing of knowledge both

within and outside the firm‘s boundaries (Alavi, et al., 2006). The use of KMS tools

leads to enhanced communication and increases the level of participation among staff

members, ultimately improving project team performance (Alavi, et al., 2006; Alavi

& Leidner, 1999). These mechanisms facilitate the transfer of explicit knowledge


50

that can be generalised to other contexts. Computer networks create forums that

facilitate contact between the person seeking knowledge and those who may have

access to that knowledge. For example, this may be accomplished by posting a

question in the form of ‗does anybody know‘ or ‗request for help‘ in the virtual

discussion group. Corporate directories may enable individuals to rapidly locate the

person with the knowledge who may help solve a current problem (Alavi & Leidner,

2001).

Alavi et al. (2006) investigated how culture influences the use of KM technologies

and the outcomes of such use. They found that certain cultural values shared by a

community influence the way in which they use KM technology. Furthermore,

Siakas, Georgiadou and Balstrup (2010) suggests that in the multinational projects

the cultural awareness and the use of collaborative tools, such as web 2.0, are factors

supporting knowledge sharing. Garcia-Perez and Ayres (2009) conducted an

experiment implementing wikis into the workplace. Initially the implementation was

very successful with a significant number of researchers contributing to the wiki and

making use of it. However, its use declined over time and attempts to stimulate

interest by providing incentives for contributions were unsuccessful. One year after

the launch it was found that the use of wikis was minimal. Further study determined

that a lack of time (for reading and contributing to wiki entries), unsatisfactory

content (people felt that the wiki did not have much to offer to those who had been in

the organisation for more than two years), and accessibility (lack of a direct link to

the wiki on their computer desktop or the home page of the intranet hindered its use)

were the three main reasons for the ‗wiki failure‘.

Along with social networks and IT tools, there are mechanisms specific to the project

management context, which can facilitate I-PKS. These mechanisms are discussed in

details in Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.2.1 and 6.2.2.2. Furthermore, a study conducted by Liu

and Yetton (2007) revealed benefits from deploying a project management office

(PMO) that include facilitating KM through exposure to multiple projects, leveraging

previous solutions and sharing of good practices. Liu and Yetton (2007) recognised

that PMOs support other projects by providing knowledge of project tasks and

processes, ultimately improving project performance in ‗a high-task-uncertainty

environment‘.


51

The study conducted by Turner et al. (2000) observed different types of KS practices

on inter-project levels including the use of internal project management procedures

(Ericsson‘s procedure PROPS or the UK government‘s procedure PRINCE2), end-

of-project reviews, benchmarking, project management self-support groups or

conferences, use of the intranet and employee rotation. Their findings revealed that

some KS methods were more effective than others and that end-of-project reviews

played a vital part in capturing experience within organisations. Nevertheless, as

Turner et al. (2000) found, these practices simply became a meaningless box-ticking

exercise. Furthermore, Love et al. (2011) suggested that Communities of Practice

(CoP) can create and sustain learning in projects. However, they also found that

although PBOs have been informally using CoP for many years, they are often

reluctant to formally recognise and adopt these new management approaches.

3.3.2. Research Gap

In PBOs, geographical dispersion of projects and frequent employee mobility means

that face-to-face interaction is not always possible or recommended. Furthermore,

very high employee turnover means that individuals subsequently take their

knowledge out of the organisation when they leave (Turner, et al., 2000). Ideally,

knowledge repositories containing lessons learned (LL) documents, reports, memos

and other project documents allow a project to apply its collective intellect to any

problem, regardless of time or geographical location (Koskinen, et al., 2003).While

these repositories serve to support knowledge capture and dissemination for

distributed projects, they only complement the personal networks (Koskinen, et al.,

2003). As stated earlier, employees prefer to turn to their peers for knowledge rather

than engaging in an extensive search through a company‘s knowledge repositories.

They use databases only when colleagues direct them to a specific point in the

database (Koskinen, et al., 2003).

PBOs are facing the challenge of how to effectively leverage the two mechanisms —

face-to-face encounters and technology — to facilitate KS and enhance knowledge

creation. The literature disputes the types of mechanisms to be used to transfer

knowledge: soft by using personal, formal or informal channels; or hard by using


52

impersonal, formal or informal channels. Document exchange is a highly effective

and efficient mechanism for sharing codified knowledge. It is often highly

ineffective for transmitting tacit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). In contrast,

conversations and the transfer of people are relatively inefficient mechanisms for

sharing codified knowledge, but for tacit knowledge, they may be the only effective

way of sharing (Jasimuddin, 2008). There are also KSM applicable solely in the

specific context of project management, including the capture and transfer of LL and

PMOs. One stream of research suggests that IT plays a central role in the transfer of

organisational knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). However, other authors argue

that soft mechanisms are more effective (Cook & Brown, 1999; Foos, et al., 2006;

Liebowitz, 2005; Newell, et al., 2006). The third view proposes a hybrid approach as

the most robust for transferring knowledge (Bhatt, 2001; Jasimuddin, 2008),

stressing that both tacit and explicit organisational knowledge complement each

other. This research categorised KSM into relational (including all types of face-to-

face social networks), technology (including IntellectWeb Tools referred to as

collaborative tools and Enterprise Repositories) and project management tools and

processes (including the transfer of LL and PMOs), to investigate which mechanisms

are the most appropriate to use for I-PKS, and how they can improve I-PKS.

3.4. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

An organisation's culture consists of practices, symbols, values and assumptions that

the members of the organisation share with regard to appropriate behaviour (Schein,

1990). Schein (1990) distinguished three fundamental levels within which OC exists:

observable artefacts, values and basic underlying assumptions. The artefacts can

include physical layout, the dress code, the manner in which people address each

other and the overall feel of the place, to the more permanent such as archival

records, products, statements and annual reports. Values are organisational norms,

ideologies, charters and philosophies. Basic underlying assumptions are based on an

organisation‘s historical events that determine perceptions, thought processes,

feelings and behaviour (Martin & Meyerson in Schein, 1990). The basic underlying

assumptions are least apparent, but much more influential on behaviour than

espoused artefacts and values (Schein,1992).


53

3.4.1. Organisational Culture and Knowledge

Management

OC influences KS behaviour by providing norms regarding what is ‗right‘ and

‗wrong‘ (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008), and by establishing the organisational context

for social interaction (De Long & Fahey, 2000). It represents rules and practices used

by an organisation including meeting formats, appropriate use of e-mail, voice mail

and dress code. According to De Long and Fahey (2000) these rules and practices

determine the environment within which people communicate by establishing ground

rules as to how people interact and exchange knowledge. Therefore knowledge, as a

product of social interaction, is shaped by cultural context. Literature provides

evidence that OC influences KS behaviour (De Long & Fahey, 2000; Friesl,

Sackmann, & Kremser, 2011; Gray & Densten, 2005; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Keskin,

et al., 2005) in the same way that some cultures encourage the sharing of knowledge,

other can hoard it. Furthermore, different cultures understand knowledge and its

value differently (Anantatmula, 2010). Bhagat, Kedia, Harveston and Triandis (2002)

investigated cross border transfer of organisational knowledge in dissimilar cultural

contexts. Authors suggest that awareness of where the organisation sits culturally

according to four cultural patterns of individualism versus collectivism, and

verticalness versus horizontalness tells us how organisations are likely to transfer and

absorb organisational knowledge (Bhagat, et al., 2002). Moreover, in project

management field, Fong and Kwok (2009) suggest that different organisational

culture types may require different KM strategies, and imply that identifying this

need is an important step towards developing the theory, but much research is still

needed in this area.

Among scholars, there is still disagreement related to culture and KM. Some authors

argue that a change in OC needs to occur prior to introducing a KM approach (e.g.

Bhatt, 2001). Others state that KMS need to be adapted and embodied into existing

culture (e.g. Liebowitz, 2008). Bhatt (2001) provides argument, supported by

example from Ernst & Young Co., that effective implementation of KM requires a

change in organisational culture. Thus, only by changing OC, can an organisation

gradually change the pattern of KS behaviours (Bhatt 2001). Similarly, Eskerod and


54

Skriver (2007) stated that OC must change first in order to apply effective KM.

Liebowitz (2008) proposed a contrasting view that companies should introduce a KM

application that is in alignment with the existing OC. He explained that because it

can take many years to change an overall culture into an organisational setting, KMS

that fit the OC will evoke organisational transformation.

Furthermore, some research attempts to make a connection between OC, trust, KSM

and KS outcomes (Alavi, et al., 2006; Fong & Kwok, 2009; Issa & Haddad, 2008;

Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998). Whitener et al. (1998) theorised that

some cultural values like risk taking, inclusiveness, open communication and valuing

people, are likely to engage in trustworthy behaviours. Alavi et al. (2006) found that

differences in cultural values will lead to divergent practices related to the use of

Knowledge Management Systems. The presence of multiple cultures within a firm

suggests that both formalised and organic approaches to KM may occur

simultaneously within the same firm. In comparison, Fong and Kwok (2009) found

that KM success is more greatly impacted by organisational culture types, then by

the use of technology. Issa and Haddad (2008) suggest that ‗proper organisational

culture‘ comprised of motivation, incentives and meetings will lead to knowledge

sharing, and enhance mutual trust in the organisation.

3.4.2. Organisational Culture and Knowledge

Sharing in Project-based Organisations

The view of culture in a project management context is rather complex because a

project involves a number of experts from various fields, backgrounds and

professions, who typically have their own cultures and ways of working, which are

not necessarily in harmony with one another or with the prevailing culture of the

whole project (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008). Ajmal and Kosikien (2008) advise that

PMs must merge several different organisational and professional cultures into one

project culture to promote effective KM. In the I-PKS context, Eskerod and Skriver

(2007) investigated how the organisational subculture explains the reluctance in KT

activities between PMs. Their research found that organising by projects restrains KT

because a project orientation facilitates knowledge silos and ‗lonely cowboys‘.


55

According to De Long and Fahey (2000) culture shapes patterns and qualities of

interactions needed to leverage knowledge among individuals. Furthermore, different

cultural fundamentals will influence KS on horizontal and on vertical levels (De

Long & Fahey, 2000). Structure, in fact, has an impact on KS approaches (Friesl, et

al., 2011). PBOs, in contrast to functionally driven organisations, are more horizontal

in their structure and projects operate on similar hierarchical levels. Therefore

knowledge between projects is also typically transferred horizontally. De Long and

Fahey (2000) distinguished three cultural fundamentals influencing KS on the

horizontal level: (i) the volume of interaction, (ii) level of collaboration and

collective responsibility, and (iii) orientation to seek out expertise or knowledge. For

example, culture determines the value of formal and informal interactions, thus

leading to different knowledge sharing patterns (De Long & Fahey, 2000). Also,

collaboration and collective responsibility leads employees to go that extra mile to

avoid letting colleagues down. Finally, cultures that reward individuals for sharing

behaviours and encourage the use of existing knowledge would create different KS

patterns than cultures that do not promote such activities (De Long & Fahey, 2000).

Literature provides a range of different OC frameworks including those proposed by

Cameron & Quinn (2005), Denison and Spreitzer (1991), Hofstede (1984), and

Schein (1990). Bhagat et al. (2002) investigated KT in relation to four cultural

dimensions individualism versus collectivism, and verticalness versus horizontalness.

However, they research examined KT between organisations located in dissimilar

national contexts. Similarly, cultural framework proposed by Hofstede (1984)

involves examination of culture in terms of national characteristics. However, this

research focuses on organisational, not national culture. Therefore, the Competing

Values Framework (CVF) proposed by Cameron and Quinn (2005) appeared the

most suitable for this research. CVF provides a holistic view of OC, it was validated

in the Australian context (Lamond, 2003) and investigated from the KM perspective

(Fong & Kwok, 2009; Gray & Densten, 2005; Keskin, et al., 2005).

The CVF allows assessing company‘s dominant culture across six key characteristics

of a corporate culture: Dominant Characteristics, Organisational Leadership,

Management of Employees, Organisational Glue, Strategic Emphasis and Criteria of

Success. The CVF explains the complex nature of OC according to two dimensions:


56

internal/external focus, and stability/flexibility structure. These two dimensions

create four quadrants, which represent four OC types; Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy,

and Marketing. Table 3.2 shows the attributes characterising the four cultural types,

according to Cameron & Quinn (2005).

Gray and Densten (2005) proposed Organisational Knowledge Management Model

that integrates knowledge creation and conversion model (Nonaka & Takeuchi,

1995) with the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2005) as a means

to understand how organisational culture drives or enhances the development of

organisational knowledge. Following this approach, different dominant values may

therefore lead to different KS behaviours.

Table 3-2: Attributes of Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy, and Market cultures

CLAN

Mentoring Extended Family, Nurturing Participation Teamwork Employee Involvement Corporate commitment to employees Rewards based on teams not individuals Commitment, Loyalty Informality Job rotation Consensus

ADHOCRACY

Dynamic Entrepreneurial Risk-taking Values innovation Temporary structure Innovative product Rapid change Power is not centralised, it flows from individual to individual or team to team Creativity, innovation Sometimes exist in large organisations that have dominant culture of different type

HIERARCHY

Structure Control Coordination Efficiency Stability Procedures govern what people do Formal rules and policies

MARKET

Result oriented Gets job done Values competition and achievement Focus on transaction with external suppliers, customers, contractors Productivity Tough and demanding leaders Emphasis on winning Success is defined in terms of market share and penetration


57

Organisations are seldom characterised by a single cultural type; they tend to develop

a dominant OC over time as they adapt and respond to the challenges and changes in

the environment (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). Clan culture has an emphasis on

developing shared understanding and commitment instead of formalised

communication process. Typical characteristics of Clan cultures are teamwork and

employee involvement programs, while the core values represent participation,

loyalty and commitment (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). Adhocracy culture, referred to

as the open systems perspective, gives importance to flexibility and external

competitive position. It emphasises creativeness, entrepreneurship and adaptability

(Keskin, et al., 2005). Hierarchy culture is characterised by predictability and an

internal focus. The emphasis is on information management, documentation,

stability, routines, centralisation, continuity and control (Keskin, et al., 2005). In a

Hierarchy culture, members are bonded together through internal controls and are

governed by procedures. The principles of stability, formal rules and policies hold

the organisation together (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). Market culture is referred to as

the rational goal perspective, and is characterised by stability and an external focus

(Keskin, et al., 2005). It is oriented towards the external environment, instead of

internal affairs (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). These Market type organisations value

competitiveness, productivity, goal clarity, efficiency and accomplishment (Cameron

& Quinn, 2005; Gray & Densten, 2005), bounding members together through goal

orientation and competition.

3.4.3. Research Gap

Based on the literature reviewed above, it can be stated that the current research

established that OC influences KM efforts (Alavi, et al., 2006; De Long & Fahey,

2000; Gray & Densten, 2005; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Sveiby & Simons, 2002), and it

is one of the most important factor that influences KS behaviours (Ajmal &

Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Issa & Haddad, 2008). Nevertheless, only

recently has the research on project management focused its interest on OC in the I-

PKS context, and some preliminary theoretical (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008) and

empirical (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007) studies have been conducted. Furthermore, the

awareness of how culture influences KS behaviours in inter-project knowledge


58

sharing context still appears to be limited. The complexity and context dependency

of these two concepts, OC and KS, mean that there is still limited empirical evidence

stating the relationships between them. Therefore, this research aims to explore how

OC influences I-PKS behaviours, and investigate which cultural values are more

likely to drive this KS to occur. This research conceptualise organisational culture

primarily in terms of values. This is because values are more easily studied than

basic underlying assumptions, which are invisible, and values provide rich

understanding of social norms that define the rules or context for social interaction

through which people act and communicate (Alavi, et al., 2006; Schein, 1990). Also,

the use of CVF allows investigation of organisational culture in terms of values

(Cameron & Quinn, 2005).

3.5. SUMMARY

Based on the literature reviewed in this chapter, the three factors of trust, KSM and

OC are integrated in the I-PKS Framework to set the scope for the empirical

investigation. Figure 3.2 illustrates the reminder of the Framework.

As this chapter and the previous chapter revealed, KS research at an inter-project

level is still immature, lacking a comprehensive approach that will guide members

from one project to share knowledge with members of another. Current research in

the project management field focuses primarily on KSM including post project

reviews and LL as the source of knowledge for future projects, and only preliminary

research has been undertaken on the aspects of PMOs and culture. Presented in this

chapter, literature outside the project management area concentrates on other factors

that influence KS including trust and OC. It is therefore unlikely that effective I-PKS

is simply a matter of better post project reviews and LL. Overall, this chapter

provided an extensive review of the current research trends in KS across a range of

disciplines, focusing on OC, trust, and KSM. Based on that, the I-PKS Framework

emerged.


59

Figure 3-2: I-PKS Framework (repeated from Figure 3.1)

This literature review, although comprehensive, is not without limitations. While

considerable efforts were put into selecting the most relevant and high quality

articles, time limitations did not allow reviewing all sources. Furthermore, to achieve

a manageable research scope this research focuses on three factors that appear the

most relevant for I-PKS. The proposed methodology for this study is discussed in the

next chapter.

ABILITY TRUST

BEEVOLENCE TRUST

ITEGRITY TRUST

ABILITY TRUST

BENEVOLENCE TRUST

INTEGRITY TRUST


PROJECT MANAGEMENT

RELATED MECHANISMS

TECHNOLOGY

I-PKS

CLAN ADHOCRACY

HIERARCHY MARKET


60

Chapter 4 | Methodology

61

4. Methodology

4.1. INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter demonstrated that there are links between the factors identified

in the I-PKS Framework and KS, but some of those findings were based solely on

supposition or limited empirical evidence, especially in relation to an inter-project

context. Furthermore, Chapter 3 (I-PKS Framework) concluded that the current

literature on KS is generally limited to individual, project or organisational contexts;

an understanding of KS endeavours in the inter-project context, supported by

empirical evidence, is still lacking.

This chapter discusses the inductive theory building approach used in this study to

illuminate the central question of how organisational culture (OC), trust and

knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) influence inter-project knowledge sharing (I-

PKS) behaviours. Pursuing the inductive theory building approach allowed

investigation of the factors of the I-PKS Framework in their natural environment.

This helped to better understand the reality under investigation, including the impact

of culture and the role of trust in I-PKS. Furthermore, using this approach enabled

exploration of a range of mechanisms facilitating I-PKS in the complex context of

project management.

Section 4.2 provides explanation on epistemological stand chosen for this research.

In Section 4.3, a snap shot of the research flow is presented together with the

research aim and questions. Subsection 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 discuss the appropriateness of


62

choosing the inductive theory building approach, its strengths and limitations. The

following section, Section 4.4, outlines a case study method applied in this research,

demonstrating its strengths and limitations, further illustrating the detailed design of

the case study including the development of a protocol and the use of multiple

sources of evidence. Section 4.6 focuses on how data were analysed, addressing both

within- and cross-case analyses, as well as presenting a range of analytical

techniques used in this study. The chapter concludes with a discussion on how

reliability, validity and analytical generalisability were maintained throughout the

study.

4.2. PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION

Prior to the attempt of conducting a research one should be aware of different

philosophical positions that influence the way of how the research will proceed.

Among the main four schools of thoughts positivism, post-positivism, critical theory,

and constructivism outlined by Guba and Lincoln (1994) this research follows a post-

positivist paradigm, labelled as a critical realism, where the reality is viewed as

complex and needs to be investigated by multiple measures, as none of them is

perfect. Post-positivism situates itself between positivism and interpretativism

paradigms, in a sense that there are some overlapping characteristics between these

paradigms. Accordingly, this research displays some degree of positivist and

interpretativist views.

This research aims to uncover the true reality of inter-project knowledge sharing

behaviours; uncovering truth and comparing this to hypotheses or propositions is a

goal of both post-positivist and positivist research (Gephart, 2004). Both paradigms,

positivist and post-positivist need a convincing argument that the findings are valid

(Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This research achieved that

by combining techniques from Eisenhardt‘s inductive theory building approach

(1989) and Yin‘s case study approach (2003, 2009), and applying a range of quality

measures to ensure rigour and thoroughness of the research process, and validity of

the findings; which is discussed in greater details in next sections.


63

Having said that, there are clear differences between post-positivist and positivist

paradigms. Positivism assumes that reality exists and it is driven by natural laws and

mechanisms that are absolute, where the knowledge is described in the forms of

time-free and context-free generalizations. Post-positivist approach, on the other

hand, states that reality may exist and rejects the idea proclaimed by positivist

researchers that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is (Guba &

Lincoln, 1994). Post-positivism believes that we are all biased and all of our

observations are affected by our cultural experiences and world views. In its

perception of the reality as a complex, post-positivism is similar to interpretativism

(Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekeran, 2001; Guba & Lincoln, 1994), which believes that

people experience physical and social reality in different ways (Cavana, et al., 2001).

This research investigates a complex, contemporary and socially based problem of

inter-project knowledge sharing in a specific, project-based environment. The

examination of the phenomenon in its context allowed gaining a better understanding

of the problem and generating practical solutions to the problem. Propositions put

forward in the later Chapters suggest relationships between factors affecting inter-

project knowledge sharing, but are not absolute.

Despite the research complexity and close interaction with the problem under

investigation, to get closer to the reality and achieve objectivity the researcher

followed post-positivist view emphasising the importance of multiple measures and

observations. According to this view, each of the measures possess different types of

errors, with the need to use triangulation to achieve a better perspective on what

happens in reality (William Trochim, 2006). Therefore, to capture as much of reality

as possible (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) and to achieve a better and truthful perspective

on what happens in reality (William Trochim, 2006) this research relied on multiple

sources of evidence including interviews with a number of respondents across four

cases, review of documents and questionnaire.

4.3. RESEARCH FLOW

The central research problem was the lack of effective KS across projects resulting in

knowledge being irretrievably lost. Research on KS in the project management field


64

appeared to be insufficient to solve this problem. In view of the research problem and

rationale, an extensive literature review across a range of fields was conducted in a

search for factors that influence KS and could be relevant for an inter-project

context. As a result, three factors were identified and captured in the I-PKS

Framework (OC, trust and KSM) that shaped the scope of this research. Accordingly,

the aim of this research was to investigate how these factors influence I-PKS

behaviours. In order to achieve the aim, this research sought to answer the following

research questions:

1. How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing?

2. How does the existence of the three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)

benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?




4. How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational

culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve inter-project

knowledge sharing?

a. What are the relationships between the three factors?



Presented in Chapter 3, the literature review demonstrated that the existing research

related to these three factors is still inadequate to address the research questions by

applying a theory testing approach. The conflicting answers to some of the major

questions relating to KSM, the limited empirical research on the role of different

trust dimensions and OC in KS, as well as insufficient research on KS in an inter-

project context led to an inductive study. Furthermore, this research investigated this

complex phenomenon of I-PKS, in a specific, project-based environment. For this

reason, this research employed a qualitative investigation applying the inductive

theory building approach proposed by Eisenhardt (1989) to obtain rich data about the

phenomenon within the everyday context. This allowed a better understanding of the

problem and the generation of practical solutions to the problem. Subsequent


65

sections, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, report on the inductive theory building approach

undertaken in this research.

4.3.1. Research Reasoning

There are two major ways of reasoning when conducting research, deductive and

inductive (Cavana, et al., 2001; Sutrisna, 2009). Deduction is the process by which

the researcher begins with theoretical propositions and then moves towards concrete

empirical evidence (Cavana, et al., 2001). Induction, on the other hand, is the process

where the researcher begins with detailed observation of the world and moves

towards more theoretical generalisations and ideas (Cavana, et al., 2001). Induction

is the opposite process to deduction. Deductive research composes hypotheses based

on the current body of knowledge, while inductive research investigates the

phenomena, keeping an ‗open mind‘ to any possible result (Sutrisna, 2009) by asking

the questions ‗how‘ and ‗why‘ to gain richer and deeper information.

A mix of inductive and deductive approaches have been advocated by Eisenhardt

(1989), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Perry (1998). Perry (1998) advises that

starting from a blank theoretical slate is neither practical nor preferred.

Consequently, a pure inductive approach was not applied because it would not be

practical to ignore the past body of knowledge already generated in the area. Pure

induction could prevent the researcher from benefiting from existing theory, just as

pure deduction could prevent the development of new and useful theory (Perry,

1998). In this research, prior theory had a pivotal function in the development of the

I-PKS Framework, data collection process and design of the case study.

Nevertheless, evidence from the literature presented in Chapters 2 and 3 revealed that

current research is not capable of addressing the research problem by using a theory

testing approach. As a result, this study includes some deduction based on prior

theory, although inductive theory building is more prominent.

Another reason for using primarily inductive reasoning is the contemporary and pre-

pragmatic nature of this research, in which the factors outlined in the I-PKS

Framework are still too complex to be fully understood and well defined. Perry

(1998) recommends the use of an inductive approach for research in which accepted


66

principles and constructs have not yet been established or are inadequate. Therefore,

in this complex and not fully understood environment a purely deductive approach

would not be suitable.

4.3.2. Research Approach — Inductive Theory

Building

Section 4.2.1 discussed two ways of research reasoning, inductive and deductive.

Accordingly, there are two major approaches to theory development, deductive

theory testing and inductive theory building (Cavana, et al., 2001; Perry, 1998). The

approach used in this research is inductive theory building, using a multiple case

study method proposed by Eisenhardt (1989). This approach involves using one or

more cases to create theoretical constructs, propositions or midrange theory and is

appropriate to apply when little is known about a phenomenon or when current

perspectives conflict with each other (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548).

In theory building, cases are used to develop theory inductively. The theory is

emergent in the sense that it is situated in, and developed by, recognising patterns of

relationships among constructs within and across cases and their underlying logical

arguments (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). A theory building approach increases the

likelihood of generating a novel theory and improves testability and empirical

validity.

There were several reasons for using an inductive theory building approach. Firstly,

there has been limited empirical research in the area of KS in the inter-project

context. Literature reviewed in Chapter 2 revealed that current studies focus

primarily on LL and post project reviews (Kotnour, 1999; Office of Government

Commerce UK, 2005; Project Management Institute, 2008; Purdon, 2008; Schindler

& Eppler, 2003; Sharif et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2000), and only some research has

been conducted on the aspect of culture in I-PKS (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Ajmal &

Koskinen, 2008). However, the existing literature outside the project management

area focuses on other elements that influence KS, including trust and strong ties. It is

therefore unlikely that effective inter-project KS is simply a matter of better post


67

project reviews and LL. Therefore, the inductive theory building approach that seeks

to uncover the complexity of the phenomenon appeared to be more suitable for this

research. Furthermore, there is a plethora of real life evidence reporting project

failures or even disasters caused by a lack of or ineffective KS (for example the

Challenger Disaster outlined in Chapter 1), suggesting that I-PKS is crucial for

project-based organisations (PBOs). This means that the answers to the research

questions are relevant for both organisations and theory.

Secondly, the current body of knowledge was still not sufficient to apply a deductive

theory testing approach to investigate the complex and socially constructed factors of

the I-PKS Framework. For example, Sackmann (1991) recommends examining

culture in its organisational context using inductive reasoning that provides valuable

insights into the nature of this complex phenomenon. Similarly, in relation to trust,

the project management literature focuses primarily on trust in projects (Kadefors,

2004; Pinto, et al., 2009; Smyth, et al., 2010), examining trust as a one-dimensional

concept (Foos, et al., 2006; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Kadefors, 2004), whereas research

outside the project management field (Bhattacherjee, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995;

McAllister, 1995; Sako, 1992) found that there are in fact many trust dimensions.

Accordingly, there is only limited research available on the impact of different trust

dimensions on KS in a project environment. Thus, it is clear that trust needs further

exploration, which can be achieved by applying an inductive approach.

Thirdly, theory building is appropriate to use when current perspectives conflict with

each other (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548). The literature review found that there is still

disagreement on the choice of mechanisms used for effective KS. Thus a theory

building approach appeared the most suitable to use in resolving this disagreement.

Nevertheless, there are limitations to the theory building approach. According to

Dyer and Wilkins (1991) one limitation of building theory from cases is the use of

multiple case studies, which are able to provide fairly ‗thin‘ descriptions focusing on

surface data rather than deeper social dynamics, which can be achieved only in single

case studies that are able to produce better stories. In fact, one step in the theory

building approach is to conduct within-case analysis, which indeed provides rich and

deep contexts, and which, as stated by Eisenhardt (1991), is often not reported in


68

journal articles. Furthermore, the theoretical insights of case studies arise from

methodological rigor and multiple-case comparative logic, which allow

strengthening the findings.

Another risk of applying theory building approach from multiple case studies is that

the richness of data to deal with, which is often in a form of words, rather than

numbers can introduce additional complexity and confusion. However, as advised by

Fernández (2004) it is a normal state and researcher should trust in emerging

findings; if principles of the method are rigorously followed, the data itself will

provide justification.

As stated by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) some researchers who work on large-

scale, hypothesis testing research may misunderstand the method or regard their own

methods as superior. However, deductive theory testing and inductive theory

building complement each other. Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) stated that

―inductive and deductive logics are mirrors of one another, with inductive theory

building from cases producing new theory from data and deductive theory testing

completing the cycle by using data to test theory‖. Accordingly, this research

complements the mainstream deductive theory testing approach by generating

propositions based on empirical evidence that can be tested by future deductive

research.

4.4. RESEARCH METHOD

The case study research method was used to investigate the problem of a lack of I-

PKS. A case study is an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group or event

within their real-life context (Yin, 2009), where the phenomenon is not isolated from

its context, but the investigation focuses on how the phenomenon is influenced by

the context or influences the context (Hartley, 2004, p. 323).


69

4.4.1. The Rationale for Using a Case Study

Method

According to Evans (1995), researchers often fail when they focus only on describing

the chosen research methods without providing the rationale behind the choice.

Therefore, the reasons for choosing a case study as a research method are described

as follows.

The case study method offers a range of advantages including the opportunity to ask

penetrating questions and to capture the richness of organisational behaviour (Gable,

1994). The case study method helps explain complex causal links in real-life

interventions while retaining the holistic and meaningful characteristics of the reality

under investigation (Yin, 2009), hence providing a richness and depth of explorations

and descriptions. Furthermore, Perry (1998) and Yin (2009) suggest that a case study

method is appropriate when researching complex and contemporary events over

which the investigator has little or no control. Furthermore, Proverbs and Gameson

(2008) stated that case study research appears to be highly relevant to an industry

that is project driven and made up of many different types of organisations and

businesses. In this research, the adoption of a case study allowed the researcher to

investigate the existing and multifaceted problem of I-PKS in its natural setting. The

complexity of processes involved during KS practices in the industries driven by

projects and the contemporary type of problem under investigation implied that the

case study method was the most appropriate for this research.

A case study was also chosen because of the type of research questions. These were

mainly the ‗how‘ questions, which involved a deeper probing of issues. According to

Yin (2009), these types of research questions suggest that a case study approach is

preferable, as opposed to ‗what‘, ‗where‘ or ‗how many‘ questions, which favour

survey methods. Figure 4.1 outlines what methods and sources of evidence were

used to answer the research questions.


70

Figure 4-1: Research questions and methods used to approach them

For instance, research question two (RQ2) investigated the sensitive issue of trust.

Previous studies conducted by Borgatti and Cross (2003) showed survey respondents

were uncomfortable answering questions related to trust. Therefore, using qualitative

face-to-face interviews during the case study seemed more suitable. A questionnaire

was used only to measure the existence of the three forms of trust in the organisation,

while face-to-face interviews helped in establishing a closer relationship between the

interviewer and respondent, and allowed the respondent to feel more comfortable in

answering questions relating to trust. In addition, most of the existing research on

trust focuses on confirming stated hypothesis on the importance of trust in a range of

different situations (Foos, et al., 2006; Holste & Fields, 2010; Issa & Haddad, 2008;

Levin & Cross, 2004; Pinto, et al., 2009) using surveys with only closed-type

questions. However, in this research the use of semi-structured interviews allowed a

potentially richer insight into the complex issue of trust. The investigator initially

asked each respondent to indicate how important ability, benevolence and integrity

trusts were for I-PKS (confirmatory stage). Respondents then were asked to further

elaborate on their choice (exploratory stage), thus providing valuable comments and

insight. The trust indicators were adopted from Mayer and Davis (1999) and also

1) How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing?

2) How does the existence of the three types of trust — (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?

3) How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours?

4) How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?

a) What are the relationships between the factors? b) What is the best fit for given cases to ensure more

effective inter-project knowledge sharing?

CASE STUDIES Interviews Questionnaire Review of

Documents

CASE STUDIES Interviews Questionnaire

CASE STUDIES Interviews Review of

Documents

Within and cross-case analyses


71

used in (Akgün, et al., 2005; Becerra & Gupta, 2003; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002;

Levin & Cross, 2004; Pinto, et al., 2009). A case study also appeared the most

suitable method to answer the research question related to OC (RQ1). Using a case

study method allowed in-depth investigation of underlying basic assumptions and

values that impact I-PKS. A survey itself would not have been able to provide such

an insight into cultural dimensions. In fact, Sackmann (1991) recommends

examining culture in its organisational context and many authors in the field of social

science use the case study method to do so (Alavi, et al., 2006; Eskerod & Skriver,

2007; Sackmann, 1991).

4.4.2. The Use of Multiple Case Studies

This research used multiple case studies to develop the theory, which gave the

possibility to compare data from a number of related cases and generate more

compelling results, offering greater potential for explanation. Single-case studies

provide a rich description of the phenomenon and its context (Dyer & Wilkins,

1991), while multiple-case studies provide a stronger base for theory building (Yin,

2009, pp. 54-60), allowing a broader exploration of research questions and

theoretical elaboration (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Therefore, the theory that

emerges from multiple case studies is better grounded, more accurate and more

generalisable than single-case research (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Eisenhardt &

Graebner, 2007). Furthermore, Gable (1994) and Proverbs, and Gameson (2008)

recommended using multiple case studies to improve the consistency of the results.

The case study method applied in this research was both exploratory (exploring and

examining the relationships between the elements of the Framework) and

explanatory (explaining the relationships between the elements). The exploratory

stage of the case studies helped to assess the specification of the I-PKS Framework

and gain a deeper understanding of the investigated problem. The explanatory stage

assisted in demonstrating how the individual factors contribute to I-PKS as well as

the determined relationships between them. Ultimately, the goals of case studies

were to:

examine elements of the I-PKS Framework


72

identify relationships between these elements

develop testable propositions for future research

aid in developing a practical application for PBOs to better manage their

knowledge.

Although the case study method has many advantages, there are also some

limitations in using this approach. There is a danger of subjectivity during data

collection that can compromise the validity of findings (Amaratunga & Baldry,

2001). The most often cited limitation of the case study method is the difficulty to

generalise findings to different settings (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Gable, 1994;

Yin, 2009). However, the aim of this research is not to obtain global findings or

claims, but propositions that can be further tested on a broader population. Section

4.6 (Research Quality) reports how this research dealt with these limitations.

4.5. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH

METHOD

This section discusses the implementation process of the case study method, focusing

on unit of analysis and case selection, design of case study protocol, and the use of

multiple sources of evidence.

4.5.1. Unit of Analysis and Case Selection

An important step in research design is to define a unit of analysis. The unit of

analysis is the level of aggregation of the data collected. It can be individuals, dyads,

groups, divisions, industries or even countries (Cavana, et al., 2001). The unit of

investigation in this research was a Project Management Department. This study

examined KS practices that occurred between projects as well as relationships

between PMs of Project Management Departments in participating cases.

Identifying and selecting the cases is also important. The selection of cases was

purposeful, and as advised by Eisenhardt (1989), Perry (1998) and Yin (2009), it


73

followed a replication logic. Replication logic ―refers to two or more cases in the

same study where the investigator is looking for congruence that indicates increased

confidence in the overall findings‖ (Aita & Mcllvain, 1999, p. 258). Replication

logic is different to sampling logic commonly used in surveys, but similar to that

used in multiple experiments; each case must be carefully selected and treated as an

experiment (Yin, 2009, pp. 54-55). To ensure a replication logic, Eisenhardt (1989)

recommends choosing a specific population for the case study. This helps to

constrain irrelevant variation and sharpen external validity (Yin, 2003). Furthermore,

the purpose of the research was to develop theory, not to test it, and so theoretical

(not random) sampling was chosen. Theoretical sampling means that cases are

selected because they are particularly suitable for illuminating and extending

relationships and logic among constructs (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).

The selected cases were large PBOs, which according to PMBoK (2004) are the

organisations that have adopted management by projects and have management

systems structured to facilitate project management. Four large PBOs from a range of

industries were chosen for this research, three were government owned, and one was

initially government owned and privatised in the 1980s. All cases had either a strong

or balanced matrix structure, which means that in all cases the PMs‘ authority, role,

resource availability and the responsibility of project management administrative

staff were similar. Furthermore, the selection of specific sectors — Heavy

Engineering, Telecommunication, Communication Services and Research — allowed

to control environmental variations. The focus on large PBOs constrained variation

due to size differences among the companies as well as allowed the capturing of

complexity of the investigated phenomenon. In addition, taking into account a range

of project types, such as geographically dispersed projects versus co-located projects,

helped to establish how these project characteristics change I-PKS behaviours.

Figure 4.2 illustrates dimensions based on which cases were selected.

The number of cases for this research is four. Eisenhardt (1989) recommends that

cases should be added until ‗theoretical saturation‘ is reached, which means

incremental learning is minimal because the researcher is observing phenomena seen

before (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Furthermore, the number of cases for this research

is adequate for the time given to conduct the research. Pettigrew (1990) recommends


74

that a full time researcher should conduct no more than 4–6 cases over a three-year

period. Although there is no ideal number of cases, Eisenhardt (1989) states that 4–

10 cases usually works well. The purposeful choice of cases made the research more

manageable and theoretical saturation was reached as the forth case did not introduce

much novelty into the research findings and similar responses were obtained to those

in previous cases.

4.5.2. Case Study Protocol

Another issue to be reflected in the implementation of the case study method is the

protocol. The case study protocol was developed to increase the consistency of the

research (Yin, 2009). The elements of the I-PKS Framework informed the interview

protocol that was used for data collection in all four cases. The protocol contained

the instruments and procedures to be followed during the conduct of the case studies.

It guided the data collection process, keeping the researcher focused on the topic. A

copy of the protocol which included an introduction to the case study, case study

questions and data collection procedures is attached in Appendix B.

Pure PBO

Matrix

Functional

Large

Beta Alpha Delta Gamma

Co-located Co-located

and Distributed

Distributed

ORGANISATION SIZE

PROJECT MANAGERS LOCATION

PB

O S

TR

UC

TU

RE

Figure 4-2: Cases selection


75

4.5.3. Entering the Field

Entering the field includes preparation work such as negotiating and obtaining access

to the case, contacting participants and gaining their consent (Fernández, 2004). Prior

to interviews, a key contact person from each organisation was approached and asked

to identify the potential respondents and inform them about the interview. After that,

an e-mail was sent by the investigator to state the purpose of the study, and to

arrange the date, time and place for the interview. Appendix C provides templates of

e-mails sent to key contact persons and respondents.

Interviews occurred mainly with PMs as centres of project knowledge directly

involved in the KS process, as well as with other parties including program

managers, senior management, project officers and project management office

(PMO) personnel who provided a broader perspective on project-based KS and

practices. In addition, prior to conducting the interviews, each respondent was

reassured about the confidentiality of the interview — that in no way would it be

apparent that responses came from them. Finally, each respondent was asked their

permission to use a recorder to record the interview. Everyone agreed to do so.

Furthermore, prior to conducting the interviews, respondents were asked to sign the

Consent Form and indicate that they agreed to participate in the project and had read

and understood the information regarding this project. The Consent Form was

prepared as a part of Ethical Clearance granted prior to data collection (Ethics No:

0900000432). The Consent Form included a short description of the study, expected

benefits of the participation, the promise that organisations‘ and participants‘ names

would not be included in any reports or publications unless approval is obtained from

the relevant participants. The information that participation in this project was

voluntary and the respondent could withdraw from the research at any time during

the project without comment or penalty was also included in the form. A copy of the

Consent Form is provided in Appendix D.

The interview commenced with an explanation of the key concepts used in the study

including KS, I-PKS and KSM. Interview questions were focused on the elements

identified in the I-PKS Framework and were prepared earlier. The interviews


76

investigated matters related to KSM, types of knowledge, the role of trust and OC in

an I-PKS context, as well as best practices in the transfer of LL beyond the project.

Often additional questions were asked during interviews, for example when the

interviewee revealed some extra information or extended the conversation relating to

the study focus. Also, the questions directed to PMO personnel, who did not directly

work on projects but assisted in project processes, were related more to the functions

and roles of the PMO in I-PKS, as well as to the organisational processes that

facilitate this I-PKS. Each interview lasted for about one hour. The interview was

guided by the protocol and the pre-prepared questions. All interviews were recorded

and later transcribed.

4.5.4. Sources of Evidence

The major strength of a case study data collection is the opportunity to use many

different sources of evidence (Yin, 2009). Consequently, this research used multiple

sources of evidence to collect empirical data including a review of documents,

focused interviews and the questionnaire, all presented below. Using this approach

allowed attention to a broader range of cues.

4.5.4.1. Review of Documents

According to Yin (2009) documents are helpful in verifying correct spelling, titles or

names and can provide specific details to support evidence from other sources, such

as interviews. In this research, the data collection process in each company started

with the review of documents, including the review of organisational charts, project

management methodology, company objectives and its core purpose. After reviewing

the documents and gaining a better understanding of each company‘s profile and

structure, the interviews commenced. In addition, review of the companies‘

collaborative tools such as intranet sites and corporate wikis helped gain better

understanding of each company‘s technological solutions facilitating interaction and

KS practices. Three main reasons for choosing the review of documents as case

study evidence were to:


77

i. better understand the companies‘ objectives and core purpose

ii. identify the organisational structure

iii. examine project management methodologies followed by the

participating organisations and other organisational processes that

regulated I-PKS.

4.5.4.2. Focused Interviews

A number of face-to-face focused interviews were conducted in each case (the

number of interviewees in each case is presented in Chapter 5). Interviews explored

how the factors identified in Chapter 3 and illustrated in the I-PKS Framework

influence KS. The use of interviews provided a richer insight into the complex issues

of trust and OC. Furthermore, interviews revealed respondents‘ preferences for

mechanisms used to exchange knowledge as well as assisted in uncovering some

significant relationships between the factors of the I-PKS Framework.

The reason for choosing focused interviews over open-ended interviews, was that

some prior knowledge on the factors influencing I-PKS already existed and had been

outlined in the I-PKS Framework. This framework informed the case study protocol

helping to define the study focus. Nevertheless, focused interviews can still remain

somehow open-ended, but they are more likely to follow a certain set of questions

derived from a case study protocol allowing for focused, conversational, two-way

communication (Yin, 2003). Moreover, conducting face-to-face focused interviews

helped clarify the responses as well as facilitated respondents in providing valuable

comments and feedback. In addition, using face-to-face interviews, as advised by

Cavana et al. (2001, p. 150), allowed the investigator to pick up non-verbal cues

from the respondents, aiding understanding of the problem and providing useful

insights into the progress of the interview.

4.5.4.3. Questionnaire

A short questionnaire conducted after the interviews assisted in obtaining

quantitative data on OC and the three forms of trust. Questions were adopted from

existing measures. The trust indicators were borrowed from Mayer and Davis (1999)


78

and were also used in Becerra and Gupta (2003). The questionnaire investigated the

presence of three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. Respondents were asked

to focus on the person from whom they sought knowledge the most and indicate how

much they agreed or disagreed with following statements in relation to that person.

The scale used ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5

strong agreement. The average scores for items measuring each form of trust were

calculated to examine the presence of ability, benevolence and integrity trusts during

I-PKS. Small cases that resulted in a lower sample size for the questionnaire were the

reason why questionnaire results were mainly descriptive.

OC was examined by applying the Competing Values Framework (CVF) proposed

by Cameron and Quinn (2005) to assess each company‘s dominant culture across six

key characteristics of a corporate culture: Dominant Characteristics, Organisational

Leadership, Management of Employees, Organisational Glue, Strategic Emphasis

and Criteria of Success. From a range of culture models, including those proposed by

Cameron and Quinn (2005), Denison and Spreitzer (1991), Hofstede (1984), and

Schein (1990), the CVF (Cameron & Quinn, 2005) appeared the most suitable for

this research. CVF provides a holistic view of OC, it was validated in the Australian

context (Lamond, 2003) and investigated from the KM perspective (Gray & Densten,

2005; Keskin, et al., 2005).

The CVF explains the complex nature of OC according to two dimensions:

internal/external focus, and stability/flexibility structure. These two dimensions

create four quadrants, which represent four OC types; Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy,

and Marketing. Organisations are seldom characterised by a single cultural type; they

tend to develop a dominant OC over time as the organisation adapts and responds to

the challenges and changes in the environment (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). The CVF

was used to assess culture in participating organisations. The questionnaire regarding

OC and trust can be found in Appendix E – The Data Collection Process.


79

4.6. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH

The analysis of case study evidence is one of the least developed and most difficult

aspects of doing case studies (Yin, 2009, p. 127). Data analysis consists of

examining, categorising, tabulating, testing, or recombining quantitative and

qualitative evidence to address the initial inquiries of a study (Yin, 2003, p. 109).

According to Proverbs and Gameson (2008) and Yin (2009) the best way to start the

analysis is to focus on objectives or research questions that determine and guide the

case study analysis; well defined research questions help focus attention on certain

data and ignore other data. In this study, the research questions, reflected in the I-

PKS Framework, guided data collection and analysis.

As advised by Yin (2009), the use of both qualitative and quantitative data helped to

strengthen the findings and to illustrate them in a clearer manner. In addition, to

achieve a better quality of analysis every element of the Framework was analysed in

a way to demonstrate all evidence, including the rival interpretations. For instance,

when analysing benevolence trust, in some cases the number of advocates and

opponents, stating the relevance of benevolence trust, was almost the same. Analyses

were performed in a way to identify, examine and exemplify both perspectives.

4.6.1. The Use of NVivo in Data Coding and

Analysis

Data analysis consists of three activities: (1) data reduction, (2) data display, and (3)

conclusion drawing and verification (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These first two

activities, data reduction and display, were performed with the help of NVivo

package, which assisted in categorising, recombining and examining the data.

Firstly, transcribed interviews were uploaded into NVivo, and then were followed by

coding process. Coding in NVivo is based on storing passages of data in nodes and

tree nodes, which are much like designating files for each topic (Bazeley, 2007), with

this difference that nodes store reference to the segments of data without interrupting

the original data, thus source always remains intact. Furthermore, NVivo allows the


80

same passages to be coded at multiple nodes. Accordingly, data from interviews

were arranged into nodes and tree nodes starting the coding process. There were

three phases of the coding process: open coding, building the tree nodes structure,

and review of nodes.

4.6.1.1. First Phase – Open Coding

Typically, coding process in theory building research starts with open coding, which

involves analysing the data to extract a set of categories (Fernández, 2004).

However, in this research some predetermined general nodes were created around the

Framework elements and the research questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994); in result

three parent nodes and six tree (child) nodes were created representing the elements

of the I-PKS Framework, as seen in Figure 4.3. Additional nodes were created when

new concepts emerged from the data.

A ‗case node‘ is created to gather all sources about a given case in one space

(Richards, 2006). Accordingly, during this phase every source was also coded into a

case node. In result, four case nodes were created, each representing participating

organisation. This was done primarily to gather data related to one case in a separate

node folder and be able to narrow down queries to that specific case.


81

4.6.1.2. Second Phase – Building More Comprehensive

Tree Nodes Structure with Parent and Child Nodes

The aim of this phase was to investigate each node separately, finding patterns

between nodes and categorising general nodes into a more meaningful smaller

subcategories, resulting with a comprehensive tree node structure with parent and

child nodes. Child nodes allowed for better understanding of the phenomenon.

During this phase annotations, memos, and relationships were also created, which

were later used for within and cross case analysis. Figure 4.4 illustrates a fragment of

the tree node structure with parent and child nodes.

Parent Nodes Tree Nodes

D A T A

TRUST

ORGANISATIONAL

CULTURE

KNOWLEDGE SHARING

MECHANISMS

ABILITY TRUST

BENEVOLENCE TRUST

INTEGRITY TRUST

RELATIONAL MECHANISMS

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

RELATED MECHANISMS

TECHNOLOGY

“they’ve got to be good, they’ve

got to know what the job is...”

“I don’t want someone who’s got good intentions but is going to give me the wrong information....”

“it invalidates the whole point of

seeking knowledge if people are not going to be honest in the information that they provide you. It makes it impossible to do the job that you

do....”

“people are pretty vocal and most people you know, like to share their pain as much as their pleasures....”

“I mean there’s lots of issues with people not wanting to share information because for them that’s power...”

Passage from data

Passage from data

Passage from data

Figure 4-3: Example of first phase coding process


82

4.6.1.3. Third Phase – Review of Nodes

This phase focused primarily on reviewing nodes, their content, hierarchical position,

and name. For instance, in this phase some nodes needed to be merged with other

nodes (because the content described the same phenomenon or idea), or to be further

split into child nodes. This process helped to create a tree node structure that was

easier to work with and analyse. Some of the child nodes were merged together as

the content was similar, describing the same matter. After the data was arranged into

the nodes and reviewed, and the coding structure was tightly established, within-case

analysis began.

4.6.2. Within-case Analysis

Within-case analysis helped the investigator to cope with the complexity and

richness of the data (Eisenhardt, 1989). As suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin

(2009), the aim of within case analysis is to become intimately familiar with each

case as a stand-alone entity before the cross-case analysis begins. Consequently, in

this research, within-case analysis involved detailed case study write-ups for each

site. This stage allowed unique patterns and relationships, related to the elements of

I-PKS Framework to emerge, exclusive only to a specific case. Results from within-

case analysis are presented in Chapter 5, in which pattern matching analysis, along

with a range of NVivo queries were used to assist in data analysis (see also Section

4.5.4).


83

Figure 4-4: A fragment of tree nodes structure with parent nodes and child nodes

CHILD NODES

Ability trust

Benevolence trust

Integrity trust

Relational Mechanisms

Technology

Project Management Related Mechanisms

Important

Moderate

Not Important

E-mail

Child Node

Wiki

Child Node

Child Node

Perception

Ownership

Design

Content

Usability

Leadership Engagement

Child Node

Child Node

Child Node

Child Node

Orientation to existing knowledge

Willingness to share

Collaboration

Child Node

Child Node

Child node

Child Node

Child Node

Organisational Culture

Trust

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

Strengths

Weaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

PARENT NODES


84

4.6.3. Cross-case Analysis

Applying cross-case analysis is likely to bring more robust outcomes, and help to

strengthen the findings (Yin, 2003). In this research, cross-case analysis aimed to

look for similarities and differences between cases by comparing several categories

at once, and looking for within-group similarities and intergroup differences.

According to Yin (2009), one way of performing cross-case synthesis is to create

tables that display the data from the individual cases according to a uniform

framework. Eisenhardt (1989) warns that the danger of doing cross-case analysis is

that the investigator reaches premature or even false conclusions. One way to avoid

this is to look at the data in many divergent ways. The use of NVivo queries enabled

data from all four cases to be categorised in a range of different ways. For example

matrix queries allowed comparing several categories of data at once. A range of

other analytical techniques and queries were used in this phase, which are further

discussed in the next section.

4.6.4. Analytical Techniques

A range of analytical techniques and queries were used during the within- and cross-

case analyses, including pattern-matching logic, numerical counts analyses and

explanation building. These are presented in Figure 4.5.

Figure 4-5: The use of analytical techniques and queries for within and cross-case

analyses

•Pattern-matching logic

•Numerical counts analysis

•NVivo Queries

•Outcome Detail case study write-ups for each site

WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS

•Pattern-matching logic

•Explanation building technique

•NVivo Queries

CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS

PROPOSITIONS


85

4.6.4.1. Pattern-matching Logic

According to Yin (2009) one of the most desirable techniques for case study analysis

is pattern-matching logic, where an empirically based pattern is compared with a

predicted one. If the patterns match, the results can help a case study to strengthen its

internal validity (W. Trochim, 1989). Pattern-matching logic was used in both

within-case and cross-case analyses. To perform pattern-matching analysis, the

predictions illustrated in the I-PKS Framework were compared with the empirical

findings. For example, the framework suggested that ability trust impacts I-PKS.

Empirical data from all four cases confirmed that prediction, suggesting that all

indicators of ability trust improve I-PKS, and the empirical data did not show any

alternative explanations. This means that there is a strong relationship between

ability trust and I-PKS.

Using this technique of pattern-matching also allowed the researcher to compare

cases and to determine similarities and differences between them for the purpose of

building and strengthening the theory from cases (Eisenhardt, 1989). The following

steps were undertaken to perform pattern-matching between cases: looking for

similarities and differences between cases, comparing several categories at one using

a matrix query, looking for within-group similarities and intergroup differences, and

looking what cause the differences.

4.6.4.2. Numerical Counts Analysis

Numerical counts analysis was used as a proxy indicator to estimate the importance

and frequency of elements. The numerical counts analysis counts the number of

times an issue was raised as important or not important, or having strengths or

weaknesses or simply counting the number of people raising it (Bazeley, 2007, p.

200). It is also sometimes referred to as quasi-statistics, as it counts the number of

times something is mentioned in field notes as a very rough estimate of frequency.

This technique was broadly used in this study to assess the importance of the three

trust dimensions, to examine the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face versus

technological tools, and to perform SWOT analysis on wikis, presented in detail in

Chapter 6 (Cross-Case Analysis).


86

4.6.4.3. Explanation Building

Explanation-building analysis is considered a form of pattern-matching, in which the

analysis of the case study is carried out by building an explanation of the case. This

technique is particularly useful in explanatory case studies (Tellis, 1997; Yin, 2003).

This type of analysis is highly iterative and requires referring to the literature. It

involves five steps: examine case study evidence, revise theoretical positions,

examine cases from a new perspective, develop plausible explanations, and repeat

the process as many times as is needed (Yin, 2003). Figure 4.6 shows the process of

the explanation building technique. This technique was primarily used in the cross-

case analysis and assisted in the explanatory stage of the study outlined in Chapter 8

(Discussions and Practical Implications). Using this technique helped in recognising

relationships between OC, trust, and KSM as well as assisted in understanding ‗how‘

and ‗why‘ certain events occurred; thus, providing a rich understanding and

explanation of events that emerged during cross-case analysis process.

Figure 4-6: The explanation building technique process

4.6.4.4. The Use of Nvivo Queries in Data Analysis

The use of queries in NVivo assisted in asking questions about the project and

enabled seeing data in a more apparent manner. Three types of queries were

frequently used during the case study analysis: matrix query, text search query,

annotations and memos.

Matrix coding queries create tables - matrices to compare multiple pairs of nodes.

Matrix queries can be used to assist in numerical count analysis, and to compare


87

multiple pairs of items restricted to a specific scope (Richards, 2006). The result of

the matrix coding query is ‗qualitative cross-tabulation‘ whereby new nodes,

resulting from the combination of pairs, are created for each cell (Bazeley, 2007;

Richards, 2006). These new nodes can be opened and explored to add to analysis.

Using this query allowed data to be displayed in a coherent manner. For example

Using a matrix query allowed to see all three dimensions of trust separately, and their

level of importance across the four respective organisations. Matrix queries were was

also used to uncover issues with LL repositories, the impact of different cultural

dimensions in I-PKS, across four cases, as well as to assist in conducting a SWOT

analysis on wikis.

The investigator also used text search queries to search for specific words within the

text. The search query assisted in the coding process. The Boolean search, a method

of searching using terms such as 'and', 'not' and 'or' was used to achieve better results

(Richards, 2006). For example, text search queries were used to identify a range of

trust indicators within the text.

The use of annotations and memos assisted the researcher during the coding process.

Annotations are used to add comments to data without interrupting it (Richards,

2006). Memos are used to write up ideas and casual relationships between nodes

(Miles & Huberman, 1994; Bazeley, 2007). Memos work in a similar way to

annotations, although they can store a ‗bigger‘ idea or interpretation whose content

can be coded like that of any other source (Richards, 2006). The use of annotations

and memos was helpful in the early stage of the analysis as they allowed the

researcher to capture premature ideas or casual relationships during coding.

4.7. RESEARCH QUALITY

The quality tests are perceived differently in qualitative than in the quantitative

research (Sutrisna, 2009; Yin, 2009). Some qualitative researchers argue that the

concepts used for the evaluation of quantitative research, including validity,

reliability, and generalisability, are not generally applicable for qualitative research

(Stenbacka, 2001). As a result, many researchers have developed their own concepts


88

to assess the quality of qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Whittemore,

Chase, & Mandle, 2001). For example Lincoln and Guba (1985) used truth value,

applicability, consistency, neutrality as validity criteria, whereas Yin (2009) refers

construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. Based on the

notion that this research has been grounded in the work of Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin

(2003, 2009), the quality measures used in this research look into validity,

consistency and trustworthiness, and analytical generalisability.

4.7.1. Validity

According to Sutrisna (2009) validity in qualitative research refers to whether the

findings actually produce the expected output, as well as the extent to which any

research findings can be generalised beyond the immediate research sample. Based

on that, a rage of actions were undertaken in this research to ensure its validity.

Firstly, this research used multiple sources of evidence in order achieve a better

perspective on what happens in reality and increase the validity of research (Yin,

2009). Triangulation is the rationale for using multiple sources of evidence (Yin,

2009, p. 116) . According to Tellis (1997) the need for triangulation arises from the

ethical need to confirm the validity of the processes. The use of triangulation ensures

greater rigour and integration of the study (Yin, 2003). This research applied two

forms of triangulation, data and methodological triangulation (Yin, 2003). Data

triangulation was achieved by collecting information from multiple sources, with the

aim to corroborate the same fact or phenomenon. Methodological triangulation was

achieved by applying a multi-method approach, including interviews, the

questionnaire and review of documents to examine I-PKS practices. For example the

use of interviews and the questionnaire in the cross examination of trust and OC

allowed the researcher to achieve a better perspective on what happens in reality,

improving the validity of the findings.

To reduce the likelihood of false reporting and increase validity, Yin (2009)

recommends to have the draft report reviewed not only by peers, but also by the case

study participants. Accordingly, report was sent to the case study participants to seek


89

their feedback on the findings. Consideration and reflection on their feedback

improved the quality of the findings.

Internal validity is a concern for the explanatory stage when the investigator is trying

to explain how and why event x led to event y (Yin, 2009, p. 42). Attention was paid

to validity of this stage through the careful use of analytical tactics including pattern

matching, explanation building and addressing rival explanations to explain how the

elements relate to each other.

Furthermore, in using replication logic for cross-case analysis, cases which confirm

emergent relationships enhance confidence in the validity of the relationships

(Eisenhardt, 1989). The use of replication logic, executed by replicating the findings

to a second, third, and forth case assisted in ensuring the validity of emerging

relationships between Framework elements.

4.7.2. Reliability versus Consistency and

Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, reliability refers to the consistency of results obtained in the

research (Sutrisna, 2009; Yin, 2009, p. 45) and demonstrates that the operations of a

study can be repeated with the same results if the same instruments, and data

collection procedures are used (Yin, 2009, p. 40). However, the use of reliability in

qualitative research seems problematic, and according to Stenbacka (2001) it is

misleading. She states that the basic distinction that makes reliability irrelevant is the

notion of measurement, which is not relevant in qualitative research (Stenbacka,

2001, p. 552). Sutrisna (2009) noted that in qualitative research, the reliability of the

findings is demonstrated through rigour and thoroughness of the research design and

method adopted to answer the research questions. Aware of this debate, this research

refers to Yin‘s (2009) and Eisenhardt‘s (1989) recommendations for improving the

consistency of the findings and ensuring rigour and thoroughness of the research

process and results.


90

According to Yin (2009) case study protocol enhances the reliability of the research.

In this study the development of a comprehensive case study protocol provided clear

guidance for the data collection process ensuring the consistency of the study. Other

effort undertaken to ensure greater rigour and thoroughness was to maintain a case

study database, recommended by Yin (2009, p. 120). In this study, the data was

organised and stored to allow for later retrieval. All transcriptions were kept in one

folder making it possible to inspect the raw data at any time. Several copies were

made for protection. Furthermore, each case had a separate folder to store hard copy

documents including organisational charts and copies of other supporting documents

used as evidence in this study.

Also, the use of existing questions, as advised by (Yin, 2003), ensured the

consistency of the findings. For example the trust indicators were adopted from

Mayer and Davis (1999) and also used in Becerra & Gupta (2003). OC was

examined by focusing on the behaviours of the company that drive effective KS,

proposed by Gamble and Blackwell (2001) and De Long and Fahey (2000). As

suggested by Eisenhardt (1989), to ensure greater consistency of the findings, this

research followed the purposeful choice of informants, including PMs, program

managers, project officers, and PMO personnel that had experience in managing

projects and were directly involved in KS activities. Furthermore, to ensure greater

reliability of this research, two rounds of analysis were conducted in a span of a few

months. No significant changes were found between the first and the second analysis.

This procedure of reanalysing interviews, suggested by Sackmann (1991) and

Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988), ensured the objectivity of the findings.

4.7.3. Analytical Generalisability

Generalisability refers to the applicability of the research findings in one

organisational setting to other settings (Cavana, et al., 2001). Quantitative research

relies on statistical generalisation, whereas qualitative case studies rely on analytical

generalisation. In analytical generalisation the investigator is striving to generalise a

set of results to a broader theory (Yin, 2009, p. 43). Stenbacka (2001) concludes that

analytical generalisation in qualitative research is obtained by the strategic choice of


91

informants. Furthermore, according to Cavana et al. (2001) most applied research is

conducted within a particular area in which the problem arises, and at best the results

are generalisable only to other identical situations and settings. Such limited

applicability does not decrease its scientific value.

Analytical generalisability was achieved through the careful comparison of the

emergent theory to existing literature. According to Eisenhardt (1989) tying the

emergent theory to existing literature enhances generalisability and theoretical level

of theory building. The comparison of findings with the literature discussing similar

findings ties together underlying similarities in phenomena, increasing the level of

generalisability. As recommended by Eisenhardt (1989), this research reviewed both

views, conflicting literature and literature that confirms research findings, by

following that approach it ensured analytical generalisability (Eisenhardt, 1989) and

increased external validity (Yin, 2009).

4.8. SUMMARY

The primary goal of this chapter was to outline the research approach and method

used. This chapter firstly introduced the research strategy and reasoning. Next, it

discussed the rationale of the choice of the inductive theory building approach as

well as common weaknesses of this approach. A detailed discussion on the case

study method, including the argument of the choice of case study for this research

and the strengths and limitations of this method were presented. Section 4.4

discussed the implementation of the case study method, addressing the purposeful

choice of cases, the protocol and providing a detailed description of the sources of

evidence used. After that, the analytical approach, including within- and cross-case

analysis was presented as well as the range of analytical techniques such as pattern-

matching logic, numerical counts analysis, explanation building, causal analysis and

the use of NVivo queries. This chapter concluded with the discussion on the research

quality and outlined steps that were undertaken to ensure greater validity,

consistency, trustworthiness and analytical generalisability of this research. The next

chapter (Chapter 5) presents the within-case analysis of the four participating

organisations.


92

Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis

93

5.

Within-case Analysis

5.1. INTRODUCTION

Two types of case study analyses were undertaken in this research, within- and cross-

case; this chapter reports on the findings from the within-case analysis. Accordingly,

the aim of this chapter is to analyse the data of the four cases and answer the related

research questions, previewed in Chapter 1 and posed in Chapter 4. In analysing the

data, the main interest is in the factors that influence inter-project knowledge sharing

(I-PKS) behaviours, illustrated in the I-PKS Framework. The I-PKS Framework

contains seven elements grouped into three main factors: organisational culture

(OC), trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM). The relationships between

these elements and I-PKS behaviours are the central focus of the within-case

analysis. Definitions of the Framework elements can be found on pages xiv–xv.

This chapter consists of four sections in the same format, each representing the

analysis of one case. Each section starts with a case description, followed by an

analysis of OC, trust and KSM. At the end of each section a summary is presented.

This within-case investigation aimed to look for associations, relationships and

logical reasoning processes between the elements of the study and I-PKS behaviours.

The relationship patterns occurring across all four cases are presented in the

subsequent Chapter 7 — Cross-Case Analysis.


94

5.2. WITHIN-CASE PROCEDURES

The within-case analysis procedures are presented in this section. Firstly, the

investigation began with the analysis of organisational culture. Data on OC was

obtained during interviews focusing on the companies‘ behaviours that drive

effective knowledge exchange, proposed by De Long and Fahey (2000) and Gamble

and Blackwell (2001), they include the volume of interaction, level of collaboration,

orientation to seek out knowledge, presence of silos, and willingness to share

knowledge. In addition to the interviews, the Competing Values Framework (CVF)

proposed by Cameron and Quinn (2005) was used in the questionnaire to assess each

company‘s dominant culture across six dimensions: Dominant Characteristics,

Organisational Leadership, Management of Employees, Organisational Glue,

Strategic Emphasis and Criteria of Success. Interview questions regarding OC can be

found in Appendix B — The Case Study Protocol. In two cases, Alpha and Delta,

PMs were both co-located and geographically dispersed. Therefore, the qualitative

investigation of cultural differences between dispersed PMs was also undertaken.

The qualitative analysis of the three forms of trust — ability, benevolence and

integrity — examined the importance of each form in cross-project KS. The

questionnaire investigated the presence of three forms of trust during I-PKS

endeavours. Respondents were asked to focus on the person from whom they sought

knowledge the most and indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with the

statements provided in relation to that person. The items measuring the three trust

dimensions were adopted from Mayer and Davis (1999) and were also used in

Becerra and Gupta (2003). The scale used ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated

strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement. The average scores for items measuring

each form of trust were calculated to examine the presence of ability, benevolence

and integrity during I-PKS.

The analysis of knowledge sharing mechanisms determined which mechanisms are

the most appropriate for I-PKS considering the geographical location of PMs. Figure

5.1 outlines the remainder of the I-PKS Framework, on which the data analysed in

this chapter was based.


95

Figure 5-1: I-PKS Framework (repeated from Chapter 3, Figure 3.1)

5.3. ALPHA

5.3.1. Alpha’s Profile

Alpha is a large, strong matrix-type company in the heavy engineering and building

industry. Alpha has signed a multi-billion dollar contract with the federal

government to deliver a number of projects. The company was established in 1985

and employs over 1,500 personnel, including over 300 engineering and technical

specialists. Its vision is focused on high quality performance. Alpha prioritises

safety, and other company values include performance through excellence,

commitment to customers‘ outcomes, and relentless improvement and learning. Two

of these values — performance through excellence and relentless improvement and

ABILITY TRUST

BEEVOLENCE TRUST

ITEGRITY TRUST

ABILITY TRUST

BENEVOLENCE TRUST

INTEGRITY TRUST


PROJECT MANAGEMENT

RELATED MECHANISMS

TECHNOLOGY

I-PKS

CLAN ADHOCRACY

HIERARCHY MARKET


96

learning — are strongly aligned with team collaboration and KS. The organisation

emphasises working with integrity and collaboration achieved through commitment

to improving processes, skills and knowledge: ‗we are never too old or too good to

learn and try new ideas‘. Alpha undertakes three types of projects: development,

maintenance and process improvement projects. Projects at Alpha are large, with

AUD$3–$15m budgets, up to 180 people working on a project, and durations from

approximately two months to three years.

This study investigated I-PKS practices of the Project Management Department

(PMD), whose personnel were located at two sites, South Australia (SA) and a

smaller team in Western Australia (WA). There were 34 personnel working in the

SA PMD and five working in the WA PMD.

The team from SA delivers two types of projects: development and maintenance.

PMs from development projects, referred to as SA Development Projects, were co-

located in an open plan office. Those from maintenance projects (SA Maintenance

Projects) were normally located on different construction sites and office buildings.

The team from the WA site, referred to as WA Maintenance Projects, was smaller

and delivered maintenance projects. Alpha employs seven schedulers who are now

centralised under the new project management office (PMO). All together there were

eight case study informants from company Alpha and their IDs are coded from A1–

A8 respectively. The demographics of Alpha and the case study informants are

shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.2 provides a snapshot of the company‘s profile.

Table 5-1: Demographics of Project Management Department in SA and WA site

Site SA Maintenance

Projects SA Development

Projects PMO

WA Maintenance

Projects Number of personnel

11 12 4 + 7

schedulers 5

Number of informants

Interviews – 8

Questionnaire – 7

A5 - Project Engineer

A3 - PMD manager

A8 - Project Manager

A2 - PMO Manager A4 - PMO

Officer



A7 - Senior Project Manager


97

Table 5-2: Summary of Alpha’s profile

ALPHA

INDUSTRY Heavy Engineering and Building

SECTOR Government Owned Corporation (GOC)

DESCRIPTION Contract with government to deliver heavy engineering projects

CASE Project Management Department

INVESTIGATED SITES SA Development Projects SA Maintenance Projects WA Maintenance Projects

PROJECT SIZE Budget: AUD$3–$15m No of people: up to 180 Duration: 2 months to 3 years

PROJECT MANAGERS’ GEOGRAPHICAL

LOCATION Co-located and Distributed

5.3.2. Organisational Culture

This section reports on findings on how OC contributes to I-PKS and discusses the

cultural differences between dispersed PMs. Firstly, this section discusses findings

from the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) proposed by

Cameron and Quinn (2005). Out of 39 personnel working in the PMD at Alpha,

seven participated in the questionnaire assessing the dominant culture type. Evidence

from the questionnaire revealed that two types of culture are dominant — Hierarchy

and Market — suggesting that the culture is focused on stability and control. Data

from the interviews provided support for these findings. Figure 5.2 illustrates the

PMD‘s profile at Alpha.

Data indicated that Hierarchy culture was prevalent in two categories: Dominant

Characteristic and Criteria of Success. These results, together with the interview

responses, indicate that respondents perceive the organisation as a very controlled

and structured environment in which formal procedures govern what people do, and

smooth scheduling is essential. There were also remarks suggesting that some PMs at

Alpha trust processes and follow them without questioning their relevance for

projects. A PMO officer commented, you hear lots of stories about that there are

some activities that people are doing, and you ask them why you doing that, and you

got respond – we have always done it [this way] (A4).


98

Figure 5-2: Culture profile of Alpha

It was reported that some personnel at Alpha are conservative and reluctant to

change. People follow old processes without questioning their relevance to projects,

and one project officer added, ―we suffer a lot from culture here because we‘ve got a

lot of people who have been here a long time and don‘t like change, don‘t like

improvement, they‘re comfortable [with] the way things are and they become

roadblocks‖ (A5). It was also reported that those staff who are motivated and try to

change the culture often experience resistance: ―all we find is we try, we try, we try

and all we get is can‘t do this for some stupid reason and that motivation goes and

people leave or they become like the rest of them‖ (A5).

Market culture dominated in three categories, Organisational Leadership,

Management of Employees, and Organisational Glue. Based on that, it would appear

that the leadership in Alpha is results-oriented and the management style exemplifies

competitiveness, high demands and achievement. In fact Alpha‘s values —

performance through excellence and commitment to customers‘ outcomes — suggest

a Market focus.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Adhocracy

Market

Hierarchy

Clan


99

Existence of silos and collaboration

Data from interviews revealed that status differences existed between employees,

signifying the dominance of a Hierarchy culture. During the interviews people often

used a term ‗us and them‘ referring to colleagues from other departments or

locations. One respondent stated: ―They think they‘re just better than us, and then we

think we‘re better than them‖. This statement seems to be repeated in this, or a

similar, way by a number of respondents. There was a clear distinction between

white collar and blue collar workers as well as between geographical locations. Some

respondents reported that there are also differences and conflicting views between

new employees and personnel who have been in the company for a long time.

According to one project officer, those who have been in the organisation for a long

time do not want changes or innovations. Newer employees do not have enough

power to break the silos.

Interview data provided evidence that top management did not discourage, but it also

did not actively support, collaboration and KS endeavours and analysis revealed that

there was less collaboration and KS between dispersed PMs. ―They [top

management] encourage it [knowledge sharing between projects] because they say

it‘s a good thing. There‘s no real initiative that‘s taking place that encourages

project managers to talk to each other‖ (A5). Nevertheless, it was reported that the

change of a leader who has recognised the need for collaboration and better KS

between projects, has helped shift the organisation‘s routines towards better KS

practices. Due to those recent changes in management, four respondents sensed that

the silo is starting to break down. One of them stated that before the leadership

change there was a ―very stove piped approach‖ for I-PKS. ―But with having [new

PMD manager] sitting at the top, he‘s actually drawn them all together and we‘re

actually getting some really good communication between all the departments so it‘s

broken down a lot of barriers‖ (A8). The recent initiatives to establish a PMO and

wiki, supported by the new leader, are aimed at improving KS between projects and

making projects more visible and processes more integrated. When asked if the

organisation encourages collaboration and communication across projects,

respondents answered, ―I would say four months ago no, now definitely, but now

we‘re actually getting some really good communication‖ (A8). Another stated:


100

―there‘s not too many examples where we have that close collaboration to achieve

project goals. It‘s something I don‘t think we do too well, I think we‘re getting better

but there‘s a long way to go‖ (A5).

Willingness to share knowledge

Analysis showed that at Alpha, some PMs are willing to share knowledge with their

colleagues, but some are very protective and believe that knowledge is power. They

are more reluctant to share and believe that keeping knowledge to themselves

sustains their position of importance. Some leaders are unwilling to share their

project‘s pitfalls because ―they like to be portrayed as [a] kind of perfect project

manager‖ (A7). Another respondent criticised that ―there‘s lots of issues with people

not wanting to share information because for them that‘s power or whatever and it‘s

those roles that make a difference to my job where I can‘t get the information or

they‘re trying to stop for whatever reason‖ (A5). It was reported that some people

view project shortcomings as signs of weakness or even failure; therefore, admitting

they did something wrong in their projects could potentially threaten their strong

position in the company.

Differences between co-located and dispersed PMs

The frequency of KS between co-located and dispersed PMs differed tremendously.

PMs commented that it is easier to communicate when people are co-located. Co-

located PMs from SA Development Projects reported that they exchange knowledge

often; similarly, the small co-located team of PMs from WA Maintenance Projects

worked closely together. Data provided evidence that PMs from these two locations

shared expertise frequently among their closely located colleagues, knew about their

projects‘ shortcomings and followed the same project processes. However, it was

reported that there is not much knowledge exchange between staff from SA

Maintenance Projects, where people‘s offices are spread across different buildings,

and PMs often work on a project site.

Data from interviews provided evidence that geographical dispersion affects

transparency in conducting projects, interaction frequency, as well as the strength of


101

relationships between PMs. Furthermore, data revealed that dispersed PMs followed

different project management processes, there is inconsistency in conducting

projects, and PMs from different locations manage projects in their own way.

According to a PMO manager (A2), project management in co-located SA

Development Projects is more mature than that of SA Maintenance Projects. Also,

the respondent from SA Maintenance Projects reported that PMs encounter the same

issues in their ongoing projects as in their past projects.

The volume of interaction

Data provided strong evidence that those PMs who were co-located maintained close

working relationships; however, the relationships between geographically dispersed

teams were rather distant. PMs from WA Maintenance projects (A6 and A7)

commented that interactions between the team from WA is very frequent, ―daily‖,

but not as frequent with the SA site; ―rarely, monthly, monthly maybe‖. One of them

further commented on the relationships between WA and SA, saying ―not a good

relationship. No that‘s the wrong choice of words. Not an established [relationship]‖

(A7). There was a clear distinction between ‗us and them‘ in relation to the WA and

SA sites. It was also reported that PMs from the WA site felt excluded from the

information flow, and as a smaller team they felt belittled. This appeared to be the

reason silos emerged. For example, PMs from the WA site were not aware that a

PMO had been established, even though it had already been in operation for four

months and was supposed to play an important role in improving KS and

collaboration between different sites.

The importance of KS between WA and SA

At least three (A1, A6, A7) PMs from both locations (SA and WA) acknowledged

that better communication and knowledge exchange between sites would surely help

them with conducting projects, and that this collaboration could be fruitful for both

sides. A PM (A6) and a senior PM from WA (A7) reported that the project

management approach should be common for both sites. The senior PM from WA

commented:


102

―We [WA and SA sites] essentially all work for the same process. There

are some individual characteristics of work in WA which means we do

have to work differently. But in the main, the project management

approach should be a common approach and one of the benefits of

having a common approach is that the other stakeholders, the other

functional groups that support you, you know there‘s no surprises‖ (A7).

Although the importance of sharing knowledge between WA and SA projects was

apparent, the lack of common approaches and practices, not well established

relationships, and status differences appeared to constrain the occurrence of KS.

5.3.3. Trust

Data from the questionnaire and interviews were used to analyse the influence of

trust during I-PKS endeavours. Seven respondents participated in the questionnaire

and provided answers relating to the presence of the three forms of trust during I-

PKS. The findings indicate that all three forms of trust were present, all showing

mean values above the midpoint (3.00). However, it was the ability and integrity

trusts that were related the most, reporting similar mean values (ability trust mean =

4.21, integrity trust = 4.25), and benevolence contributed the least. Table 5.3 reports

on mean and standard deviation values, measured in a scale from 1 to 5, where 1

indicated strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement, and 3 is a scale midpoint.

Table 5-3: The presence of three forms of trust during knowledge sharing endeavours

ALPHA N=7

Trust Dimensions Mean SD

ABILITY TRUST 4.21 0.59

BENEVOLENCE TRUST 3.57 0.71

INTEGRITY TRUST 4.25 0.61

As discussed in Chapter 4 — Methodology, small cases that resulted in a lower

sample size for the questionnaire were the reason why questionnaire results were


103

mainly descriptive. Nevertheless, the small standard deviations presented in Table

5.3 imply reasonable consensus.

In relation to the qualitative data from the interviews, the pattern-matching analysis

also confirmed that all three trust dimensions — ability, benevolence and integrity —

play an important role in KS activities for employees in Alpha. No respondent

reported that trust was needless. Qualitative evidence in relation to each of these is

reported below.

Ability trust

According to at least five Alpha respondents (A1, A3, A4, A5, A6), ability, which

refers to the trustor‘s perception of the trustee‘s competence, skills and experience

increases knowledge exchange. The majority of respondents hold the knowledge

source‘s ability in high regard. Most respondents agreed that trust in the knowledge

source‘s competence is a major factor in turning to that person for advice. One

respondent concluded, ―what I would look for you know, is that this person‘s done

this ten times before and they‘ve got so much experience‖ (A5). This idea was

reinforced by another respondent who stated:

―I hold competence in high regard and if I‘m going to ask for advice or

guidance from another project manager or indeed senior manager, I

would ensure at least in my own mind that it was within their field of

competence and they could give you that level of guidance you are

looking for‖ (A6).

No Alpha respondent reported ability trust unnecessary, signifying its

important value during KS endeavours.

Integrity trust

Five respondents (A1, A4, A5, A7, A8) reported that integrity is important when

they seek expertise from a person in another project. It was also reported by three

respondents (A2, A5, A8) that when ability exists it is the integrity that reinforces KS

behaviours, because the person‘s competence and skills are expected regardless of


104

the position he or she is holding, but it is the integrity that drives the KS. It was

reported that:

―[Competence and professionalism] are beneficial and it‘s nice to have

those things but I think it‘s more critical that when I‘m asking someone a

question or asking for some information that I know that they‘re telling

me the truth [are honest with me]. I would expect that if someone is

working in the organisation, they are competent, the company has

deemed them [to be]...they wouldn‘t have been in that position if they

were not competent in their job‖ (A8).

―if someone‘s not trustworthy then they‘re probably not being very

professional. So if you‘re trying to glean knowledge off them you‘d

probably question the reliability of that knowledge and whether it‘s any

good or not. You know I think it really does go hand in hand and

certainly people need to be trustworthy if you‘re going to value their

knowledge‖ (A2).

Similar to ability trust, no respondents reported on integrity trust as being trivial,

with the majority perceiving knowledge source honesty and credibility in high

regard. This would suggest that in this instance integrity trust was highly regarded by

participants as key to I-PKS outcomes.

Benevolence trust

Benevolence trust was also perceived to be valuable; at least four respondents (A1,

A2, A3, A4) stated its importance for I-PKS, and no one stated that benevolence is

unnecessary. One PM (A3) reported that it is important to approach the person who

will be helpful and willing to reveal their knowledge. Furthermore, at Alpha there is

an awareness that people need to be willing to share and be helpful, although it was

recognised that there are some people who have a wealth of experience but protect

their expertise as an asset of importance, and would not go out of their way to help

others or to share their experience.


105

The relationship between trust and OC

Analysis provided evidence of a relationship between culture and trusting

behaviours. Interviews revealed that all three trust dimensions were important for

respondents, as was the case with benevolence trust, there was an awareness that

people need to be helpful and willing to share. One respondent stated, ―there are

things that I would expect in our organisation, I would expect that if someone is

working in the organisation, they are competent‖ (A8). He added, ―and positive

intention again that probably links up with professionalism, it‘s just an expectation

that I would have, I would expect people to have those qualities. But I‘ve met people

with those qualities that aren‘t honest and from previous experience aren‘t

necessarily credible‖ (A8). This means that respondents from Alpha were aware that

some PMs are reluctant to share their knowledge. Therefore, they sought knowledge

only from those they trust, and it was reported, ―if I go to a project manager for

advice and that particular person tells me something I base how much I believe of

that based on past credibility, whether I trust that person and if they‘re competent in

their job‖ (A5). Earlier analysis revealed that the culture at Alpha is based on

stability and control and there are some individuals unwilling to share knowledge.

Data presented above suggests that PMs would seek knowledge mainly from those

whom they trust and know are willing to share knowledge.

5.3.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

There was a range of KSM available for Alpha employees including face-to-face

formal and informal interactions, wikis, lessons learned (LL) repositories, the newly

established PMO, and other tools (such as e-mails, intranet and shared-drive). Table

5.4 summarises findings on the use of KSM among Alpha employees. It indicates the

number of respondents stating which of the available means are important and/or

primarily used for inter-project knowledge exchange. Seven people reported that

face-to-face informal meetings are important and/or primarily used to transfer

knowledge between projects. One respondent commented: ―I think a lot of it

[knowledge sharing] happens, you know, just project manager to project manager,

informal communications and talking and sharing experiences. I don‘t think often


106

they will go back and look through the lessons learned or the document that was

written‖ (A3).

Table 5-4: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Alpha respondents

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ALPHA

(n=8)


Face-to-face Informal 7

Face-to-face Formal 5

Project Management Tools

and Processes

i.e. LL databases, post project reports

4

PMO 3

Technology Mechanisms

IntellectWeb Tools (i.e. wiki)

6

Enterprise Repositories (i.e. intranet, shared-drive)

5

Project Management Tools and Processes were less valued than other means.

However, there were multiple comments stating the importance of a newly

established wiki for KS. The company had recently introduced the wiki, and the

software is currently on a trial period. So far, the wiki serves multiple purposes

including a LL repository, space for storing static information such as contact

numbers, general information about the project, and the organisation of social events.

A person responsible for setting up the wiki reported, ―we do a monthly off site

lunch, so we‘ve actually been using the wiki to organise the lunch…. So it‘s a way of

getting people familiar with sort of the basics of it and so anyone who wants to go to

lunch has to get into the wiki and edit the page [choose the menu] and so forth‖

(A4).

Project management related tools and processes

In relation to project management related tools and processes, Alpha uses the

principles of PMBoK as a leading project management methodology. Recently,

efforts were put into implementing the CMMI (Capability and Maturity Model

Integration).


107

Lessons Learned

As a part of the project management methodology, Alpha employees are required to

capture and store project knowledge in the form of LL. Most of the respondents

recognised these lessons as an important source of useful information, and a way to

avoid repeating the same mistakes in their projects. However, respondents reported

that they were often reluctant to produce and review existing LL documents, mostly

due to their lack of consistency, visibility and uniformity guidelines. It was reported

that each project had a separate folder in which LL were filed, but no one would

search these folders. Analysis showed that PMs exchange their lessons mainly during

informal communication: they seldom search through LL documents because they

are not in a precise location, and it is hard to find relevant information on the intranet

or shared-drive. One respondent reported, ―I‘ve found some documentation that‘s

highlighted areas of concern, but it‘s not been very, it‘s not really been all of the

requirements pulled together in a concise location. So normally I‘ll refer to

discussions with the other PMs‖ (A1). The LL spreadsheet consisted of several

columns including the description of lessons, recommendations for improvement,

and action taken. A review of this spreadsheet clarified that only a few LL have been

actioned. This could indicate that LL are only stored because of the formal

requirement. However, they do not serve the purpose of benefitting present or future

projects, and recommendations for improvement are often ignored. This was further

confirmed by respondents who reported that, during the wash up meetings, many

good ideas were presented but nobody was responsible for documenting the LL,

analysing or developing them further to initiate the change. Respondents recognised

a range of problems related to LL, including:

a lack of consistency and clear uniform guidelines in the LL process

the LL spreadsheet is too long

most LL have not been actioned

LL are not in a precise location

LL are not captured throughout the project, as a result they are forgotten.

A manager of the two project management departments SA and WA (A3) identified

the wiki as a potential tool for capturing the LL earlier in the project and improving

their visibility. He stated that, before introducing the wiki, much valuable knowledge


108

was lost because experienced people had moved on and were unavailable or had

forgotten their learning. Before the wiki was introduced, each project had its own

folder and LL were captured and stored in the project files where no one would look:

―when knowledge landed in the document it was stuck in the document, or a lessons

learned register somewhere, it wasn‘t really communicated to everybody else...

[lessons learned] were all quite isolated so you wouldn‘t get a sharing‖ (A4). Now

each project type has its own space on the wiki for the storage of LL. Since the wiki

was introduced, there is more interactive collaboration and KS, ―everything is in a

shared location that everyone can edit‖, and LL are more transparent.

Project Management Office

At the time of data collection, Alpha was in the process of setting up a PMO, which

started in 2009. The PMO manager recognised that there was still a long way to go:

―we are looking at probably a year to get something set up and then probably two

years before it comes, we mature because we‘re probably going to need more

people, full time people‖ (A1). The main reason for establishing the PMO was to

improve efficiency and achieve better consistency in processes across projects. The

role of the newly established PMO within Alpha is to:

provide scheduling and value management support to the projects

standardise processes

become the repository for LL and KM

facilitate more informal social interaction between PMs

establish responsibility of the certification and training of PMs.

Respondents expected to gain much benefit from the PMO on their projects. One

respondent commented that she hopes that the PMO will ―dictate to us how we do

things … and guides project managers in how we report ... what numbers we use …

at the moment we can pick and choose what we want to report on and I don‘t think

that‘s right in terms of the company and for our customers it‘s not right.... if you

don‘t have that consistency in that process and that big brother watching you and

making sure you‘re abiding by those things you can do whatever you want‖ (A5).


109

Other PMs had similar expectations of the newly established PMO. Respondents

expected the PMO to be responsible for:

maintaining the repository for LL and KM

facilitating more informal social interaction between PMs

maintaining project standards and processes

certifying and training of PMs

establishing common processes and approaches across projects

providing project management tools and training

providing scheduling and value management support to the projects

ensuring consistency across project management departments.

Upper level management commented that the main problem in the company is the

inconsistency in conducting projects; each unit manages projects in their own way.

Introducing the PMO was supposed to assist in achieving better consistency between

projects in terms of reporting and managing project processes.

5.3.5. Summary of the Alpha Case

The above analysis has identified KS behaviours at Alpha taking into account OC,

trust and KSM. This section provides a summary of the I-PKS behaviours at Alpha

focusing on answering the research questions.

RQ1: How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge

sharing?

The examination of culture at Alpha revealed that it has strong dominance of

Hierarchy and Market type and emphasise on control, structure, achievement,

demanding leaders, unwillingness to change, and competition. These cultural values

appear to affect the willingness to share knowledge. Data provided evidence that

some PMs are willing to share knowledge with their colleagues; however, some are

very protective and believe that knowledge helps them to sustain a position of

expertise. Others believe that revealing project pitfalls is a sign of failure and puts

their position of a perfect PM at risk. Fong and Wong (2009) found that those who

perceive knowledge gained as a personal asset, which can enhance their


110

employability in the job market or help them attain promotion within their companies

are not willing to share knowledge. De Long & Fahey (2000) argue that cultures

emphasising individual power and competition among firm members will lead to

knowledge hoarding behaviours. This can suggest that at Alpha the presence of

values characteristic to the Market type culture may lead to knowledge hording.

Furthermore, interviews at Alpha demonstrated that cultural differences exist

between dispersed PMs, these cultural differences appear to affect KS behaviours.

Newell, David, and Chand (2007) found that an ‗us versus them‘ attitude prevails

among distributed sites, impeding effective KS. Data from Alpha provided evidence

that co-located PMs from the SA Development Projects and the WA Maintenance

Projects share knowledge more frequently among their colleagues than do those who

are not collocated. This was despite the fact that the latter recognised that KS

between dispersed projects could be fruitful. For example, data provided evidence

that there is less KS between PMs from SA Maintenance Projects where project

members and managers are physically isolated working on project sites, and minimal

KS between sites in WA and SA. Co-located PMs interact with each other

frequently, they know about their projects shortcomings and follow the same project

processes. On the other hand, dispersed PMs follow different project management

processes, managing projects in their own way. The evidence suggests that cultural

differences and silos exist between dispersed PMs. Consequently, there is little

collaboration between geographically dispersed PMs and the relationships between

the two sites are not well established, causing barriers for open KS.

RQ2: How does the existence of three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)


Case data suggest that at Alpha all three forms of trust were perceived to contribute

positively to I-PKS within the organisation. Nevertheless, the data also indicated that

the influence of ability and integrity trusts appeared to be more substantial than the

influence of benevolence trust.

In a study related to the effect of trust on working relationships, Pinto (2009) found

that integrity trust has stronger potential than the competence trust (referred in this


111

research to ability trust), to affect satisfaction of working relationships. The

interview data from Alpha suggested that PMs will seek knowledge from a person

whose ability they value, but KS would only occur if integrity trust between the two

parties was also present. Based on that, it would appear that even if a person has a

wealth of expertise, others would be reluctant to seek knowledge from him/her if

they do not believe in this person‘s credibility and honesty. This finding implies a

tremendous value of integrity trust in KS behaviours.

RQ3: How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project



From the overall analysis it is observed that at Alpha much I-PKS occurs during

informal face-to-face interaction and it is triggered by employees‘ own initiative.

Although there is a requirement to produce LL from past projects, and respondents

reflected to understand the need for storing project expertise, most do not utilise

these project management related mechanisms. Alpha‘s respondents reported several

problems associated with the poor capture and use of LL, including a lack of

consistency and clear uniform guidelines on how lessons should be produced. It was

also reported that LL are not stored in a precise location and the LL spreadsheet is

too long, making it hard to find relevant information. These findings suggest that this

poor quality and lack of consistency in the capturing and storing of LL documents

means that PMs exchange their LL mainly during informal communication, one

result being those who left the company took valuable knowledge with them and

others needed to re-learn the lessons. In the past, before introducing the wiki, each

project had its own folder and LL were stored in that folder. Normally, no one would

go looking for the information because it was isolated and hard to find in the piles of

project documentation. Since the wiki was established, all recent LL have been

stored on the wiki site. The newly established PMO is expected to improve

efficiency and achieve better consistency and transparency in processes across

projects. Nevertheless, despite establishing a PMO and introducing more interactive

way of sharing LL through a wiki, problems with visibility appear to exist at Alpha.

Many respondents are still unaware of LL being stored on the wiki and the WA site

was not aware of a PMO being established.


112

RQ4: How do the relationships between these three factors of OC, trust and

KSM improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?

Analysis provided evidence that at Alpha, culture influences trusting behaviours.

Data suggested that PMs perceive trust as an important antecedent to KS and expect

their colleagues to be competent and benevolent; however they also knew that some

are protective and not willing to share knowledge. In effect they search for

knowledge only from those whom they trust.

Data provided evidence that PMs share project knowledge with each other on their

own initiative. It also showed that only recently a new leader has endorsed the

initiatives to establish a PMO and wiki aimed at improving KS between projects, and

making projects more visible and processes more integrated. Respondents

commented that since that change occurred, the collaboration between dispersed

PMs has improved. Furthermore, they were enthusiastic about the perceived potential

of the newly established wiki. This provides some evidence suggesting that

leadership‘s active engagement influences the use of KSM within Alpha.

Accordingly, the lack of active leadership engagement in facilitating the use of these

collaborative mechanisms could potentially explain why KS endeavours between

geographical locations were minimal.

5.4. BETA

5.4.1. Beta’s Profile

Beta specialises in a broad range of communication services to businesses delivering

small, medium and large projects with the budget range of AUD$20,000–$1m and

more. The company has sites in major Australian cities including Brisbane, Sydney

and Melbourne and most projects are distributed, located on customer sites. Table

5.5 provides a snapshot of the company‘s profile.


113

Table 5-5: Summary of Beta’s profile

BETA

INDUSTRY Telecommunication

SECTOR Private

DESCRIPTION Provide telecommunication services to businesses

CASE Project Departments

INVESTIGATED

DEPARTMENTS BIP TCP

NR OF INFORMANTS Interviews: 6 Questionnaire: 7

PROJECT SIZE Budget: AUD$20k–$1mil No of people: up to 5-200 Duration: few months to 1 year


LOCATION Co-located

This study conducted interviews in a major capital city site where PMs were co-

located in one open plan office area. Six respondents from two Project Departments,

Business Improvement Projects (BIP) and Transition and Customer Projects (TCP),

participated in the interviews (two from BIP and four from TCP), and their IDs are

coded from B1–B6.


This section reports on findings of how OC influenced I-PKS at Beta. Seven

respondents participated in the questionnaire assessing the culture type. Evidence

from the questionnaire revealed that Market type is the dominant culture in Beta,

suggesting that culture is result-oriented, focused on achievement and transactions

with external customers. Figure 5.3 demonstrates the profile of Beta.


114

Figure 5-3: Culture profile of Beta

Data acquired during interviews supported findings from the questionnaire,

indicating that Beta is typically viewed as a controlled and structured place, where

the main concern is getting the job done. It is characterised by a competitive and

achievement-oriented environment, where formal procedures govern what people do.

Interviews found that at Beta, employees follow formal rules and policies, and the

company‘s focus is on providing good customer service. One project leader stated,

―because the market has changed measurably, we cannot be complacent about how

we treat the customer. We have to differentiate ourselves in the market by customer

service‖ (B4). Furthermore, findings from the questionnaire showed that Hierarchy

and Market types had the same high scores in Dominant Characteristics and

Organisational Glue categories, suggesting that formal rules and policies, as well as

the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment are those dominant within

Beta. This was also supported by the interviews, which revealed that Beta is driven

by well defined processes, labour efficiencies, rigour and discipline and the

company‘s values are focused on measurement, error detection, process control and

the use of quality tools. It was reported, ―when it cannot be measured it is not worth

doing it‖ (B1). People are happy to talk, but information is really valuable when hard

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Adhocracy

Market

Hierarchy

Clan


115

coded and documented. ―When we later discuss things with [the] director, there is a

need for data, for supporting evidence.‖

Collaboration and willingness to share knowledge

Data showed that Beta‘s upper level management encourages, but does not actively

contribute to facilitating I-PKS. Although open plan office architecture was found to

enable frequent communication and KS, there was some evidence that PMs are

unwilling to reveal their projects‘ pitfalls. At least two respondents (B2, B3) reported

that there are PMs reluctant to share, they are focused on their career and perceive

knowledge as a power and a way to promotion, and one PM commented, ―we have

some people that have been in the organisation for ten years and believe that they

should be a general manager, so I think there‘s a little bit of well if I share too much

with you you‘ll get the heads up on me‖ (B3). It was also reported that people have a

tendency to be defensive and not necessarily want to provide the information about

their project pitfalls, instead sometimes they try to blame others for project failures.

They believe that admitting the failure puts at risk their position in the organisation.

The volume of interaction

In Beta, open plan office architecture encourages frequent KS, ―I think that open

plan really facilitates a lot more communication and transfer of knowledge I guess in

informal ways‖ (B3). There are also specially designed ‗cages‘, which allow for

business related informal chats. Data provided support that interaction between PMs

is frequent and well established. It was also reported that Beta implemented some

tools that help build rapport. There was some evidence from Beta respondents (B3,

B5) that they have close working relationships with their peers, ―we have a great

team and I think that helps when it comes to knowledge sharing, having a good team

spirit, and good relationship with staff‖ (B5). However, it has been noted that KS

between different geographical locations is minimal. For example, at least two PMs

(B3, B6) explained that it‘s very difficult to do a KS between Sydney and Brisbane.


116

5.4.3. Trust

Seven respondents participated in the questionnaire and provided answers related to

the presence of three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. The findings indicate

that the knowledge source possessed a high level of the three forms of trust —

ability, integrity and benevolence — reporting mean values above the midpoint.

Nevertheless, ability and integrity trusts show similar mean values, higher than

benevolence trust (mean = 4.04). Table 5.6 reports on mean and standard deviation

values.

Table 5-6: The presence of three forms of trust during knowledge sharing endeavours (mean and standard deviation values)

BETA n=7





Nevertheless, during the interviews there were limited comments on the importance

of trust from Beta respondents and where it was mentioned only ability trust was

regarded as important. Qualitative evidence in relation to each of these is reported in

the next paragraphs.

Ability trust

At least three Beta respondents (B2, B4, B6) provided evidence that ability trust is

important for I-PKS, and one (B3) stated it is moderate. A project officer

commented,

―you always turn to them when the person has certain IP [intellectual

property]. Someone can be your colleague and you know him well, but he

will not provide you with the info you need. You don‘t want to approach

person who spends half an hour explaining something that can take two


117

sec. you got to be careful there. If you are busy and you know that other

person can provide you the same but quick answer then you turn to this

person for knowledge‖ (B2).

Another PM confirmed this, ―I would tend to be asking people questions that, where

I need their experience. Other things I can manage myself‖ (B4). Data provided

strong support suggesting that ability trust is perceived to be important among Beta

personnel.

Benevolence and integrity trust

Beta respondents did not reflect on benevolence or integrity as a having significant

impact on KS at all, and one project leader commented, ―nobody within our team

would be dishonest in the information sharing because it‘s black and white, the type

of information [we share]. So the environment I work in defines that is a low

priority‖ (B4). At least two commented (B2 and B4) that there‘s no personal gain in

being dishonest with the information their share. Data from interviews suggested that

personnel at Beta do not see much value in the presence of integrity and benevolence

during KS endeavours.

Overall, data from questionnaire show that the three forms of trust were present

during knowledge sharing behaviours. However, feedback from the interviews

suggests that PMs at Beta value primarily ability trust, and do not perceive

benevolence and integrity as important drivers for I-PKS.


Beta employees used two types of relational mechanisms to share knowledge

between projects, informal and formal. Informal mechanisms included lunch breaks,

coffee breaks, specially designed places for informal interaction — ‗cages‘, ‗around

the water cooler‘ breaks and informal communication in the office. Formal relational

mechanisms during which I-PKS occurred included weekly meetings and LL forums.

A range of technological tools were available for Beta employees, including e-mail,

LL database, blogs, shared drive, tele- or video-conferencing, and a wiki. Table 5.7


118

summarises findings on the use of KSM among Beta employees. From the Table, it

is apparent that PMs at Beta primarily rely on non-organic mechanisms including

formal meetings, hard coded knowledge, and static information acquired from

enterprise repositories.

At Beta, the use of relational approaches to share knowledge varied in degrees of

success and frequency. At least three participants indicated that the main advantage

of face-to-face interactions was that it allowed the transfer of rich content, and tacit

(embodied) knowledge. One team leader stated ―from my personal experience you

cannot beat face-to-face communication, because if you send an e-mail it can be

misconstrued, you cannot have a tone in an e-mail, you don‘t get facial expressions‖

(B6).

Table 5-7: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Beta respondents

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms BETA

(n=6)





and Processes


0

PMO 2



1


3

To achieve more collaborative KS Beta implemented wikis several years ago.

However, according to the majority of respondents, wikis are too formalised and

controlled. For most people in Beta a wiki is used as a database to capture static info,

not as an interactive tool to exchange knowledge. They do not fully utilise the wiki‘s

capability and only rarely use its space for collaboration and tacit knowledge

exchange. Respondents also commented on the poor quality of wiki entries, ―there is

also another aspect of the quality of info that is put on, you don‘t want to search

through thousands of information just to find info you look for‖.


119


In relation to project management related tools and processes, two respondents

highlighted the LL forum as the best practice for I-PKS. The main advantage of the

forum, indicated by the interview data is that it allows discussion about project issues

across the organisation. Furthermore, a review of project closure documents and

discussions about problems that occurred during other projects were perceived to be

a valuable knowledge source. One interviewee said, ―when there are problems and

difficulties with a specific project, a manager will come over and give a brief

presentation and we will store that information on the server and anyone can refer to

it when they have a similar project coming‖ (B5).

Beta employees are required to capture project knowledge in the form of LL.

However, the data indicated that only a few PMs searched through these past

documents. The interviews revealed some weaknesses associated with the sharing of

LL. There were remarks stating that LL are not done effectively, ―the lessons learned

are usually done at such a high level that they don‘t filter down. They don‘t

necessarily come across all divisions‖ (B6). A PM commented, ―you can put all the

stuff [lessons learned] in document, file your document in the folder and file away, so

you can ticked [sic] that you have done your lessons learned, but you never see it

again‖ (B2). Respondents revealed that LL are not stored in a concise location, some

can be found on a shared drive, some on wikis. In addition, LL are captured in a

word document and transferred to the server. This, according to respondents, is not

conducive to sharing and makes it hard to find relevant information. It was reported

that the reason for poor producing and sharing of LL is a lack of time:

―… is that everyone‘s too busy, they‘ve moved onto the next one, there‘s

another customer waiting and we‘re already late so we‘re constantly

moving on, moving on, moving on and nobody actually stops and looks

back, [it was noted] and it‘s not that we haven‘t got the tools to do it

because we do, we just don‘t have the people and the time‖ (B6).

Respondents recognised a range of issues related to LL, including:


120

LL are stored in a different locations (blogs, wikis)

only some PMs search through LL documents

LL are captured and stored in way that is not conducive to sharing — it is

hard to find relevant information

Lack of LL ownership — there is no one person or group responsible for

implementing changes and following up

lack of formal processes to review and share LL.

Project Management Office

Beta‘s PMO has recently gone through the transition to a Project Portfolio Office

(PPO). The reason for this change was the double-up in roles in the company. Beta

aims to make the organisation more horizontal to improve its efficiency, and

establishing a PPO is supposed to help in achieving this goal. The former PMO was

mostly administrative, while the new PPO has more control over the projects,

monitors project budgets and is populated by senior people who have experience in

running projects. The functions of the newly established PPO will include:

managing LL

identifying, registering and prioritising projects

ensuring projects have proper allocation and resources provided

providing mentoring and training

organising, measuring and implementing project processes.

PMs expect the new PPO to be the avenue for LL; they expect the PPO to actively

manage the knowledge of other projects‘ LL.

5.4.5. Summary of the Beta Case

Section 5.4 explored how OC, trust and KSM influence I-PKS at Beta. A summary

of this investigation follows.


sharing?


121

Beta‘s dominant culture is Market. Beta‘s emphasis is on achievement and goal

accomplishment, formal rules, policies and use of quality tools. People are happy to

talk, but information is really considered valuable when hard coded and documented.

Furthermore, analysis indicated that at Beta some PMs are open and willing to share

knowledge; however, some are reluctant. Data provided evidence that those

unwilling to share are focussed on progressing their career, or do not want to reveal

their project pitfalls and lose a position of importance in the company. This suggests

that Market type culture at Beta means that some PMs are reluctant to share

knowledge, hence lead to limited I-PKS behaviours.



The questionnaire revealed that the three forms of trust were identified by

participants during KS behaviours. However, evidence from interviews showed that

only ability trust was referred to as important, and respondents did not reflect on

benevolence and integrity as having any significant value for I-PKS. This suggests

that although the tree forms of trust are present during KS endeavours, PMs at Beta

explicitly value only ability trust as important driver of I-PKS.




Although personnel at Beta use a range of relational and technology mechanisms to

share knowledge, PMs primarily value hard coded knowledge, formal meetings and

static information. Also, data indicated that LL forums are one of the most effective

ways for I-PKS. The main advantage of the LL forum is that it allows discussion

about project issues across the organisation. However, the interviews brought to light

that there were weaknesses associated with capturing, storing and sharing LL

documents. Respondents recognised that there is a lack of consistency in the way LL

are produced and stored, which hamper I-PKS. At Beta, the newly established PPO is

expected to manage project knowledge in a way that it is more transparent across the

organisation. Some of the PPO functions, including implementing uniform project


122

processes, management of LL and mentoring and training of PMs, could potentially

lead to the improvement of I-PKS. Beta expects the PPO to have a level of control

over projects; have the authority to identify, register and prioritise projects; and

ensure projects have proper allocation and resources provided. The implementation

of a new knowledge-based PPO is supposed to improve the integration and visibility

of projects by providing access to the project status from all over the country, ―we

will know better what is nationally going on‖ (B5).


knowledge sharing mechanisms improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?

Based on the data it would appear that Beta‘s culture influences trusting behaviours.

Analysis revealed that Beta‘s culture is evidence-based, characterised by

measurement, process control and the use of quality tools. Knowledge is mainly

acquired from databases where everything is ‗black and white‘. Formal meetings are

valued more than informal interaction and people are happy to talk, but knowledge is

really valued when is hard coded and documented, and when discussing issues with

colleagues there is a need for supporting evidence. In relation to trust, no one

commented that benevolence or integrity are important, only ability trust was

regarded highly. Trust essentially involves the assumption of risk (a probability of

loss). In Beta, there is not much perceived risk involved in KS because people do not

rely on each other while searching for knowledge; instead they codify data into

databases in which input is reviewed and controlled. In this situation knowledge

seekers are confident that the information they acquire comes from reliable sources.

Trust is a willingness to take risk and it is critical in uncertain and risky situations.

Therefore, this environment, where knowledge is reviewed and controlled, does not

create risky conditions and trust is not perceived as important, which is why

benevolence and integrity are low priorities.

The control-focus culture appears to also affect the use of KSM. The need for

evidence means that Beta stores information in documents, but these appear not to be

utilised; PMs are not searching though these documents because it is time

consuming. Even the wiki which is collaborative in nature is not exploited to its

fullest extent and used only to store mostly static knowledge. As a result, Beta relies


123

heavily on explicit rather than tacit knowledge, which is highly personal and difficult

to formalise, but has great value for the organisation and constitutes a critical

component for successful project management efforts (Johannessen, et al., 2001;

Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Gray and Densten (2005) suggest that Market type culture recognises the importance

of disseminating knowledge through the conversion of explicit to explicit

knowledge. This process is reaffered to combination and involves creation of new

explicit knowledge by emerging, categorising, reclassifying, and synthesising

existing explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Jasimuddin (2008) stated

that document exchange is a highly effective and efficient mechanism for sharing

explicit knowledge. This can explanin why Beta rely primarily on explicit

knowledge, and valued non-organic mechanisms, such as hard coded knowledge,

formal meetings and static information, to share that knowledge.

5.5. GAMMA

5.5.1. Gamma’s Profile

Gamma was established in 1999 and is a large, government owned organisation

based in Brisbane. Gamma is a leader in providing communication services to

government agencies by setting up phone numbers, websites or integrated service

counters for an ongoing or time-specific period. The organisation delivers small to

medium, service-type projects to government agencies, its objective is to deliver

value for money and its strategic agenda focuses on:

maximising efficiency and service delivery outcomes

improving strong economic performance

improving and consolidating ICT platforms and systems, and introducing

new channels and technologies

establishing new and strengthened existing relationships with agencies,

service clusters, benchmarking partners and other third party service

providers.


124

Gamma is a strong matrix type organisation where full time PMs recruit people from

other units to participate in projects. The study participants were personnel of the

Project Management Branch (Branch). In the Branch there are five program

managers, 22 PMs and PMO personnel. The PMO has recently gone through a

transition to PPO; at the time of the study PPO personnel included a manager and

three project officers, and there were two additional vacant positions. Overall, 16

respondents participated in the study, coded G1–G16. Table 5.8 provides an

overview of the informants and Table 5.9 outlines a snapshot of the company‘s

profile.

Table 5-8: Overview of Gamma informants

GAMMA INFORMANTS

Interviews: 16 - 9 project managers (G2, G3, G6, G7, G8, G10, G13, G14,

G15) - 3 program managers (G4, G5, G12) - 2 PPO officers (G1, G11) - 1 team member from the IT department (G9) - 1 managing director of the branch (G10)

Questionnaire: 16

Table 5-9: Summary of Gamma’s profile

GAMMA

INDUSTRY Communication Services

SECTOR Government Owned Corporation

DESCRIPTION Provide communication services to government agencies

CASE Project Management Branch

INVESTIGATED SITES Project Management Branch

NR OF INFORMANTS Interviews: 16 Questionnaire: 16

PROJECT SIZE Budget: Few thousand–$1.5mil No of people: up to 4–10 Duration: few hours to 2 years


LOCATION Co-located

PMs at Gamma at follow the PRINCE2 project management methodology. The

Branch is structured around four types of projects: (1) internet, (2) phone, (3)

counters, and (4) disaster services and campaign projects. Gamma also delivers

internal process improvement projects. Tasks within the projects are highly


125

repeatable and all projects follow similar processes. Project budgets range from a

few thousand dollars to 1.5 million dollars. Projects last from a few hours to two

years. During the data collection process all PMs were co-located in one open plan

office. Other departments, including Finance, Marketing and IT were located in the

same or adjacent building.


This section reports on findings on how OC influences I-PKS at Gamma. Out of 39

personnel working in the Branch at Gamma, 16 participated in the questionnaire

assessing cultural dominant type. Evidence from the questionnaire, presented in

Figure 5.4, revealed that the culture profile at Gamma was balanced, with a slight

shift towards the Hierarchy type. However, the findings from interviews suggested

that Gamma‘s culture comprises principles of a Clan type, and are detailed below.

Figure 5-4: Culture profile of Gamma

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Adhocracy

Market

Hierarchy

Clan


126

Data from the interviews at Gamma strongly suggest that culture is focused on

teamwork, employee involvement and employee recognition. The organisation

provides mentoring sessions and job rotation is frequently practiced. Respondents

constantly reported that employees at Gamma work together, they are honest and

willing to help their colleagues, and Gamma‘s culture was described ―as a

supportive environment [where people] want to grow and get better in the project

management [field]‖ (G13). Two follow-up interviews conducted with a PM and a

PMO representative helped to identify the reasons why results from OCAI indicated

the Hierarchy type as being prevalent and not, as interviews suggested, the Clan type.

These interviews brought to light that the change of director, which happened around

the time the initial interviews were conducted, was the reason for the culture shift

from Clan to Hierarchy. Data from follow-up interviews indicated that the previous

director was more in the Clan quadrant. ―She was like, oh let‘s have some fun, you

are all my friends, we all go out socialising together‖ (G11). The culture shifted

more towards Hierarchy when the new director came, whose prime focus was more

around the processes and making sure PMs follow the correct procedures. ―[Previous

director] wasn‘t like that at all. If you skipped all of this processes, and unless you

have reached the outcome that was fine‖ (G11). When the new director came, the

organisation‘s focus shifted towards structure and control. PMs were not able to

make decisions and everything had to go through the director who wanted to ensure

that work was being done correctly. Another interviewee confirmed, ―now everything

is control by the top manager, procedures, formal rules, structure‖ (G15).

Nevertheless, both interviewees agreed that on the lower level, between PMs, there is

still a lot of informality and an open, Clan-like culture. The following section reports

on findings from the interviews, which took place before the leadership change.


Analysis provided a strong indication that PMs are open and willing to share

knowledge. The culture in the organisation is not to create blame, but rather to

encourage learning from mistakes and recognise opportunities for improvement.

Many respondents commented that shortcomings in projects ―are not failures,

they‘re just opportunities to improve things‖. The attitude of sharing was endorsed

by the branch manager who declared, ―we certainly don‘t capture it [lessons learned]


127

in language like failure, so we always capture it in language of learnt and how could

we improve‖ (G10). PMs agreed, and one stated, ―people are pretty vocal and most

people you know, like to share their pain as much as their pleasures‖ (G3). Another

added, ―I‘m quite happy to identify my shortcomings because [if not] you‘re not

going to make it better next time‖ (G6). Analysis revealed that this culture of not

blaming and rewarding for sharing encouraged people to freely exchange their

knowledge, even if it was related to their project pitfalls.

Interaction and knowledge sharing between PMs

At Gamma all PMs and PPO staff were co-located in an open plan office. According

to the majority of respondents, the open plan enables frequent communication and

knowledge exchange between co-workers, as well as helps to establish trusting

relationships. Most respondents indicated that this open environment encourages

people to ―bounce ideas off each other‖. No one stated KS is rare. The advantages of

the open plan arrangement are reflected in the comments provided by PMs:

―we just walk up to the other program manager and have a bit of a chat

or see when they‘re free or you know, it‘s all very informal with our

managers, and we‘re all on the same level, on the same floor of the

building so it‘s easy‖ (G5).

Not only PMs but also PPO personnel commented on the benefits of a shared

location. The PPO officer reported:

―Some project teams aren‘t located on level three and you do forget

about them as well and I think they‘re probably missing out on that

interaction. So I think keeping the team all together is a good idea.

Because even just simple things like morning teas and things like that‖

(G1).

This idea was expanded by the PPO manager who added:

―Many conversations [sic] I can be drawn into is because I was walking

close [to] one of the pods and project manager[s] would be discussing


128

something and I might hear it or they will ask me to join the

conversation. And they talk about how each handled the similar problem

so… Our project managers are very good in bouncing ides off each

other‖ (G11).

Furthermore, there is a strong indication that this close proximity facilitates the

establishment of close relationships. At least five respondents (G1, G3, G5, G9, G10)

commented that they are very close to their colleagues and most agreed they

frequently interact with their peers. The following remarks provide evidence

supporting this:

―I am working in the channel with [xxx, xxx, xxx] we all sit in the pod

together so you know you‘ve also got that ability to just chat, work

something out, have a de-stress or something‖ (G3).

―With [xxx] I just stick my head up over the barrier and have a bit of a

chat or if she‘s looking a bit glum I‘ll say oh what‘s going on and that

sort of thing‖ (G5)

5.5.3. Trust

At Gamma, there were 14 valid questionnaire responses that provided answers

relating to the presence of the three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. Findings

indicate that the presence of ability trust contributed the most to KS, showing a high

mean value of 4.55. Least contributing was benevolence trust (mean = 3.81).

However, all three forms showed as having a positive effect on KS, reporting mean

values above 3.00. Table 5.10 outlines the presence of the three forms of trust during

KS endeavours and reports on mean and standard deviation values.

Interview data revealed that at Gamma, two trust dimensions, ability and integrity,

were perceived as necessary in KS. However, benevolence trust did not have strong

support.


129


GAMMA n=14





Ability trust

Overall, ability trust was perceived to be important in KS by at least 10 respondents.

Most of all, the competence was reported as critical. Respondents commented that if

a person is competent they trust that the information he/she provides is accurate and

they can act upon it and do the correct job. Competent people make the right

decisions and know how to use and work with the tools they have. While

competence has been perceived as critical by the majority of respondents, many

commented that experience plays a moderate role in I-PKS. It was reported,

―sometimes people who haven‘t got experience can see the wood, you know can see

the wood for the trees and can come up with some great ideas and suggestions

because they‘re not clouded by projects and have never seen it before and come up

with some good ideas‖ (G8). The PPO officer explained that ―experience is

beneficial, but you can get away without a lot of experience because sometimes it‘s

those fresh eyes that actually see things‖ (G11). Professionalism was perceived not

to be important. Four people commented that professionalism does not play any role

in effective KS and summarised that, just because someone is not professional, does

not mean that they do not have valuable points to make:

―If they have told me say, about the way something was done and was

achieved and it was an unprofessional way of doing it, I might think oh

okay so they did it that way. It wasn‘t the most professional way of doing

it but it was successful, then I might take some things from that and then

convert that into a more professional way of doing it but still achieve the

same outcome through a similar approach‖ (G5).


130

Overall, data suggested that although some perceived professionalism as needless,

the majority of Gamma personnel held other peoples‘ competence and skills in high

regard providing evidence to state that ability does matter for I-PKS.

Benevolence trust

Benevolence trust did not have many advocates and four respondents perceived

benevolence as unimportant in KS. One of them declared, ―I don‘t want someone

who‘s got good intentions but is going to give me the wrong information‖ (G10)

Another added, ―sometimes people get so passionate and want to do things and

basically they become more emotional than logical and I think that is risky‖ (G9).

During the interviews only one PM perceived benevolence trust as being important

in I-PKS, he commented, ―I have issues when people say I don‘t want to do that, it‘s

not my job or something like that because I know I spend a lot of time doing things

that technically maybe aren‘t my job... Because sometimes I go out of my way to do

something for another team so hopefully they can do something like that in return‖

(G14). Overall, at Gamma, data provided evidence suggesting that respondents did

not perceive the value of benevolence as contributing to KS.

Integrity trust

Evidence supports that integrity was highly regarded at Gamma‘s PM Branch and 10

respondents perceived integrity as important. At Gamma, one PM reported that even

if a PM has not been working on a particular project it does not mean that they do not

have a valid point to make or a credible opinion on it, he commented, ―if they have

credibility [it] would make me more comfortable in taking their advice or

knowledge‖ (G3). Another respondent admitted:

―I think sometimes you‘re looking for that frank and honest advice.

That‘s what I value from someone, being honest and frank with me. If I‘m

going down the wrong track I‘d rather that, than being nice and not

wanting to offend me and giving me wrong information‖ (G8).


131

The evidence suggests that employees in the Branch at Gamma are generally honest

with each other. It was reported that honesty and credibility ―is something I guess we

assume at our company‖ (G14).

Furthermore, four respondents (G1, G3, G5, G6) provided evidence that there is a

relationship between ability and integrity trust, stating that even though ability trust

exists, it is the integrity that reinforces KS behaviours. This can be seen in these two

remarks:

―Somebody would have to be competent for me to go and seek them out

to get information from them...and I would want to ensure that if they are

competent well they‘d need to be competent, that they‘d need to be

honest [and don‘t have] any hidden agendas or anything like that‖ (G2).

At Gamma the value of integrity trust in KS was apparent. No respondent

reported integrity trust to be needless, and the majority held knowledge source

credibility and honesty in high regard.

OC and trust

At Gamma it appears that there is a relationship between OC and trusting behaviours.

The majority of respondents reported that people are encouraged to talk amongst

themselves and that new ideas are welcomed. The organisation builds a culture that

supports newcomers and rewards those who have gone the extra mile to help another

team member. Moreover, employees of Gamma are supportive, and willing to help

each other. This type of environment appears to create trusting relationships,

suggesting that both benevolence and integrity are already expected in the

organisation, ―I guess maybe we take those things [honesty and credibility] for

granted if we have a good organisational culture...We assume that because someone

works here, generally get very reliable and very honest and it‘s more like when

there‘s an exception to that, it‘s only then that we actually think about that aspect‖

(G14). Data from Gamma respondents suggested that the friendly, supporting and

non-blaming culture means that willingness to help and caring is something that is

assumed in organisation, thus, not perceived as missing.


132


Respondents listed the following KSM available to them at Gamma: face-to-face

formal and informal interactions, telephone, e-mails, an enterprise project

management system (a project management reporting tool), and a shared drive. Table

5.11 summarises findings on the use of KSM between PMs. Interview respondents

indicated that the most often used means were face-to-face formal and informal

interactions, but they rarely used the LL database.

All respondents rated face-to-face interactions as essential for I-PKS, consistently

stating face-to-face, both formal and informal, as the most critical factor in KS. Not

one participant perceived face-to-face interaction as unimportant.

Table 5-11: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Gamma respondents

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms GAMMA

(n=14)





and Processes


3

Project Management Office 5



4


4

There are many networking opportunities for interaction between PMs. Gamma

organises PM forums, team meetings and other formal gatherings during which I-

PKS occurs. Team meetings with PMs happen generally every week. The monthly

project management forums require PMs to prepare a short presentation on the

challenges in their projects and what they did to overcome these.

Respondents reported that regardless of frequent and effective interaction with

people in the office, there is still poor KS with other departments. Although the

Branch does not have an established corporate Intellect Web Tool (only one software


133

design team used a wiki), some respondents saw significant potential in wikis to

overcome the inter-department KS needs, where ―the information is available to all

within the enterprise‖.

In 2006 there was an initiative to introduce a wiki. The intent was to create an

environment similar to that in Wikipedia and so a trial period was developed: ―That‘s

when we actually started sharing information, sharing knowledge and making sure

that was transferrable well and truly after someone has kind of moved on, either to

another project, another department or physically left the organisation‖ (G4). The

person who developed this internet channel strategy went on long service leave, and

his successor made the decision to not proceed with this initiative. After his return,

two and a half years later, he commented, ―learnings from earlier projects have not

been remembered or learned or utilised and the same mistakes were being made

over and over again‖ (G4). He concluded that this would not occur if wikis were

implemented. All together at least three respondents (G4, G5, G9) commented on

wikis‘ capability to share knowledge.


In relation to project management related mechanisms, respondents indicated that

knowledge is normally shared during formal meetings of project management

forums, or team meetings. The PM presentation is evaluated by meeting participants

based on issues including change processes and stakeholder management. However,

data indicated that only a few PMs searched through the LL documents. At Gamma,

LL were stored in a spreadsheet containing large amounts of historical information.

Respondents complained that this spreadsheet is too long, with over 120 LL making

it impossible to deal with. Everyone agreed that searching though it is time

consuming, and they prefer to talk to other PMs than refer to this database.

Furthermore, LL were focused primarily on process improvements and the feedback

given by PMs was used to improve processes. However, the results and actions taken

were not reported back to the managers leading to a breakdown in the loop learning

process. In this circumstance PMs did not see much value in LL, producing LL only

because it is was formally required, just ―to tick the box‖. Interviews revealed that


134

people did not properly document their LL throughout the project, which resulted in

poor quality LL reports and important LL being forgotten; one PM admitted:

―I would like to get better at it [capturing of LL]. So mostly a lot of it

[LL] is in my head and by the time, because the project you know, the

project might finish and you know, it all went okay that kind of thing but

then I might not get to do my end project report for another two months

or three months, depending on how busy things are so by that time you

really can only remember the big things‖ (B2).

Respondents agreed that poor capture and transfer of LL resulted in unhappy

customers, rework and overdue projects. Many PMs identified problems with the

lack of LL transparency. Overall, examination of the data revealed a lack of visibility

of how LL were progressing, who was taking ownership of them, and whether PMs‘

suggestions for improvements were considered.

Project Portfolio Office

Gamma has a mature PMO, which was recently transformed into a PPO to now

provide wider support for projects. They introduced a new tool, the enterprise project

management (EPM) system, to assist in project and program management. The

knowledge people seek from the PMO is generally procedural knowledge such as

where to find templates, reports to be completed and questions regarding the newly

established EPM system. Nevertheless, the PPO has not been a stable entity and

despite the recent structural changes there has been a high level of employee

turnover. One PPO officer commented, ―there‘s been no stability for some time. The

most consistent thing has been [xxx] and the poor girl, she just cannot get a team

and I hope she gets a bit of stability‖ (G1). Some respondents perceived the PPO as

unreliable and not a preferable source of information. One PM reported, ―they just

don‘t have the experience, they don‘t drive the methodology‖ (G2). One reason the

PPO has been unstable can be explained by the frequently changing structure and

personnel, with many people in that area moving on and the knowledge not being up

to date. The situation is starting to change ―now they [new PPO] have got knowledge,

experience and well trained staff in that area so I do go there now and I‘ll ask them


135

similar questions to what I‘d ask a project manager‖ (G7). PMs are slowly changing

their perceptions of the PPO and refer to its personnel when seeking for knowledge,

―I‘ll ask them similar questions to what I‘d ask a project manager. Whatever projects

are similar to mine or what risks and lessons they have come across that may be

similar to what I‘m about to undertake‖.

The previous PMO role was to provide internal training and to get everyone up to

speed with project management, ―initially it was set up, it was there to educate and

train and really to get everyone up to speed and that was certainly the focus that was

required at the time‖ (G5). Currently the PPO provides the support and structure

around project management. It is a source of information about risks and lessons

from past projects. However, its main focus is still to provide procedural knowledge,

one PM indicated, ―The PPO focus has now shifted to the EPM [Enterprise Project

Management System] and trying to get everything included in that and also on

reporting because reporting is quite a big thing‖ (G5). At Gamma, the main

functions of the PPO include:

developing templates

providing PMs with the necessary tools to undertake projects

providing training and individual consultations for PMs

checking project reports in terms of grammatical corrections and structure

organising monthly project management forums during which PMs prepare a

short presentation on the challenges they encountered in their projects and

how they resolved them

organising internal and external project methodology trainings for both PMs

and other areas who work on projects

following up on LL

preparing risks and issue reports

developing templates for reporting.

5.5.5. Summary of the Gamma Case

This section explored the I-PKS behaviours at Gamma. The findings are summarised

below.


136


sharing?

DeLong and Fahey (2000) argue that when collaboration and collective

responsibility exist employees are willing to go extra mile to avoid letting colleagues

down. Alavi et al. (2006) imply that collaboration leads to greater willingness among

firm members to share insights and expertise with each other. The evidence from the

data suggests that the open and collaborative atmosphere at Gamma creates the

foundation for frequent social interactions, and that these social gatherings, both

arranged and unintended, play an important role in facilitating cross-project KS.

Every respondent commented that PMs are open and willing to share knowledge and

data showed that the philosophy of collaboration and KS is endorsed by the unit

manager. According to Burgess (2005) rewards for knowledge sharing and low

perceived risk regarding sanctions positively influenced knowledge sharing. At

Gamma, project pitfalls are viewed as areas for improvement rather than failures.

This suggests that at Gamma, the non-blaming approach towards potential project

failures encourages PMs to share their knowledge. Based on data it would appear

that Gamma builds a nurturing culture focused on teamwork by providing support to

newcomers and rewarding those who have gone the extra mile to help others. The

rewards for good service and recognition schemes motivate people to share their

knowledge; KS practices embodied in the culture become a natural everyday

practice.

It also became apparent that a shared office creates many opportunities for

consultation, discussion about project problems, solutions and sharing of

experiences. Data suggested that co-located PMs tend to establish bounded

relationships, as a result a higher degree of KS takes place.



Results from the questionnaire provided support that all three forms of trust are

present during KS endeavours. Interviews provided strong evidence suggesting that


137

ability and integrity are essential for I-PKS. However, there was only moderate

evidence that benevolence trust is important. The reason for this might be the culture

of the organisation, which endorses positive intensions and willingness to help.

Therefore at Gamma, these qualities are simply assumed and considered lower

priority. Furthermore, data provided evidence suggesting that there is a relationship

between ability and integrity trust, this means that even though ability trust exists, it

is integrity trust that reinforces KS behaviours.




At Gamma, there is a strong indication that face-to-face interactions are central to I-

PKS. None of the respondents ever perceived face-to-face interactions as

unimportant.

Gamma respondents were rather reluctant in referring to the LL database when

searching for project knowledge. The evidence suggested that the lack of feedback

on how LL are progressing, and the length of the spreadsheet making it hard to

search through are the main reasons PMs do not see much value in producing LL,

and do it only to meet formal requirements. As a result, data suggests that knowledge

captured in the spreadsheet is of poor quality and not fully utilised for present and

future projects.

Technology mechanisms appeared to be less popular and PMs prefer to turn to

colleagues for help rather than use technological tools. However, although Gamma

does not have an established corporate Intellect Web Tool, most respondents

reflected they see a great potential in wikis for I-PKS and as an alternative tool for

LL database.

At Gamma there is a well established PMO that has recently gone through a

transition to PPO to now provide wider support for projects. The previous PMO role

was mostly administrative, the new PPO is slowly becoming knowledge-intensive,

with experts providing training and individual consultations for PMs. The PPO


138

facilitates I-PKS by ensuring a transparent reporting system, providing training and

individual consultations for PMs, organising project management forums and

managing LL.


KSM improve the I-PKS?

Data from interviews provided evidence that at Gamma, culture is focused on non-

blaming and collaboration, which means that PMs are happy to openly share

knowledge. This type of environment appears to create trusting relationships, and the

reason employees perceived benevolence trust as less important might be because it

already exists in the organisation and is embedded in the culture. This trusting

culture appears to create opportunities for more open I-PKS where peers are willing

to share knowledge informally and trust knowledge acquired from their colleagues.

5.6. DELTA

5.6.1. Delta’s Profile

Delta is a large, government owned project-based organisation (PBO) delivering

scientific projects and conducting studies in a range of disciplines. Delta was

established over 80 years ago and currently has over 6500 staff. It is one of the

largest and most diverse research agencies in the world and a powerhouse of ideas.

The company focuses on innovation and development. Delta‘s vision is aimed

towards providing innovative solutions achieved by teamwork.

The company has a number of sites throughout Australia and overseas. In 2005 the

organisation went through structural changes towards a more projectised, strong

matrix-type structure. The changes were made to ensure better coordination and

transparency across divisions, which are the business units of the company, as well

as to allow better collaboration between the company and other research agencies.

As a result, projects can now be formed across divisions. Most of the employees in

Delta have two roles: in a functional team and in a project team. Delta believes that


139

high project performance comes from crossing boundaries and pulling in the right

people from all areas of the organisation to form multidisciplinary teams, and as a

result ensuring flexibility in providing the right mix of skills and talent. Working in a

matrix structure facilitates this mission.

There are 19 divisions in the organisation. Inside each division, there are teams and,

underneath them, there are groups. In the past, divisions functioned separately as

silos and projects were formed only within a division. Recent structural changes

aimed to break down the silos to enabled the divisions to work more closely with

each other, which was supposed to provide more horizontal, rather than vertical,

integration. At Delta, there are no full time PM positions; a project leader is selected

from a group. Normally, people work on several projects at a time. A typical project

budget ranges from AUD$500,000 to several million dollars. There are usually

around 5–6 people working on a project, lasting from several months to a year. Some

projects can last several years.

Table 5.12 provides a snapshot of the company‘s profile. Project leaders from two

divisions, referred to as IT and MIN, participated in this study.

Table 5-12: Summary of Delta’s profile

DELTA

INDUSTRY Research

SECTOR Government Owned Corporation

DESCRIPTION Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

CASE MIN and IT divisions

INVESTIGATED SITES PMs from MIN Projects PMs from IT Projects

NO. OF INFORMANTS Interviews: 9 Questionnaire: 13

PROJECT SIZE

Budget: AUD$500k–several million No of people: up to 5–6 Duration: several months – year


LOCATION Co-located and Dispersed


140

Most of projects that MIN division undertakes are to deliver leading technologies to

mining industry and are external to organisation. This is different to the IT division,

which has a higher percentage of internal work. In total, nine participants (six from

MIN and three from IT) participated in the interviews, their ID‘s are coded: D1–D9,

and 13 filled out the questionnaire on trust and culture. All of the respondents had a

recognised professional degree, most of them were engineers or held PhDs.

Personnel at Delta do not normally have a project management degree or courses

completed, at most some employees completed project management subjects in

college. The majority of employees at Delta work not only on projects but also

conduct research, write scientific papers and attend conferences.


This section reports the findings on how OC influences I-PKS at Delta. Overall, at

Delta, 13 respondents participated in the questionnaire assessing the dominant

culture type: 10 from MIN Projects and 3 from IT Projects. From Figure 5.5 it can be

seen that cultural differences exist between these two divisions, MIN and IT. At IT,

the dominant culture is Hierarchy, characterised by formal procedures that govern

what people do. At MIN the culture is more balanced, shifted towards Clan type.

Although data from the questionnaire revealed that Delta‘s culture is somewhat

focused towards Hierarchy, which can be explained by the fact that Delta is a

government owned corporation (GOC), overall data from the interviews and

documents strongly suggested that Delta‘s culture has characteristics of Adhocracy.

There was a range of evidence suggesting this claim. First of all, Delta‘s focus and

vision was aimed towards providing innovative solutions achieved by teamwork.

Also, it was reported that at Delta, project leaders are driven by research and

innovation, their goal is to produce outstanding and innovative products. Data

provided evidence that personnel at Delta value innovation and creativity, and

employees were very committed to the work they are doing. Although the project

management reporting system at Delta was fairly simple, most respondents agreed

they did not like that administrative part of their job. These observations suggest

characteristics of Adhocracy and are supported by the finding raised by Cameron and


141

Quinn (2005) who stated that sometimes Adhocracy exists in large organisations that

have a dominant culture of different type. This appears to be the case in Delta, where

Adhocracy exists despite having a dominant Hierarchy culture.

Figure 5-5: Culture profiles of Delta

In addition, there was a range of evidence suggesting informality (attribute of Clan

type culture) was prevalent at Delta. It was reported (D2, D3, D4) that most of the

formal processes to transfer knowledge from one project to another do not work;

they tend to be resisted by employees. Furthermore, there was no formal induction

process: at Delta, the newcomers joined a team working on particular project and the

team‘s duty was to provide mentoring for the new colleague. Moreover, face to face

informal interactions were the most commonly used means to interact and share

knowledge. Other characteristics like casual outfits, informal language used

suggested the high level of informality at Delta.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MIN

IT

Adhocracy

Market

Hierarchy

Clan


142


Analysis revealed that PMs were generally open with each other and willing to share

their knowledge. At least five respondents from Delta stated that colleagues within

their group are willing to share their experiences and shortcomings. A project leader

from Delta assured, ―certainly within the group everyone is very open and willing to

share knowledge even this related to their projects‘ pitfalls‖. However, there was a

remark suggesting that revealing project pitfalls can jeopardise the priority in

obtaining resources for future projects. This was observed by one project leader from

IT Projects who stated:

―It‘s vital always to maintain a team which is not held by people saying

you know this didn‘t work well, those guys did it wrong or something. So

that‘s one reason you tend not to go outside saying this is wrong or that‘s

wrong. Because in the future you won‘t work well if you‘re doing that...

and generally, there‘s competition between your projects and other

projects so you want your projects to be seen as successful instead of

emphasising where they‘re going wrong‖ (D4).

Collaboration

Analysis brought to light that collaboration and KS between divisions was

encouraged, but top management did not actively participate in facilitating working

together. It was reported that collaborative endeavours such as workshops and cross-

divisional conferences were rare, and top management has recognised the need for,

and tries to facilitate, collaboration, for example by organising reading sessions and

by providing collaborative tools for sharing knowledge between dispersed groups.

The researcher was also invited to a meeting initiated by an upper level manager

where a project leader from IT Projects was explaining to PMs from MIN Projects

the collaborative opportunities of wikis. These endeavours were still in an early stage

and have not yet proven to be effective.


143

The volume of interactions and presence of silos

Open plan and communal areas (corridor, canteen, library and gym) enabled frequent

communication and knowledge exchange. However, silos across IT and MIN were

identified. OCAI analysis revealed that cultural differences existed between IT

projects and MIN projects and at least four respondents (D1, D3, D4, D9) provided

support of that. At Delta, PMs from IT Projects were located in an open plan office.

PMs from MIN Projects were also co-located in one area; some in open plan, others

in separate rooms that were usually open. Communal areas (corridor, canteen, library

and gym) were frequently utilised by people and served as places to meet and

interact. These informal meetings often led to conversations about work-related

issues, and people got to know what everybody was doing.

Both MIN and IT were located in different buildings. Furthermore, IT division had a

centre in Canberra, Brisbane and Sydney, but the physical dispersion between the

two groups makes it hard to collaborate and share knowledge. People from Canberra

did not meet often with those working in Brisbane, only if there was a formal

meeting scheduled. A project leader from IT Canberra reported that the meetings

between teams in Canberra and Brisbane should happen more frequently because

otherwise people ―tend to do things in different ways and do not get sense of all

moving in the same direction‖ (D4). He also commented on the consequences of the

physical separation between IT‘s Brisbane and Canberra teams: ―The [physical]

separateness [Canberra versus Brisbane] means we talk less even though you tend to

be working on the project. So what tends to happen is the project splits into sub

projects and these people work on something up there and the people down in

Canberra work on something down here. I do think distance, physical separation is a

problem, you tend to be isolated, you tend to do things in different ways‖ (D4).

Differences between co-located and dispersed PMs

Data provided evidence that geographical dispersion affects the transparency in

conducting projects and interaction frequency. There were comments stating that

interactions between geographically dispersed PMs are not as frequent, and it is

easier to approach a person who is physically closer. One project leader (D7)


144

reported that from a preference side, physical proximity does not matter, but it does

matter from a convenience perspective. Others (D8, D9) also agreed that it is easier

to ask for knowledge from someone who is physically close. At least four Delta

participants (D9, D3, D4, D5) reported that physical proximity helped to establish

and maintain close relationships, one reported:

―… they [people I share knowledge with] tend to be the people you know

well so they tend to be the people you are close to. Not necessarily the

people you work with on a day to day basis but you have worked with

them or often it‘s just people physically close, like you‘re in the same

building so you talk a lot. Being proximal makes a big difference so a lot

of the things happen over morning tea or chat or something like that‖

(D4).

As a result, these close relationships facilitated KS between project leaders, ―if you

know someone well and you spend a bit of time with them you‘ll become more aware

of their frustrations and things‖ (D4). At least one project leader (D6) reported that

the relationships between IT and MIN are good, but the interactions are not frequent

due to the location. Furthermore, analysis brought to light that dispersed PMs

followed different project management processes as well as used different

mechanisms to share knowledge. For example, PMs from the IT division preferred to

use wikis and each of them had a wiki on their home page, while PMs from the MIN

division primarily exchanged knowledge through face-to-face interaction. It was also

reported that there is inconsistency in conducting projects and PMs from different

locations are managing projects in their own way, one PM commented that project

leaders from other locations ―tend to do things in different ways and do not get sense

of all moving in the same direction‖ (D4).

5.6.3. Trust

At Delta, 11 respondents participated in the questionnaire related to the presence of

three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. The findings indicate that the presence

of ability trust contributed the most to KS, showing a mean value of 4.43, the least

contributing was benevolence trust with the mean of 3.79. However, all three forms


145

showed a positive effect on KS, reporting mean values above the midpoint. Table

5.13 reports on mean and standard deviation values, measured in a scale from 1 to 5,

where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement.


DELTA n=11





Data from the interviews presented in this research provided strong evidence

suggesting that trust at Delta is very important, and revealed that the lack of trust

causes very low levels of cooperation and low results. Furthermore, at Delta

teamwork is based on social relationships and reliance, suggesting the existence of

trust.

Ability trust

All respondents except one stated that ability trust is crucial in KS. Ability trust gives

a confidence in the information provided by that person ―if one is surrounded by

skilled people who are capable to do their job one can easily achieve their goals‖

(D9). Respondents also commented that competent people give fair and just

solutions, which is critical in a project environment.

Benevolence

In contrast, benevolence trust was perceived to be advantageous, but not critical in

KS. Four respondents reported its importance as moderate, one stated, “I don‘t

expect people to go out of their way, they‘ve got their own work to do. It‘s nice if

they do but umm...‖ (D5). Another employee commented that ―normally people are

more willing to help if they‘re concerned about the outcome‖ (D8). However, the

foundations of benevolence trust are based on goodwill and altruistic behaviour, not


146

on getting profit, therefore if the willingness to help is motivated solely by a means

to obtain benefit it should not be considered as benevolent.

Data from at least three Delta respondents (D3, D4, D8) confirmed that there is a

relationship between the type of knowledge and benevolence trust. Benevolence trust

was unimportant when seeking technical advice. However, when knowledge was

related to more sensitive issues, such as involving other people‘s performance,

benevolence trust mattered. Furthermore, it was suggested that when people are

concerned about the needs of knowledge seeker they are more likely to provide

insightful advice. One person commented,

―if people just give you a quick answer you might not pick it up straight

away or they might not actually grasp what your problem is, whereas if

someone is actually willing to come over and look at your work and see

what you‘ve done and be like oh this is where you‘ve done it wrong and

actually go into the problem and help you resolve what it is‖ (D8).

At least two project leaders (D3, D4) reported that if knowledge is related to issues

concerning customers, or conflicts between teams or within teams then benevolence

trust becomes extremely important, but if knowledge relates to technical ‗know what‘

and explicit aspects, benevolence is of no great concern. One of the project leader

stated:

―if it‘s generally just going asking questions about oh you know, have

you done you know interpolation in this particular area using these type

of things and they can give me a five second answer or potentially send

me through an email with some information then yeah it‘s a relatively

simple question. So the amount of work they have to go to is small so you

know, going out of their way or willingness to go out of their way, it

[benevolence] is not an issue‖ (D3).

Overall, at Delta, benevolence trust attributes to I-PKS only to some extent and is

perceived valuable in two circumstances: when knowledge shared is related to more


147

sensitive relation- related issues (internally and externally) and when there is a need

to provide insightful advice.

Integrity

Integrity, on the other hand, was identified as being very important in KS by at least

eight respondents, ―we‘re very honest about our likes and dislikes. In fact, that‘s

great about [Delta] the way that everyone can be totally up front about their likes

and dislikes and successes and failures‖ (D2). Only one respondent provided a

comment that integrity is unnecessary.

According to respondents, if people are honest and credible they provide quality and

truthful information. Respondents widely commented on the importance of being

upfront with everyone and to tell the truth no matter whether the information is

positive or negative because ―the dialogue is how you solve problems‖.

Also, three respondents (D1, D5, D8) provided evidence that when ability exists it is

the integrity that reinforces KS behaviours. A project leader commented, ―skills and

competency... I mean none of that is really useful if they‘re not honest‖ (D8).

―I will change my opinion if somebody ... if they ... are more an expert

than I am in something and I just say alright, okay you‘re probably right

... if somebody comes and says look this is technically impossible then

you know [I‘ll take it on board]. but I want them to do more than that, I

want them to explain why it‘s not possible... people have to articulate

what they think is a solution and I‘ll articulate and we‘ll come to an

agreement or agree to disagree on something but I don‘t want somebody

to sit in the back and not criticise something and then talk behind my

back and say that‘s the wrong solution‖ (D1).

Overall, the majority of Delta respondents held knowledge source honesty and

credibility in high regard. This would suggest that in this instance integrity trust was

highly regarded by participants as key to I-PKS outcomes.


148


At Delta, besides face-to-face interactions during formal meetings or informal

gatherings, there was a range of technology mechanisms available, including: e-mails

(normally used for formal and informal communication or if people required

information from colleagues outside the company), software registry (a tool for

storing software codes in different revisions, allowing users to store the history of all

changes made), telephone and teleconferencing (used as a substitute for face-to-

face). The Internet was the most frequently used technology-based knowledge

source. One respondent stated ―I normally Google it and then if unsuccessful then go

and ask colleagues. Google is your friend‖ (D9). There was also a shared-drive that

contained past project documents (from 1995–2005). However, people hardly ever

looked into these archives. Since a wiki was established in 2005, for some projects,

all current project documentation was being stored on the wiki. The wiki has become

the most frequently used internal tool for a knowledge base. PMs from IT Projects

had a wiki on their home page. The wiki is used:

to store project archives

to share information with clients

to store a raw level of project planning

to maintain contact lists

to write project reports, where lots of people need to contribute to the report,

―[People are] writing the different parts of the report as different wiki pages.

And then at the end you have a smaller group of people who collate all that

information to make the final report‖ (D5).

to store specifications

as a discussion board.

Respondents recognised a range of advantages associated with using the wiki for I-

PKS. According to respondents, the wiki is a way to maintain information flow in

growing groups, is well searchable, saves time because information is entered only

once, works as a memo, is easy to use and is integrated — everything can be found

in one place. One respondent who heavily used and contributed to the wiki

commented:


149

―I don‘t think workshops are necessary because even when you do have a

workshop and you sit there and everybody goes yeah this is a great idea.

Two days later everybody‘s moving on and they‘re doing something else

and they‘ve forgotten the workshop and I think what the advantage of

having wikis and stuff like that is that you have permanent records of

what was discussed, you know, the discussion and it keeps going, there‘s

no like time line it actually starts happening‖ (D1).

Table 5.14 summarises findings on the use of KSM among Delta project leaders.

Table 5-14: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Delta respondents

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms DELTA

(n=9)





and Processes


0

PMO N/A*



4


3

* – not available

At least five respondents (D2, D1, D3, D6, D7) reported that when seeking

knowledge they often go into each others‘ offices asking for help or meet during

morning or afternoon tea. There are also groups that get together to have lunch.

Often during these informal gatherings, people discuss work-related issues. This

statement best represents that occurrence:

―Within our lab so they‘re people that are working on other projects and

you‘ll be chatting in the tea room or something about saying oh they had

this problem here and I go oh hang on we‘ve got that same problem.


150

What we end up doing is the person that solved that problem ends up

solving our problem, so that happens quite a lot‖ (D1).

Nevertheless, data provided evidence suggesting that MIN and IT divisions preferred

to use different mechanisms to share knowledge. MIN Projects relied on face-to-face

interactions, while IT Projects extensively used wikis and other technologies.

The company organises internal workshops and seminars to bring in different people

from other areas. However, at least two Delta participants (D1, D4) complained that

these meetings are not as frequent as required or if they are organised, people are

reluctant to participate. Some interviews were conducted on a day when IT and MIN

divisions had their reading session. While people generally had a positive attitude

towards these types of initiatives, the overall perception about these gatherings was

that at the beginning people participate because it is something new — they are

driven by curiosity — later people know what to expect, it becomes a boring routine

and they slowly withdraw from it. It was also pointed out that Delta does not allocate

resources to organise such sessions and customers are unwilling to pay for it because

it is not in their interest. According to a project leader from MIN (D6), these

initiatives have not yet been proven to be particularly successful. People are engaged

and participate in these gatherings, but after some time people stop going:

―These types of meetings work well for a while, and later people drop off.

It‘s probably a human nature thing that you go along to a few of these

and then once you‘ve been to a few of them you no longer make as strong

a commitment to go to the next. You say oh okay I‘ll miss this one and go

to the next one and then you end up missing two and a row and then they

just slowly die off‖ (D6).


At Delta, project management is still very immature. There is no formal project

management methodology; however there are internally designed templates that

assist in carrying out a project. Although according to one respondent from the IT

division, these templates are just ―bureaucratic tools that do not assist in running the


151

project, but have to be filled up to satisfy admin requirements‖ (D1).There‘s no

feedback in the system, and project documentation is not visible to others. When

reports go for approval they are only visible to people with approval rights; other

project leaders or members cannot view them.

The amount of rigor put into project management processes depends on whether the

project is internal or external, small or large. In small projects, normally the

processes are fluid and required documentation is limited to reporting on milestones.

The processes are more specific when a project is large and/or external to the

company. External projects also tend to be much more time based, matching time

requirements and having a more specific budget than internal projects. In terms of

leveraging knowledge out of a project, there is no formal requirement to produce LL,

or formal project debrief meetings held. Respondents from both divisions (D2, D4)

reported that LL reviews are prepared rarely, unless requested by the client. There is

only a requirement to provide plan and milestones reports, mainly to track project

progress. Cross-project KS happens informally during ongoing face-to-face or e-mail

interactions, ―I guess if you learn something really useful you might send out an

email to the group and say hey we should do it this way‖ (D8).

Delta does not have a dedicated PMO to help manage projects. There is one

administrative person working part time who helps with accessing project records,

and a full time person providing commercial and legal support. Project leaders and

team members normally get support from Stream Leaders, who administer projects

and project direction and manage project financials.

5.6.5. Summary of the Delta Case

Section 5.6 focused on analysis of Delta and explored Delta‘s KS behaviours

focusing on the elements identified in the I-PKS Framework. A summary of these

behaviours, tailored to answering the research questions is presented in this Section.


sharing?


152

Data indicates that at Delta PMs are generally willing to share knowledge, but this

generally applies to KS between projects from the same division. Although Delta

provided communal areas (corridor, canteen, library and gym) for people to meet and

interact, the KS between IT and MIN Projects was reported to be minimal.

Furthermore, data showed that cultural differences exist between MIN and IT

Projects. IT and MIN projects also follow different norms and use different

mechanisms to share knowledge. This could suggest that it was primarily cultural

values including informality, mentoring and teamwork, not the open plan layout that

drives PMs to share their knowledge. Although collaboration is encouraged, the

organisation does not actively participate in facilitating collaboration.



The presence of ability and integrity appeared to be the most important for I-PKS.

Benevolence trust was regarded as necessary in two circumstances: when knowledge

was related to more sensitive relation-related issues, and when providing insightful

advice. Data from interviews also suggested that integrity trust reinforces the

relationship between ability trust and knowledge sharing.


management tools and process, and technology) improve I-PKS behaviours?

At Delta project leaders use a range of means to exchange knowledge: face-to-face,

email, phone, wikis, SMS, teleconferencing, software registry (SBN), Internet and

shared-drive. Although people are fluent in working with computerised technologies

on a daily basis, they still prefer to share knowledge during informal interactions. It

was reported that people tend to be resistant to formal processes. Project

management at Delta is still not matured, and there is no formal process established

for capturing, storing and sharing project knowledge.


KSM improve the I-PKS?


153

At Delta, OC appears to influence trusting relationships. The friendly, non-

competitive atmosphere means that people are honest about their likes and dislikes;

hence facilitating trust. This in turn allows for unbounded KS, which normally

occurs during informal face-to-face interactions. Thus, suggesting that OC, by

building trusting relationships, foster the use of informal, organic sources to share

knowledge.

5.7. SUMMARY

This chapter presented the within-case analyses of the four PBOs. It explored in

detail the I-PKS behaviours from the perspective of PMs concentrating on the factors

identified in the I-PKS Framework. The use of a pattern-matching technique allowed

comparison of empirically-based patterns with these predicted (as illustrated in the

Framework and discussed in Chapter 3). The main aim of this chapter was to answer

the research questions related to the role of OC, PMs‘ geographical location, trust in

I-PKS, and the use of a range of mechanisms in I-PKS. Figures summarising the KS

behaviours of each case were provided at the end of each section. Within-case

findings are the basis for the cross-case analysis, which is presented in the next

chapter.


154

Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis

155

6. Cross-case Analysis

6.1. INTRODUCTION

In the previous chapter, the within-case analysis guided by the I-PKS Framework,

outlined the KS practices and behaviours of each case. The aim of the analysis was to

become familiar with each case as a stand-alone entity before the cross-case analysis

began. At that stage, no comparison between cases was made. The same data

employed in the within-case analysis was used to conduct the cross-case analysis

presented in this chapter. However, the data for the cross-case analysis was arranged

in a different manner, according to emerging findings related to the research

questions. This chapter reports on findings from the cross-case analysis and answers

the following research questions:


sharing?

RQ2: How does the existence of the three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)

benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge

sharing?

RQ3: How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms, namely

relational, project management tools and process, and technology,

improve inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours?


156

RQ4: How do the relationships between these three factors of

organisational culture, trust, and knowledge sharing mechanisms

improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?

Section 6.2 discusses the analytical procedures used for the cross-case analysis, and

the following sections, Sections 6.3–6.5, answer the research questions. Section 6.3

focuses on organisational culture (OC), Section 6.4 investigates the role of trust in

inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS), and Section 6.5 examines how different

knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) can improve I-PKS. Section 6.6 explains the

relationships between the three factors of OC, trust and KSM. Section 6.6

summarises the findings.

6.2. CROSS-CASES PROCEDURES

This cross-case analysis primarily looked for similarities and differences across and

within the cases, and attempted to explain the reasons for these similarities or

differences. This pattern-matching process was highly iterative and followed steps

suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) involving constant comparison between cases, and

verifying that the emergent relationships between elements fit with the evidence in

each case. Sometimes, a relationship was confirmed by the case evidence while other

times it was revised, disconfirmed or set aside due to insufficient evidence. A range

of NVivo tools including matrix queries facilitated the comparison of several nodes

at once. Also, the use of relationship nodes, figures and diagrams assisted in

identifying the links between the elements, hence enabling explanation, confirmation

or disconfirmation of the relationships. When behaviour did not match the predicted

pattern then the explanation building technique (Yin, 2003) was applied. When it

was possible to develop a plausible explanation of why the pattern did not match,

this often led to richer findings. In relation to setting up the propositions, this

research followed the approach taken by Gilbert (2005) and articulated a set of

formal observations (propositions) based on comparative data from the four cases.

These observations addressed the role of OC, trust and KSM in I-PKS and are

presented at the end of each section. The comparison of emergent propositions with


157

the extant literature is presented in the next chapter (Chapter 7 — Discussion and

Practical Implications).

6.3. ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

This section combines the analysis from the four cases on OC to answer RQ1: How

does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing? This section

begins with a comparison of the cultures of the four participating organisations,

followed by a discussion on findings related to OC in the context of I-PKS.

Propositions are presented at the end of each subsection.

6.3.1. Organisational Culture and the

Willingness to Share Knowledge

Findings from the questionnaire and interviews, discussed in Chapter 5, indicated

which culture is dominant in each case and how the cultural values influenced KS

behaviours. Figure 6.1 outlines the results from the questionnaire where the

organisational culture assessment instrument (OCAI) was applied to determine the

dominant culture in all cases (separate OCAI results from the two Delta divisions,

MIN and IT, are presented).

From the figure it can be seen that Market culture appears to have a strong impact on

Alpha and Beta cases. Gamma‘s culture is balanced with a slight shift towards the

Hierarchy type. Follow-up interviews helped to explain that the change of director,

which happened around the time the initial interviews were conducted, was the

reason for the culture shift from Clan towards Hierarchy. Questionnaire results show

that there were clear differences in dominant cultures between Delta divisions, MIN

and IT. Nevertheless, data from the interviews and documents suggested that the

overall culture in Delta appears to have strong characteristics of Adhocracy.


158

Alpha: Clan = 19, Adhocracy = 8, Market = 35, Hierarchy = 38 Beta: Clan = 19, Adhocracy = 19, Market = 35, Hierarchy = 28 Gamma: Clan = 25, Adhocracy = 19, Market = 25, Hierarchy = 31 Delta MIN: Clan = 33, Adhocracy = 25, Market = 21, Hierarchy = 24 Delta IT: Clan = 24, Adhocracy = 19, Market = 16, Hierarchy = 41

Table 6.1 outlines the main cultural focus and summarises across the cases those

cultural fundamentals that were found to influence KS behaviours, including: the

willingness to share knowledge, the presence of silos and collaboration.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Alpha

Beta

Gamma

Delta MIN

Delta IT

Adhocracy

Market

Hierarchy

Clan

Figure 6-1: Culture profiles of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta MIN and IT

Table 6-1: Culture profiles — cross-case comparison

COMPANY ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA

Dominant Culture (OCAI results)

Hierarchy and Market Market

Balanced with prevalence of Hierarchy type,

Change of managing director shifted the culture focus from

Clan to Hierarchy

MIN division — Clan IT division — Hierarchy

Culture focus Control,

Structure, Unwillingness to change

Process control, Customer focus,

Achievement, Result orientation, Accomplishment,

Measurement, Use of quality tools

Teamwork, Employee involvement,

Recognition

Overall Delta‘s focus: Innovation,

Development, Creativity, Informality,

Commitment

Collaboration

Top management does not discourage, but it also does not actively support, collaboration and KS endeavours. The organisation does not provide many opportunities for collaboration between PMs from different geographical locations. Nevertheless, there was evidence that recent structural changes are shifting the way projects are managed from solitary to more joint efforts.

The organisation encourages, but does not actively contribute to facilitating, I-PKS.

Collaboration is encouraged, new ideas are welcomed. The organisation provides support to newcomers and rewards those who go the extra mile to help another team member.

Collaboration is encouraged, but the organisation does not actively participate in facilitating collaborative work and KS between divisions. Workshops and cross-division conferences are rare. Only recently, top management recognised the need and now tries to facilitate collaboration by organising reading sessions. However, these endeavours do not occur frequently and, according to respondents, have not yet been successful.

COMPANY ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA


Some PMs are open and willing to share knowledge. However, some are reluctant, to do so. Those PMs who like to be portrayed as a kind of perfect project manager are unwilling to reveal their project‘s pitfalls.

Some PMs are open and willing to share knowledge. However, those focussed on career progression are reluctant. Some are reluctant to share their project‘s pitfalls; instead they try to blame others for the failure.

Strong evidence providing that PMs are open and willing to share knowledge, even related to project shortcomings. Projects‘ shortcomings are seen as opportunities rather than failures.

PMs are generally open with each other and willing to reuse their knowledge.

Evidence of hesitancy to share

knowledge Interviews Interviews No evidence No evidence

Important Remarks

I‟m very open about where I‟ve done well and where I‟ve done wrong. I have a number of individuals working for me who feel that failure is a weakness and therefore wouldn‟t be as open. So about fifty-fifty I think (A7).

We have some people that have been in the organisation for ten years and believe that they should be a general manager, so I think there‟s a little bit of well if I share too much with you you‟ll get the heads up on me (B3).

I‟m quite happy to identify my shortcomings because [if not] you‟re not going to make it better next time (G6).

MIN Projects — That‟s great about [Delta] the way that everyone can be totally up front about their likes and dislikes and successes and failures (D2).

Reasons for not sharing knowledge

To maintain position of importance

Hoarding knowledge increases power and a way to promotion

No evidence No evidence

Reasons for not sharing knowledge related to project

shortcomings

Revealing project pitfalls… - is a sign of failure - puts the position of perfect PM at risk

Revealing project pitfalls… puts the strong position in the organisation at risk

No evidence No evidence


161

According to DeLong and Fahey (2000) cultures which emphasise willingness to

share knowledge, collaboration and frequency of interactions will have greater KS

outcomes. This pattern was found at Gamma and Delta, whose focus on employee

involvement and teamwork was perceived to improve KS outcomes. Within-case

analysis revealed that PMs from Gamma and Delta were normally open and willing

to share any kind of knowledge, and no one indicated that people are hesitant to

share. At Gamma, project pitfalls were viewed as areas for improvement rather than

failures, and collaboration and KS were endorsed by the unit manager. Similarly, at

Delta, no one indicated that people are hesitant to share.

The pattern was different in Alpha and Beta cases who reported evidence of

hesitancy to share knowledge. At least two respondents of each of company (A5, A7,

B2, B3) reported that some PMs are very protective and unwilling to share

knowledge. Data from interviews outlined in Chapter 5 also provided evidence that

in these two companies there are PMs who are reluctant to share their project pitfalls

because they want to retain their reputation and position of importance in the

company; others, focused on career, recognised knowledge as power and a way to

career advancement.

Also, at Alpha and Beta the indicator of Market culture was high while Clan culture

was relatively low, demonstrating competitive and goal-oriented cultures, where

there is no place for failure and the focus is on winning and success. This can explain

why project leaders of Alpha and Beta were sometimes reluctant to share knowledge,

especially that which related to their projects‘ shortcomings. Furthermore, the

performance measures in Market-type cultures are normally based on numbers and

tangible achievements, thus some employees are reluctant to share because they do

not want to give their secrets away to others as this could jeopardise their career

advancement.

Analysis of Alpha and Beta provided some evidence to suggest that cultures, which

focus on competition, achievement and demanding leaders are the reason that some

PMs are reluctant to share knowledge related to their projects with other colleagues

outside their project boundaries. Those that focus on collaboration, teamwork,

commitment and employee involvement (Gamma and Delta cases) are more willing


162

to share their knowledge. Indeed, the above analysis and discussion provided

evidence that the type of culture influences KS behaviours. Therefore, it is proposed

that:

Proposition 1a: Project managers from cultures that emphasise

competition, achievement, demanding leaders and winning (displaying

characteristics of Market type), are less likely to report knowledge

sharing between projects.

Proposition 1b: Project managers from cultures that create a

collaborative environment encourage people to communicate, and create

a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work (displaying

characteristics of Clan type), are more likely to improve inter-project

knowledge sharing behaviours.

6.3.2. Project Manager’s Geographical Location

PMs‘ geographical location differed across cases. Table 6.2 illustrates the location of

PMs from each case. There were two cases (Alpha and Delta) where PMs were both

co-located and geographically dispersed. At Alpha, PMs from SA Development

Projects shared office space; likewise PMs from WA Maintenance Projects also

shared a location. Those PMs from SA Maintenance Projects were dispersed,

working on project sites. At Delta, PMs from MIN Projects worked together on the

same floor, also PMs from IT Projects shared working space, but PMs from MIN and

IT worked in different buildings. PMs from Beta and Gamma all worked together in

an open plan office.


163

Table 6-2: PMs geographical distribution across-cases

Case Location A Location B

Alpha

Beta

Gamma

Delta

Legend:

Co-located PMs Dispersed PMs

Analysis of Alpha evidence suggested that those PMs who were co-located (SA

Development Projects and WA Maintenance Projects) worked closely with each

other (A6), and developed a more mature approach to project management than those

located on project sites (A2). There were comments from co-located Beta

respondents (B3, B5) who reported they have close working relationships with their

peers. Similarly, at Gamma, where all PMs shared the same space, data provided

strong evidence that this open plan office arrangement facilitates building close

relationships. At least five respondents (G1, G3, G5, G9, G10) commented they are

PMS FROM SA

MAINTENANCE

PROJECTS

PMS FROM SA

DEVELOPMENT

PROJECTS

PMS FROM

WA

MAINTENANCE

PROJECTS

PMS FROM

MIN

PROJECTS

PMS FROM IT

PROJECTS

PMS FROM TC

PROJECTS &

BI PROJECTS

PMS FROM

INTERNET,

PHONE,

COUNTERS, AND

DISASTER

CAMPAIGNS


164

very close with their colleagues and most agreed they frequently interact with their

peers. Similarly at Delta, at least four respondents (D9, D3, D4, D5) expressed that

physical proximity helped to establish and maintain close relationships, which as a

result facilitated KS between project leaders. PMs reported they seek knowledge

normally from those who they know well. At Delta, it was further reported that the

willingness and openness to share information about a project‘s shortcomings

depends on the people and how well they know them, ―if you know someone well and

you spend a bit of time with them you‘ll become more aware of their frustrations and

things‖ (D4).

In each case, Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta, data from the interviews provided

evidence of the importance of collocation for KS, yet further analysis brought to light

that although physical proximity contributes to KS, it does not have a direct effect,

but rather it influences other factors that are more closely related to KS. Evidence

from the cases signified that those PMs who were co-located maintained close

working relationships. Data from the four cases recaptured above and discussed in

the previous chapter, provided support to state that physical proximity helps to build

close relationships and those close relationships appear to have a more direct effect

on KS than does physical proximity.

Nonetheless, there was minimal exchange of knowledge and expertise between PMs

from distant locations. The within-case analysis brought to light that at least four

respondents from Alpha (A2, A5, A7, A8) and four from Delta (D1, D3, D4, D9)

reported that cultural differences and silos also existed between dispersed PMs, and

there was a clear distinction between ‗us and them‘. Furthermore, there were a

number of remarks commenting on the inconsistency in conducting projects between

geographical locations. Although respondents from both cases reported that more

frequent KS and transparency in managing projects between geographically

dispersed sites could be very fruitful, analysis revealed that in both cases Alpha‘s and

Delta‘s dispersed PMs followed different project management processes, developing

their own norms and routines for project management (Alpha and Delta cases), and

used different KSM (Delta case). On top of that, at Alpha and Delta, there was

limited collaboration between geographically dispersed PMs.


165

The cultural differences between geographically dispersed PMs, manifested by the

presence of silos, distinction between ―us versus them‖, the lack of common

approach in managing projects and poor collaboration between dispersed PMs

appeared to result in limited KS. Based on the analysis of Alpha and Delta it would

appear that there are a range of problems that arise from geographical dispersion

between PMs; these problems cause barriers to effective KS. Figure 6.2 illustrates

this argument.

The analysis presented above leads to two conclusions; (1) that close proximity does

not directly add to KS behaviours, but it is likely to create opportunities for building

close and bonded relationships and these close relationships appears to have a more

direct effect on KS than physical proximity, (2) geographically dispersed PMs are

more likely to display evidence of cultural differences, which in result can lead to

limited I-PKS. Results from this analysis are stated formally:

Proposition 2: Physical proximity is likely to facilitate the establishment

of bonded relationships between peers, which in turn improves I-PKS.

It is also is proposed:

Figure 6-2: Consequences of PMs geographical dispersion

Limited knowledge

sharing between

geographically dispersed PMs

PMs geographical

dispersion

Creation of silos — ―us versus them‖

Poor collaboration between dispersed

PMs

The lack of a common approach in

managing projects:

o development of own norms and

routines for project

management

o the use of different knowledge

sharing mechanisms.

ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM

GEOGRAPHICAL DISPERSION


166

Proposition 3: Geographically dispersed PMs are likely to display

evidence of cultural differences. These cultural differences may in

consequence lead to limited I-PKS behaviours.

6.4. TRUST

The effect of trust on KS was examined to answer RQ2: How does the existence of

the three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence

I-PKS behaviours? Ability trust refers to the trustor's perception that another party is

knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of competence or skills; benevolence trust

suggests that the trustee has a specific attachment to the trustor and would keep the

best interests of the trustor at heart; and integrity trust refers to the trustor's

perception that the trustee will adhere to a set of principles such as honesty and

credibility during and after the knowledge exchange. Trust was examined from the

knowledge seeking perspective.

Data on trust was obtained from interviews and the questionnaire. The questionnaire

provided answers related to the presence of the three forms of trust during inter-

project KS endeavours. Interviews further revealed how important each trust form is

in KS. Appendix E provides a copy of the questionnaire related to trust, distributed to

the respondents from the four cases, and describes the process to collect quantitative

data. Across all cases, ability and integrity were the most influential in seeking

knowledge from other projects, followed by benevolence. A scale to measure the

presence of trust ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5

strong agreement, and 3 is the scale midpoint. In all cases, ability trust received mean

values above 4.0, with the highest mean of 4.57 (Beta case) and the lowest mean of

4.21 (Alpha case). Integrity trust also reported high mean values. Across the Alpha,

Beta and Gamma cases, integrity trust received mean values above 4.0. Only in Delta

case did integrity trust report a mean value below 4.00 (mean = 3.79). Across all

cases, benevolence trust received the lowest mean value. Nevertheless, it still showed

a positive effect on KS, reporting mean values above the midpoint (3.00). Analysis

of the questionnaire data revealed that the presence of the three forms of trust existed

during knowledge exchange behaviours, which means that all forms of trust


167

positively contribute to I-PKS, with ability trust reporting the highest contribution

and benevolence trust the lowest contribution.

Qualitative data from interviews was examined by using numerical counts in

combination with matrix queries as a proxy indicator of the importance of the three

trust dimensions across the four cases. This process was explained in Chapter 4

Methodology, Section 4.5.4.2. This analysis of the interviews revealed that overall,

25 remarks suggested that ability trust is important, and 23 suggested that integrity

trust is important in KS. There were seven comments consistent with the notion that

benevolence trust positively influenced I-PKS, and six indicated that benevolence

trust was irrelevant.

Although data from the interviews presented in Chapter 5 revealed there were

distinct views on the level of importance of trust between cases, overall, there was

strong evidence supporting the notion that ability and integrity trust have a positive

impact, and moderate evidence that benevolence trust has a positive effect on KS

behaviour. Table 6.3 reports remarks raised by respondents on trust. In brackets

under the ‗Respondents‘ heading, specific codes characterising respondents are

listed. In some cases the same respondent provided two views related to the same

form of trust, i.e. G8 feels experience (attribute of ability trust) is moderate for

knowledge sharing, but he also commented that professionalism (attribute of ability

trust) is not necessary in inter-project knowledge sharing. In analysing trust all

remarks related trust attributes were included.


168

Table 6-3: Major remarks on the importance of trust from respondents

Trust Rank Respondents Major Remarks

AB

ILIT

Y

(com

pete

nce, skill

s a

nd

pro

fessio

nalis

m)

Impo

rtan

t A1, A3, A4, A5, A6, B2, B4, B6, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G10, G11, G13, D1, D2, CR3, D5, D6, D8, D9

RB2 Person has some skills or knowledge so you always turn to them when the person has certain IP [intellectual property]. Someone can be your colleague and you know him well, but he will not provide you with the info you need. You don‟t want to approach person who spends half an hour explaining something that can take two sec. you‟ve got to be careful there.

Mod

erat

e A3, A8, B3, G1, G3, G6, G8, G11, G14, D1

RG8 Sometimes people who haven‟t got experience can see the wood, you know can see the wood for the trees and can come up with some great ideas and suggestions because they‟re not clouded by projects and have never seen it before and come up with some good ideas so I don‟t think experience is necessarily.

Not

Impo

rtan

t

G5, G8, G9, G10, D2, D7

RD2 I don‟t care about any you know, looking professional or acting professional, I don‟t care about that because I‟m a scientist. All that matters to me is you know, you Google them, read their papers

BE

NE

VO

LE

NC

E

(positiv

e in

tention

and w

illin

gness t

o h

elp

)

Impo

rtan

t

A1, A2, A3, A4, G14, D6, D8

RA3 It‟s important to approach the person who will be willing to share that knowledge. I can think of people in the company you know, they would have a wealth of experience but you know, they wouldn‟t go out of their way to help people more or to necessarily share.

Mod

erat

e

A8, G6, D3, D5, D7, D9

RA8 Positive intention, it‟s just an expectation that I would have, I would expect people to have those qualities.

Not

Impo

rtan

t

B3, B4, G5, G9, G10,G13

RG10 I don‟t want someone who‟s got good intentions but is going to give me the wrong information.

INT

EG

RIT

Y

(ho

nesty

an

d c

redib

ility

)

Impo

rtan

t

A1, A4, A5, A7, A8, G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, C6, G8, G9, G10, G11, D1, D2, D3, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9

RA7 Honesty is very important. The information received from other project manager influence the decision that I‟m making and I‟d be pretty unhappy if I made a wrong decision based on data and the individual who I was talking to knew that. Essentially rug pulling RG8: That‟s what I value from someone being honest and frank with me. If I‟m going down the wrong track or yeah. I‟d rather that, rather than being nice and not wanting to offend me and giving me wrong information

Mod

erat

e

A7, B2, B6, D5

RA7 Credibility I guess is a measure of a person‟s confidence in another person‟s eyes. I can make my own assessment as to the whether I should apply the information that‟s been provided to me.

Not

Impo

rtan

t

B4, D9

RB4 Honesty doesn‟t really matter too much. Nobody within our team would be dishonest in the information sharing because it‟s black and white, the type of information. It‟s not as if you‟re talking about soliciting new customers.


169

In summary, across the four cases, three forms of trust — ability, benevolence and

integrity — were found to be related to I-PKS. The analysis from interviews and

questionnaire confirmed that trust has a strong impact on the transfer of knowledge

in the inter-project context. It was found that when trust exists, PMs are more willing

to seek and more confident to apply knowledge received from others to a project.

According to the analysis provided above, it is proposed that:

Proposition 4: Ability and integrity trust, and in a more limited fashion

benevolence trust, increase the likelihood of I-PKS.

6.4.1. The Contingent Effect of Integrity Trust

Analysis of the interview data revealed that there is a relationship between the ability

and integrity dimensions. Within-case analysis of Alpha, Gamma and Delta provided

evidence suggesting that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability

trust and KS. Integrity trust is a perception that the trustee adheres to a set of

principles that the trustor finds acceptable (i.e., honesty and credibility). Ability

refers to a perception that another party is knowledgeable and possesses a certain

level of competence and skills (Mayer, et al., 1995).

Across all cases, it was apparent that ability trust highly contributes to KS between

PMs, which means that PMs will seek knowledge from those who possess a certain

level of skills and competencies. At least three respondents from Alpha (A2, A5,

A8), four from Gamma (G1, G3, G5, G6), and three from Delta (D1, D5, D8)

provided evidence signifying that although ability contributes, it is the integrity that

reinforces KS behaviours, which means that PMs will be reluctant to seek knowledge

from a person who they perceive has not been honest with them in the past, even

though it is believed this person is knowledgeable and possesses information they

look for. Below there are some remarks from respondents on the contingency role of

integrity trust:

―[Competence and professionalism] are beneficial and it‘s nice to have

those things but I think it‘s more critical that when I‘m asking someone a

question or asking for some information that I know that they‘re telling


170

me the truth [are honest with me]. I would expect that if someone is

working in the organisation, they are competent, the company has

deemed them [to be] ... they wouldn‘t have been in that position if they

were not competent in their job‖ (A8).

―Somebody would have to be competent for me to go and seek them out

to get information from them...and I would want to ensure that if they are

competent well they‘d need to be competent, that they‘d need to be

honest [and don‘t have] any hidden agenda‘s or anything like that‖ (G2).

―skills and competency... I mean none of that is really useful if they‘re

not honest‖ (D8).

At Beta there was no evidence that integrity reinforces the relationship between

ability and KS. Explanation building analysis helped to clarify why this is the case.

At Beta, knowledge that was shared required evidence, ―because it‘s black and

white, the type of information [we share]‖ (B4) indicating that the information had to

be credible because it was largely available for others to use. The person who put the

knowledge in would make sure the knowledge is credible because he or she would

not like to be perceived as not experienced and lose their position of importance.

Nonetheless, cross-case data provided evidence suggesting that PMs will seek

knowledge from a person whose ability they believe in, but it would be the presence

of integrity trust that powers that KS behaviour. Evidence from Beta indicates that

this can be the case especially when knowledge shared is tacit, not stored for others

to use. This leads to the following proposition:

Proposition 5a: An essential pre-requisite for positive I-PKS outcomes

is the presence of ability trust between project members.

Proposition 5b: The presence of integrity trust further enhances the

efficacy of ability trust in relation to its role in I-KPS.


171

6.4.2. The Effect of Organisational Culture on

Trusting Relationships

Overall, the questionnaire results provided evidence suggesting that all three forms

of trust positively contribute to I-PKS. However, data from the interviews revealed

there were distinct views on the level of importance of trust between cases.

Explanation building analysis provided clarification as to why perceptions of trust

differed across the four organisations.

Questionnaire results provided evidence that PMs seek knowledge from those

individuals whom they believe possess a high level of the three forms of trust, and

data from interviews revealed the existence of the three forms of trust as being

essential for KS to occur. At Alpha there was an awareness that people need to be

helpful and willing to share. Nevertheless, it was recognised that the competitive and

achievement-focused culture at Alpha means that there are some people in the

company who have a wealth of experience, but they would choose to protect their

knowledge and expertise rather than help others. This means that respondents from

Alpha were aware that some PMs are reluctant to share their knowledge. Therefore,

they sought knowledge only from those whom they trusted.

The circumstances are different at Beta, whose personnel valued codified knowledge

over tacit. People were happy to talk, but information was valuable when hard coded

and documented: ―when we later discuss things with [the] director, there is a need

for data, for supporting evidence‖ (B1). One project leader commented, ―nobody

within our team would be dishonest in the information sharing because it‘s black and

white, the type of information [we share]‖ (B4). Also, with regard to ability trust,

respondents referred to its importance primarily in relation to the transfer of codified

knowledge. Analysis revealed that Beta‘s culture is evidence-based, characterised by

measurement, process control and the use of quality tools. Knowledge is mainly

acquired from databases where everything is ‗black and white‘ and formal meetings

are valued more than informal interaction. Trust essentially involves the assumption

of risk (a probability of loss) since confidence eliminates risk by ignoring possible

alternatives; the absence of risk removes the need for investing in trust-building


172

initiatives. In Beta, there is not much risk involved in KS because people do not rely

on each other while searching for knowledge; instead they use databases in which

input is reviewed and controlled. Thus, the knowledge seeker is confident that the

information he/she acquired comes from reliable sources. Trust is a willingness to

take a risk and it is critical in uncertain and risky situations. Therefore, this

environment does not create risky condition and trust is not perceived as important,

which is why integrity and benevolence are perceived to be low priorities.

An alternative explanation can be that achievement oriented, focused on winning and

competition culture at Beta means that PMs rely on non-organic mechanisms and do

not want to take a risk in trusting others for knowledge.

On the other hand, at Gamma, project shortcomings were seen as opportunities rather

than failures, the organisation provided support to newcomers and rewarded those

who made an extra effort to help another team member, and people were encouraged

to learn from their mistakes. Gamma creates opportunities for building strong and

friendly relationships, as well as opportunities to share knowledge. In this

environment, people can rely on each other and positive intentions are simply

assumed and therefore not considered to be critical. At Gamma, the majority of

respondents reported that people are encouraged to talk amongst themselves and new

ideas are welcomed. Gamma reportedly built a KS-focused culture. It was also

reported in Gamma that honesty and credibility ―it‘s something I guess we assume at

our company‖. It was reported:

―Maybe we take those things [honesty and credibility] for granted if we

have a good organisational culture. So like I said here, most people are

honest and um, some people are reliable, not all. But I think it‘s

something I guess we assume at [Gamma]. We assume that because

someone works here, generally get very reliable and very honest and it‘s

more like when there‘s an exception to that‖ (G14).

At Delta the role of benevolence trust in KS was perceived to be moderate. There are

two potential reasons related to OC that can explain this perception. First, it might be

that at Delta MIN, similarly at Gamma, culture is focused on teamwork and


173

employee involvement, and people are happy to help each other, largely ―just about

everybody will go out of their way in this group so it‘s kind of not a situation that we

have that I have to deal with too often‖ (D3). Therefore, this willingness to share

knowledge is assumed, thus not perceived as critical.

An alternative explanation is related to the overall Delta culture, which was focused

on innovation and development (characteristics of Adhocracy). It might be that

project leaders from Delta who know that their colleagues are preoccupied with their

projects are not expecting them to go out of their way and offer help. It was reported

that everybody had different agendas, different day-to-day concerns, and different

things they wanted to receive and achieve. ―They don‘t always have to align

completely with what you‘re doing and what you want to get out of it‖ (D7). Another

added, ―I don‘t expect people to go out of their way, they‘ve got their own work to

do‖ (D5). This can explain why in such an environment benevolence was not

expected, thus perceived moderate.

The above discussion revealed that OC appears to determine the perception of trust

and its value as a key facilitating driver of knowledge sharing behaviours. It also

explains why the perception of trust differed across the cases and showed that these

differences appear to be related to OC. Accordingly, it is proposed:

Proposition 6: Organisational culture is likely to determine the

perception of the value of trust as a key facilitating driver of I-PKS

behaviours.

6.5. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS

This section presents findings from the cross-case analysis of KSM and answers the

third research question: How can different KSMs (relational, project management

tools and process, and technology) improve I-PKS behaviours? There was a range of

different KSM available for PMs across all cases, including relational mechanisms

(face-to-face formal and informal meetings), project management tools and processes

(LL repositories, PMO), and a range of technology mechanisms (such as e-mails,


174

wikis, intranet, teleconferencing, software registry and shared-drives). These

technology mechanisms are further divided according to the typology proposed by

Alavi et al. (2006), into IntellectWeb Tools which support collaboration and content

management providing capabilities for messaging, calendaring, online chat,

application sharing and discussion forums (i.e., wikis, Google wave and other Web

2.0 applications), and Enterprise Repositories that consist of soft or hard copy

documents and databases of codified knowledge from internal and external sources.

The analysis of technology mechanisms focused primarily on IntellectWeb Tools

having great potential for collaborative KS between geographically dispersed PMs

and the avenue for LL.

In each case, it was apparent that PMs primarily transferred knowledge through face-

to-face interaction. Table 6.4 illustrates the important and/or primarily used

mechanisms for inter-project knowledge exchange. A numerical count analysis in

combination with a matrix query was used as a proxy indicator of the number of

respondents stating their preferable and/or most often used mechanisms for cross-

project KS. It often occurred that one respondent reported on more than one

mechanism.

Table 6-4: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for I-PKS

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA

(n=8) (n=6) (n=14) (n=9)


Face-to-face Informal 7 2 9 5

Face-to-face Formal 5 5 11 0

Project Management

Tools and Processes


4 0 3 0

PMO 3 2 5 N/A*



6 1 4 4

Enterprise Repositories (i.e. intranet, share drive)

5 3 4 3

* – not available

The analysis of cases found several reasons explaining why PMs preferred face-to-

face interaction over other mechanisms. Firstly, there was strong support that PMs

are verbal and prefer to talk to each other instead of searching through databases.


175

Secondly, data provided evidence that PMs are people-oriented and have well-

developed soft skills. PMs reported that they prefer face-to-face interaction because

they can read body language or see when people are lying to them. Thirdly, project

knowledge often requires context, otherwise it cannot be easily understood and

applied. Non-verbal interaction lacks the ability to put knowledge into context, and

face-to-face mechanisms work better in this case. Fourthly, verbal knowledge

exchange was preferable in the project environment because it provides instant

feedback, while documenting and searching for knowledge in databases was reported

to be time consuming. Table 6.5 provides major remarks from respondents about

why they prefer face-to-face interactions over other KSMs.

Table 6-5: Major remarks from respondents about why they prefer face-to-face over other KSMs

ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA

I like to talk to people face to face and I can work out really if what they‟re telling me is the truth…You get the odd one that you can‟t pick but generally...., I had one guy that if he‟s telling the truth, not telling the truth, if he knows his subject matter and is confident with it he will just bam, fantastic, really good presentations telling me what....if he doesn‟t every second word is, instead of ummmmm he says „basically‟… And again you don‟t get that via email (A8).

From my personal experience, you can‟t beat face-to-face communication because you know, if you send an email it can be misconstrued, you can‟t have a tone in an email, you don‟t get the facial expression, you don‟t get if somebody‟s smiling at you as there talking (B6). I sit at my desk and I‟m on the phone and emails are falling in and I just don‟t have time, there‟s too many [things to do]. So pick up the phone and talk to me, get an answer to your question and move on (B6).

I‟m a verbal communicator, I like being able to talk it through so I love it. You know, I like to turn around and say hey, yes... (G6) I find face-to-face

communications so

much better

because electronic

communications do

not necessarily have

the same speed. So

you might send

someone an email

but they might not

read it for a day, two

days or whatever

(G12).

If you‟re working in a project area and quite often it‟s personal talk and communication... particularly when you‟re explaining why you want to do things, you‟ve got to put it into a context that they understand. Which means sometimes you have to explain the context which means that on a personal level it‟s quite often better to do that because you get a lot more back about what they think or understand about what you mean (D6). If you‟re trying to get good ideas flowing and running then you suggest something you get queried about it, you suggest something else, you modify it (D6).


176

Nonetheless, face-to-face interaction is not always possible, especially when

expertise needs to be transferred across geographical locations. The analysis found

that there is a range of alternative tools and mechanisms that support KS when face-

to-face is not possible or recommended. Also, project management methodologies

have already established some of the techniques that facilitate I-PKS, including the

capturing and storing of LL and post project reviews. However, analysis across the

four cases revealed that PMs tend to be resistant to formal processes and most of the

respondents reported they are reluctant to use these mechanisms. Subsection 6.5.1

investigates the reasons why PMs do not use LL and provides some solutions. The

proposition related to the use of KSM to improve I-PKS is presented at the end of

section 6.5.4.

6.5.1. Issues with Lessons Learned Across the

Cases

In three cases (Alpha, Beta and Gamma), LL documents were required at the end of

each project. Delta did not produce LL at all. At Beta and Alpha, LL captured the

‗know-what‘ and ‗know-how‘ knowledge; at Gamma, LL were mainly created to

improve project processes (‗know-how‘). However, analysis showed that PMs

seldom search through LL documents. ―We produce lessons learned, but we use them

poorly‖ — this summarises the overall state of LL in the cases that used LL

databases.

The within-case analysis found a range of reasons why PMs were reluctant to use LL

databases. For example, it was found that the process of capturing, storing and

reusing LL was partial and ineffective. At Alpha it was reported that every LL

document has a different format, different questions, no set structure and a lack of

common theme. PMs from Beta and Gamma complained that ―lessons learned are

usually done at a high level‖ focusing primarily on process improvement, and the

results and actions taken were not reported back to the managers, leading to a

breakdown in the double loop learning process. In this circumstance, PMs did not see

much value in LL, producing them only because it was formally required ‗to tick the

box‘. As noted previously, one PM commented, ―you can put all the stuff [LL] in


177

document, file your document in the folder and file away, so you can ticked that you

have done your lessons learned, but you never see it again‖ (B2). Also, a PM at

Gamma admitted that she produces LL rarely because ―we‘ve got much more

pressing things to do... they can be shared in a verbal way‖ (G5). These issues

identified in the within-case analysis are captured and summarised in Table 6.6. The

within-case analysis identified problems with quality, visibility and lack of

appropriate LL processes. LL quality represents the clarity of their content and

scope. Visibility corresponds to the degree to which LL can be accessed in the

organisation. Processes refer to the development and implementation of LL.

Table 6-6: LL issues

ISSUES ALPHA BETA GAMMA

QUALITY Poor format — Lack of consistent set of structure to produce LL

Only some project managers update LL documents

VISIBILITY

Captured and stored in a way that is not conducive to sharing

LL are not stored in a concise location

LL spreadsheet contains a large amount of

historical that is hard to deal with

Lack of visibility to see how LL are

progressing

PROCESSES

Lack of LL ownership — a person or group responsible for implementing changes, and following up

Lack of process to ensure LL are captured throughout the project

Lack of process that would require searching through LL documents, only individual‘s

initiative

Some solutions on how to improve LL databases have been proposed by companies.

For example, to improve the LL quality and process, Alpha introduced LL

ownership, a person from the PMO responsible for quality and input. Gamma

introduced an updated work packages request with a section on LL, so project

members can systematically provide feedback when they hand over work packages

after the completion of tasks. Alpha introduced a wiki (still on a trial stage) to

improve visibility and capture LL more informally throughout the project. More


178

suggestions on how to improve LL processes can be found in Chapter 6 under the

practical implications section.

The next section focuses on the potential of IntellectWeb Tools, namely wikis, for

inter-project knowledge exchange because respondents extensively commented on

the use of these collaborative tools to improve I-PKS, concluding that it allows for

explicit and tacit knowledge sharing. It was also suggested that wikis can become an

avenue for LL.

6.5.2. Wiki — the Avenue for Lessons Learned

and Tacit Knowledge Sharing

Some respondents saw a great potential for wikis to overcome current problems in

KS. All four organisations were in different stages of implementing wikis. Beta

implemented a wiki a couple of years ago, Alpha recently introduced a wiki (on a

trial period) and Gamma did not have a wiki (only one software design team used

wikis) although there was an initiative to introduce a wiki in 2006; the person who

developed this internet channel strategy went on long service leave, and his

successor made the decision to not proceed with the initiative. At Delta, a wiki was

established in 2005 and all current project documentation has since been stored there;

it has become the most frequently used internal tool for a knowledge base.

Overall, the attitude towards wikis as tools for knowledge exchange was very

positive across all four cases. This stance was also present among respondents whose

organisation did not employ a wiki (Gamma), who commented that the decision to

discontinue using the wiki is ―one of their major fails‖ (G4). Nonetheless, some

people were reluctant to use the wiki; they were mostly concerned with the quality of

information and lack of time for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. A

SWOT analysis has been conducted to determine the strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities and threats associated with wikis (see Figure 6.3).


179

STRENGTHS

• Shared location that everyone can view and update

• Interactive tool • Allows discoverability • Allows visibility/transparency • User friendly • Provides useful source of information for

PMs • Provides useful source of information for

customers • Provides useful source of information for

new employees • Allows sharing of tacit knowledge • It is useful for business intelligence

information • Provides alternative communication type for

distributed projects

WEAKNESSES

• Too little information • Poor quality of entries

OPPORTUNITIES, REASONS TO

APPLY WIKIS

• To share knowledge (also tacit) quicker and more informal

• To improve visibility • To keep knowledge and information on all

the projects in one space • To better systematise LL • To capture LL in the earlier project stages • To capture LL more informally

POTENTIAL THREAT, RISKS,

DANGER

• Can easily become outdated while not used • Poor quality of entries • Lack of time to maintain • It is just another IT tool to maintain (people

who use alternative tools will not update wikis)

• Relatively new tool, people are resistant to use it and/or do not know how to use it

Figure 6-3: SWOT analysis on wikis across the four cases


180

Even though it was found that wikis have more strengths than weaknesses, and most

people saw the advantages of applying wikis, there were also potential dangers

associated with them. The main concerns with wikis were that, if not used, they can

easily become outdated; sometimes they have poor quality entries; there is a lack of

time to maintain them; or they are simply another IT tool to maintain (people who

use alternative tools will not update wikis). On PM commented, ―once you start

getting really busy that‘s kind of at the bottom of the list, you don‘t maintain it and it

becomes useless‖ (A5). A PM from Gamma agreed, saying, ―I have found that if it

does not get updated with the frequency and the depth that you want that could be a

bit dangerous‖ (G9).

According to respondents, most of the potential risks associated with wikis could be

overcome by employing someone responsible for the update and maintenance of the

software: ―you‘re still going to need people to maintain it; that‘s my main bug-bear.

You‘ve got to have the maintenance to put data in there because as soon as it comes

bad, people don‘t trust it and they don‘t go back to there to use it‖ (A2). The

problem with the lack of ownership has been successfully resolved at Beta, where

such a role was assigned to the PPO representative. She maintained the wiki entries

associated with static information and LL. At Alpha, the risk of poor quality entries

was resolved by project management quality control where wiki entries related to

project lessons firstly go to PMs for quality assessment before they are entered into

the system.

Analysis from the case studies showed that the case organisations do not fully utilise

their wikis. For example, Beta uses wikis mainly to store static information, while

Alpha is primarily focused on capturing LL. Furthermore, according to the

respondents, some information and knowledge entered into wikis requires

maintenance and quality control, and other entries should be freely managed and

built up by every employee. An overall analysis showed that wikis could become a

new avenue for LL, and the best way to share both tacit and explicit knowledge

across geographical locations. Herein, an appropriately implemented wiki can assist

in breaking silos across dispersed groups. Figure 6.4 displays areas that need to be

considered to ensure an updated and dynamic wiki. Chapter 7 presents practical


181

implications on how wikis should be implemented and maintained to enable them to

be a dynamic and comprehensive tool for I-PKS.

6.5.3. Project Management Office — the

Facilitator for Inter-project Knowledge Sharing

This section discusses the analysis on the PMO, examining PMOs‘ I-PKS

capabilities. A PMO is an organisational entity established to manage a specific

project or related series of projects, usually headed by a project or program manager

(Dai & Wells, 2004; Ward, 2000). According to the I-PKS Framework, it is one of

the project management related KS mechanisms. A cross-case analysis was

conducted to answer the question: how does the PMO facilitate I-PKS? In each case,

the PMO was in a different maturity level. At the time of data collection, Alpha was

in the process of setting up a PMO, which started in 2009. Ultimately, they aimed for

the middle range or slightly towards the mature end of PMO. In both cases, Beta and

Gamma PMOs had recently transitioned into more mature PPOs with additional

functions and more control over the projects. Delta did not have a dedicated PMO to

help in managing projects. There was one administrative employee working part time

who was helping with accessing project records, and a full time employee providing

commercial and legal support. In every case, the PMOs mostly provided

administrative support to the projects, facilitating procedural knowledge. Table 6.7

UPDATED AND DYNAMIC

WIKI

• Comprehensive

• Intelligible

• User Friendly

PROCESSES

• Ownership

• Active Leadership Engagement

• Organisational Culture

ENVIRONMENT

Figure 6-4: Factors which ensure improved wikis


182

shows PMO functions and PMs‘ expectations of their respective PMO. Alpha‘s

responses relating to PMO functions were obtained primarily from the PMO

personnel, who reported that those functions are planned to be implemented in the

near future.

Table 6-7: PMO functions versus PMs’ expectations about the PMO

FUNCTIONS ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA

1 : Provide administrative support 1 1 1 1

2 : Provide training, workshops, seminars, courses

1 0 1 0

3 : Provide informal and formal social interaction

1 0 1 0

4 : Quality assurance through control and reviews

1 1 1 0

5 : Passive repository for LL 1 0 1 0

EXPECTATIONS ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA

1 : Facilitate procedural knowledge sharing 1 0 1 0

2 : Repository for LL 1 1 0 0

3 : Provide expertise knowledge 0 1 1 0

4 : Ensure quality and control 1 1 0 0

5 : Provide training, certification, support 1 1 0 0

6 : Facilitate interaction between PMs and project parties

1 0 0 0

7 : Improve visibility and transparency between projects

1 1 0 0

Data revealed that PMs had a range of expectations of PMOs, related to I-PKS,

including ensuring transparency in managing projects by becoming the repository for

LL, and providing support in finding the best practices of work procedures through

improved integration and collaboration among PMs. Beta and Gamma commented

on the need for experts‘ involvement in providing ‗know-how‘ knowledge to PMs.

PMs from Alpha and Beta reported that they expected their PMO to provide a certain

level of control and quality assurance in order to maintain consistency in reporting

and project management processes. Analysis revealed that PMOs in each

participating organisation provide PMs with the necessary tools to support projects,

including project management standards, templates and guidelines on how to

conduct projects, technical guidelines, checklists and manuals. It was also revealed


183

that PMOs at Alpha and Gamma already provide a certain level of project control,

which includes quality control of project management reports, value management

support, budget control and gate reviews.

As seen in Table 6.7, the overall analysis showed that the PMO functions and

expectations significantly overlap. Nevertheless, there were discrepancies in each

separate case, and analysis provided evidence that not every PMO satisfied the

expectations of PMs, who recognised that the PMO should play a more active role in

KS by promoting interactions between projects and providing expertise knowledge,

thus ultimately facilitating tacit KS. This function was partly performed at Gamma,

where the PMO organised monthly project management forums during which PMs

prepared short presentations on the challenges they have encountered in their

projects and how they resolved them. Moreover, PMs at Gamma could anytime

approach a PMO officer and discuss the issues they encountered in their projects.

6.5.4. Summary — Knowledge Sharing

Mechanisms

This cross-case analysis of KSM showed that face-to-face interactions appear to be

the most preferred means to share knowledge. However, face-to-face is not always

possible or recommended. Thus, data suggests that well implemented collaborative

mechanisms and PMOs have the capability to share both tacit and explicit knowledge

and can improve I-PKS, especially between geographically dispersed PMs.

6.6. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, KNOWLEDGE

SHARING MECHANISMS AND TRUST

In this section explanation building analysis was used to explain the relationships

between OC, trust and KSM. Literature presents two views; on the one hand, there is

a body of knowledge stating that organisational culture influences trust (Issa &

Haddad, 2008; Whitener, et al., 1998). On the other hand, there is work implying that


184

organisational culture influences the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms (Alavi,

et al., 2006). This research indicates that the trust is perhaps an under-considered

element linking these two factors. Only a limited amount of research has been done

to integrate these factors of OC, trust, and knowledge sharing mechanisms (Issa &

Haddad, 2008). Taken together, evidence from within case analysis investigating the

relationship between OC, trust, and KSM provides some explanations.

First, this research implies that different organisational cultures may value different

mechanisms to share knowledge, and the use of these mechanisms may actually

effect the development of trusting relationships. For example, within-case analysis of

Beta showed that at Beta a predominantly control-focus culture meant that PMs

stored information in documents. In this organisation even mechanisms collaborative

in nature, such as wikis, were not exploited to their fullest extent and used to store

mostly static information. As a result, Beta heavily relied on explicit rather than tacit

knowledge. Furthermore, evidence from Beta showed that only ability trust was

referred to as important, and respondents did not reflect on benevolence and integrity

as having any value in the I-PKS process. As such, it can be inferred that in Beta

PMs codified data into databases, which input was reviewed and controlled, with

PMs relying on colleagues for knowledge only to a limited extent. In this

circumstance there was not much perceived risk involved in knowledge sharing,

because there was no situation that created the need to be vulnerable when relying on

reviewed and trusted source of knowledge. This can explain the reason why the value

of trust was low at Beta. This can suggest that a direct consequence of the evidence-

based culture at Beta was that PMs demonstrated a preference for seeking knowledge

from ―non-organic‖ sources, and developed trust towards the ability of these sources.

Furthermore, the culture at Gamma appeared to encourage frequent interaction and

collaboration between project participants, and nurtured an environment (both

physical and metaphysical) where people could socialise and informally exchange

knowledge, hence, displaying attributes of Clan culture. This helps to explain why

Gamma personnel demonstrated a preference for exchanging knowledge via face-to-

face interaction. The frequent use of organic sources of knowledge therefore had a

―virtuous cycle‖ effect, where increased interaction was likely to create environment


185

for the development of trusting relationships, and increased trust stimulated further

interaction.

Supported by the results in Chapters 5 and 6, and further illustrated by the examples

above it is suggested that PMs from evidence-based cultures focus on control and

measures and are likely to rely on explicit source of information such as documents

for proof and verification, thus do not value trusting relationships as a key facilitating

driver for knowledge sharing. In contrast, PMs from trust and collaboration based

cultures are more likely to share their knowledge informally (Gamma and Delta

cases) and will demonstrate a tendency to rely on organic sources for knowledge,

such as colleagues and collaborative mechanisms, which under the right conditions

can be self-reinforcing.

An extension of this point based on within case analysis and related to the

relationships between OC, trust, and KSM, suggests that organisational culture

creates an environment for trust or the absence of trust, hence determine the use of

knowledge sharing mechanisms. For instance, data from interviews at Gamma

provided evidence that culture was focused on non-blaming and collaboration, and

project pitfalls were viewed as opportunities for improvement rather than failures.

Thus, PMs were likely to openly share knowledge. This type of environment has a

strong potential to create trusting relationships, and fostered trust to be embedded in

the culture. It is then this trusting environment at Gamma that was likely to create

opportunities for more open inter-project knowledge sharing where peers trusted

knowledge acquired from their colleagues, hence felt safe to share knowledge

informally, and valued organic sources. Similarly, at Delta, the within-case analyses

suggested that friendly, informal atmospheres were conducive to people being honest

about their likes and dislikes. These trusting relationships could therefore be the

reason for unbounded knowledge sharing that occurred at Delta, where peers felt

secure to share knowledge informally, valuing organic sources.

It is suggested that collaborative, informal and non-blaming environments, common

for Clan type cultures, (for example Gamma and Delta MIN cases), appears to create

opportunities for more open inter-project knowledge sharing where peers trust

knowledge acquired from their colleagues, and are willing to share knowledge


186

informally during face-to-face interactions. As a result project members are more

likely to rely on and value organic sources for knowledge, such as colleagues and

other collaborative mechanisms.

Accordingly, culture appears to influence both, the use of knowledge sharing

mechanisms as well as the development of trusting relationships, and these trusting

relationships and KSM are mutually reinforcing. This means that using informal,

organic sources of knowledge creates platform for the development of trusting

relationships. These trusting relationships help PMs feel secure to search for

knowledge, without the need for support and evidence, thus give confidence to use

these less formal sources of knowledge. Based on that it is proposed:

Proposition 7a: Project managers from cultures that facilitate frequent

interaction, informality and collaboration (displaying characteristics of

Clan type) are more likely to value organic sources of knowledge and

therefore enabling trust as a key facilitating driver.

Proposition 7b: Project managers from cultures that are empirically

driven and based on control, efficiency, and explicit measures

(displaying characteristics of Hierarchy and Market types) are more

likely to value non-organic sources of knowledge and therefore display a

tendency to develop trust primarily in favour of these sources.

6.7. SUMMARY

This cross-case examination of data was conducted to answer research questions

related to the role of I-PKS elements in I-PKS. It compared the cases looking for

similarities and differences between them. In the situation where organisational

behaviours did not match the pattern observed in the majority of cases (i.e., Alpha,

Gamma and Delta reported on the contingency effect of integrity trust, while Beta

did not), further analysis was conducted aiming to explain the reason for this

discrepancy. This explanation building technique provided clarification, further

strengthening the emerging proposition. Overall, it was found that KS behaviours are


187

highly contextual and depend on organisational factors. That means that different

OCs and different proximities between PMs will result in different KS behaviours.

Findings across cases relating to ability, benevolence and integrity trust reported that

all three forms of trust positively contribute to I-PKS, with relationships present

between ability and integrity trusts. In relation to KSM, PMs across all cases

reported they prefer to share knowledge during face-to-face interactions. LL

databases were often not utilised due to the problems with quality, processes and

visibility. All cases reported on the potential of wikis for collaborative I-PKS. The

findings presented in this chapter are related to KS behaviours from the participating

cases. The next chapter refers to a broad range of literature to examine if the

propositions stated are similar, extend or contradict the broader context of current

literature.


188

Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications

189

7. Discussion and Implications

7.1. INTRODUCTION

This research used four case studies to explore the complex nature of inter-project

knowledge sharing (I-PKS) from a PM perspective, and provided a step towards a

better understanding of the complexity of KS behaviours in the project management

context. The I-PKS Framework, which defines the scope of the research, guided the

process of data collection and analysis.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide answers for the research questions and

permit some conclusions to be drawn from this research in response to the research

problem. Firstly, this chapter reflects on and reviews the findings, formalised as

propositions of the four research questions (covered in Chapters 5 and 6). Some

analysis revealed certain conditions leading to limited KS. Thus secondly, practical

implications based on the data and literature are also suggested.

7.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

Cross-case examination of data found that behaviours related to organisational

culture (OC) appear to affect I-PKS in at least two ways. Firstly, by influencing the

willingness to share knowledge, including LL relating to project pitfalls, and

secondly, by influencing I-PKS endeavours between geographical locations.


190

7.2.1. Culture and the Willingness to Share

Knowledge

Based on the analysis of the role of OC in I-PKS, it was proposed that organisations,

with the dominant characteristics of a Market culture, which values competitiveness

and achievement, and focuses on performance measures are somewhat hesitant to

share knowledge, whereas cultures displaying Clan type values that create a

collaborative environment in which people are encouraged to communicate, and

create a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, openly share knowledge even

related to project shortcomings (Propositions 1a and 1b).

Market culture is characterised by competitiveness, productivity, efficiency, stability,

accomplishment and an external focus. Although according to Kasper (2002) and

Cameron and Quinn (2005) Market cultures maintain a prime focus on the external

environment, and the literature on Market culture and KM primarily focuses on the

role of knowledge development in relationships with external competitors (Hult,

Ketchen, & Arrfelt, 2007; Kasper, 2002), the Alpha and Beta cases revealed that

competitiveness is also present within organisational boundaries causing hesitance to

share knowledge. This finding is consistent with that proposed by De Long and

Fahey (2000) who claim that cultures which emphasise individual power and

competition among employees, will lead to knowledge hoarding behaviours. De

Long and Fahey (2000) stated that if employees believe that sharing what they know

incurs personal risks and decreases power, then the social norms governing how

individuals should interact will not support KS behaviours.

Furthermore, this proposition is also consistent with observations made by

Davenport et al. (1998) who state that ‗knowledge friendly cultures‘ are one of the

important factors leading to successful KM projects. Those cultures, according to the

authors, highly value learning, where people are willing and free to explore, where

leaders encourage knowledge creation and use, and people do not feel that sharing

knowledge will cost them their jobs. DeLong and Fahey (2000) further argue that

value orientations such as trust and collaboration will lead to greater willingness

among firm members to share insights and expertise with each other.


191

Overall, this finding is consistent with the notion that, ‗good‘ cultural values such as

sharing and openness will lead to positive KS behaviours, whereas ‗bad‘ values will

lead to dysfunctional KS behaviours, such as information hoarding and, hence,

undesirable outcomes (Alavi, et al., 2006).

7.2.2. Cultural Differences and Knowledge

Sharing Between Co-located versus Dispersed

PMs

Analysis of Alpha and Delta cases observed that there were different KS behaviours

between co-located versus geographically dispersed PMs. Data from all four cases

provided evidence stating that PMs who were co-located exchanged knowledge and

shared experiences more frequently with each other than those who were in remote

locations. Similar findings were drawn from the case study conducted by Eskerod

and Skriver (2007). They found that a shared office improved KT between PMs who,

as a result of the sharing space, got to know each other better, developed informal

language and increased the level of trust. The proposition stated in Chapter 6

(Proposition 2) builds further upon this finding, revealing that geographical

proximity appears to have an indirect effect on KS behaviours by creating

opportunities for building close and bounded relationships, which are shown to

improve I-PKS. Similar findings have been drawn by Levin and Cross (2004) who

concluded that strong ties, characterised by close and frequent interactions, had a

more powerful and fundamental effect on the recipient of useful knowledge than did

proximity.

Furthermore, the evidence from cross-case analysis suggests that cultural differences

and silos exist between dispersed PMs, and reveals a range of issues. They include

limited collaboration, lack of a common approach in managing projects, and a

distinction between ‗us and them‘. These cultural differences that arise from

geographical dispersion appear to be the cause for limited I-PKS (Proposition 3).

This finding is consistent with Newell, David, and Chand (2007) who found that an

‗us versus them‘ attitude prevails among distributed sites, hampering the

development of trusting relationships and KS. Furthermore, findings from broader


192

research on social cohesion has also shown that feeling strong bonds of social

cohesion where people see each other as members of a shared group emphasises a

common purpose, increases the level of social interaction and a sense of belonging,

whereas a society lacking cohesion displays social disorder, low levels of social

interaction between and within communities, and low levels of place attachment

(Forrest & Kearns, 2001).

7.2.3. The Leadership Active Engagement in

Improving Knowledge Sharing Between

Dispersed Projects

Arenius, Artto, Lahti, and Meklin (2003) suggest that when social communication is

missing (i.e., due to geographical dispersion), a project must develop specific means

to increase communication (such as project databases, document archives etc.). This

research argues that establishing and getting people to use new means, as proposed

by Arenius and colleagues, is not an easy task. Cross-case analysis presented in

Chapter 6, Section 6.5, showed that PMs are verbally inclined; they prefer to share

knowledge via face-to-face interactions and rely heavily on their personal networks.

For example, Delta provides tools such as corporate sub-version repositories and

arranges remote meetings via teleconference. However, it was reported that the use

of these tools did not significantly improve working together. Instead, when sharing

knowledge people relied on their closely located colleagues. Analysis of OC at

Alpha and Delta also showed that cultural differences between PMs from different

locations led to limited KS. Conclusions drawn from within-case analysis of these

two cases revealed that although leaders encouraged PMs to collaborate and share

knowledge with projects from other locations, they did not actively contribute to this

sharing, and top management did not provide many training sessions or opportunities

for collaboration between geographical locations. This could suggest that a lack of

active leadership engagement indirectly led to the emergence of these silos.

Supporting this argument is the evidence from Alpha and Delta cases, suggesting

that active leadership engagement could improve KS between dispersed projects. In

both cases, data revealed that leaders have recently recognised the need for


193

collaboration and KS between dispersed groups, and the recent structural changes in

project management focus more towards providing a collaborative approach and are

slowly shifting organisational routines towards better I-PKS. For example at Alpha,

the recent establishment of the project management office (PMO) and wiki, which

are actively supported by the new leader, are the reasons that projects become more

visible and processes more integrated. Moreover, at least three respondents (A1, A2,

A4) commented that the use of collaborative tools depends on how much support is

given by senior management. Similarly at Delta, top management has recently

recognised the need for and tries to facilitate collaboration, for example, by

organising reading sessions and by providing collaborative tools for sharing

knowledge between dispersed groups. These new endeavours are aimed at improving

I-PKS. Furthermore, at Gamma there was evidence of leadership support in building

a non-blaming, collaborative culture which is open to sharing, which implied the

likely improvement of KS behaviours.

The above discussion suggests that collaboration and KS between silos and/or

between geographical locations is likely to be more effective when it is actively

supported by top management than by individual initiatives. Therefore, the lack of

active leadership support could also explain why KS between silos and/or between

geographical locations was minimal. This view is supported by Sveiby and Simons

(2002) who suggested that a collaborative climate can be enhanced by leaders who

encourage KS in actions not words, building open communication channels

throughout the organisation, where employees are stimulated to say what they think,

even if it means disagreeing with the people they report to.

Accordingly, this research agrees with Arenius et al. (2003) that introducing specific

means, that is intelligible collaborative technology mechanisms, can assist in KS

between geographical locations, but their use is reliant on organisational active

engagement that supports these practices. Sveiby and Simons (2002) stated that when

the collaborative climate is poor KS does not take place, no matter the sophistication

of the KM systems that are implemented, and concluded that leaders in an

organisation can have a large impact on the company‘s culture and its way of

operating, playing a tremendous role in enabling a collaborative climate.


194

Interviews at Gamma revealed that when the culture is based on caring and

understanding, and the project shortcomings are perceived as opportunities for

improvement rather than failures, PMs are willing to share any kind of knowledge —

even the knowledge related to their project pitfalls. Goh (2002) advocates that

failures should be expected and tolerated, and treated as learning lessons by

employees and the organisation. Furthermore, De Long and Fahey (2000) refer to

the best practice example of the U.S. Army who formally considers knowledge-

sharing capabilities when identifying candidates for promotion, and values

recognising mistakes more than the ability of fixing them. This, according to De

Long and Fahey (2000), stems from the battlefield experience, where no plan is ever

carried out without errors. Therefore, the ability to recognise, evaluate and correct

mistakes becomes critical to success. This example of the battlefield experience is

somewhat similar to managing projects where every project is different and

uncertainty is always present. Thus, assessing project risk from past lessons and

experiences is critical for a project's success. Recognising and sharing project

mistakes as well as taking into account the LL from past projects will increase

organisations‘ knowledge capability, advance their risk management, and help to

achieve long term continuous improvement.

In reality PMs will not share their project pitfalls if they continue to be blamed, cut

down or their position is threatened, as in the examples of Alpha and Beta. ‗Healthy‘

competitiveness is essential to improve performance, but it is not recommended if it

leads to knowledge hoarding. The Gamma case study showed that the changes of

leadership, who brought more control in the organisation, had a power to shift the

culture from Clan to Hierarchy. It is therefore suggested that leaders can have an

influence on culture, and as a result impact KS behaviours.

7.2.3.1. Practical Implications

This research suggests that in cultures where the emphasis is on competition,

achievement and winning, it is the leaders who can promote KS by recognising those

who have gone the extra mile to help a colleague. Leaders should not be defensive

about problems and be able to admit mistakes, as well as treat employees fairly

without blaming them for problems that arise. Harris and Ogbonna (2001) found that


195

the best leadership style for a Market culture is participative and supportive. Kasper

(2002) proposed that in a Market culture, achievement-oriented leaders who care

about people would be the best solution. Furthermore, Yang (2007) found that the

facilitator, mentor and innovator leadership styles positively influence collaboration

and KS, while the monitor style is negatively related to KS. A supportive leader, like

the one from Gamma case study before the transition, is the one who can endorse

feelings of belongingness and help PMs recognise they are not competing amongst

themselves, but are part of a team who, by sharing knowledge, will build its

knowledge capabilities and gain a competitive position in the market. It is therefore

suggested that active leadership engagement in promoting collaboration between

dispersed projects, encouraging the use of collaborative tools for KS, and ensuring

transparency of project management norms and practices increases the likelihood of

better I-PKS outcomes between geographically dispersed PMs.

7.3. THE ROLE OF TRUST

Although trust has been shown to influence KT (Koskinen, et al., 2003), knowledge

acquisition (Maurer, 2010), and knowledge use (Foos, et al., 2006), there is limited

research available on the role of different trust dimensions in KS (Holste & Fields,

2010; Levin & Cross, 2004). Cross-case analysis reported in Chapter 6, Section 6.4,

proposed that ability and integrity trust, and in a more limited fashion benevolence

trust, increase the likelihood of I-PKS (Proposition 4). Accordingly, this research

showed that for a better understanding of trusting behaviours it is important to

consider trust as a multidimensional concept, because the perception of the value of

different trust dimensions in KS can vary. This was also evident in the study

conducted by Pinto and colleagues (2009) who found that contractors‘ perceptions of

the role of trust in building healthy relationships differ from the perceptions of

owners. The authors concluded that integrity and competence trusts are important

determinants of healthy relationships for owners, but only integrity trust is a

predictor of positive working relationships for contractors (Pinto, et al., 2009).

Furthermore, according to the literature reviewed in Chapter 3, there is limited

research investigating the relationships between trust dimensions. This research


196

showed that integrity trust appears to have a contingent effect on the relationship

between ability trust and KS. That means that PMs will seek knowledge from a

person whose ability they believe in, but it would be the presence of integrity trust

between these individuals that reinforces that KS behaviour (Proposition 5a and

5b). This is a significant finding, demonstrating that although ability trust strongly

contributes to KS, it is in fact integrity trust that makes all the difference in the

sharing of knowledge. Accordingly, managers by promoting the development of

trusting relationships can set strong foundation for learning and more effective

knowledge sharing.

7.3.1. Practical Implications

To intentionally create trust or manage another party‘s propensity to trust is a

difficult task. However, it is possible to enhance conditions for trust-building. Trust

is context- and person-specific; hence the appropriate means and methods for

building trust should be considered carefully. Suggestions on how to develop trusting

relationships have been drawn from the cross-case analysis of participating

organisations. Some of the suggestions are aligned with those proposed by Abrams,

Cross, Lesser, and Levin (2003) and include:

reviewing organisational norms and practices that encourage or discourage

the high frequency of interaction and collaboration

supporting and recognising KS initiatives

endorsing and maintaining a friendly and non-competitive atmosphere at

work

creating an atmosphere for learning not blaming.

7.4. THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE SHARING

MECHANISMS

The cross-case analysis of knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) brought to light

that PMs preferred to share knowledge face-to-face. Analysis revealed that PMs are


197

verbally inclined and people-oriented. Face-to-face interactions enabled them to

share contextual knowledge and to provide instant feedback. Previous research has

repeatedly demonstrated the importance of social communication for cross-project

KS (e.g. Keegan & Turner, 2001; Newell, et al., 2006). Nevertheless, face-to-face

interaction is not always possible (due to geographical dispersion of PMs) or

recommended (some knowledge requires evidence and is better stored in

documented form). Therefore maintaining a LL database could improve KS between

projects. Consequently a statement can be drawn that both face-to-face interactions

as well as explicit information channels, like electronic or documented LL, appear to

be equally important in a project environment, and project-based organisations

(PBOs) should facilitate access to both.

Nonetheless, this research showed that little use was made of the project

documentation stored on databases. Turner, et al. (2000) and Newell, et al. (2006)

found a similar pattern, and Turner, et al. (2000) concluded that the practice of

storing knowledge simply became a meaningless box-ticking exercise. This research

builds upon these findings and Chapter 6, Section 6.5.1, revealing a range of issues

related to quality, processes and visibility of LL, including:

a lack of consistent set of structure to produce, store and share LL

the way LL are captured is not conducive to sharing; LL are not stored in a

concise location, or the LL spreadsheet contains a large amount of historical

data that is hard to deal with

a lack of visibility to see how LL are progressing

a lack of LL ownership; someone who is responsible for managing LL,

implementing changes and following up.

Respondents recognised that there are no processes in place that could ensure that LL

are captured throughout a project, or stored and reviewed at the beginning of a new

project. Realising these issues helps to make sense of why so little use was made of

the project documentation stored on the databases.

Furthermore, the reasons why PMs did not search through past project knowledge

was related to time pressure. Projects are time-orientated and from case data it is


198

apparent that PMs are often running out of time to deliver the project. Thus, they

have little time and motivation to search for knowledge in databases, which are

normally in a PDF format, and difficult to search through and leverage for future

projects. They also have no time to reflect on their experience and document

knowledge for future use; thus, prefer to refer to their peers.

In addition, analysis showed that knowledge intensive PMOs could potentially

relieve PMs by providing ownership of LL as well as expertise, mentoring and

advice for PMs. This argument is aligned with the existing studies emphasising the

need for the active role of knowledge-intensive PMOs in managing the best practices

of project management, and learning from projects (both failures and successes) (Dai

& Wells, 2004; Desouza & Evaristo, 2006; Liu & Yetton, 2007).

7.4.1. Practical Implications

Some practical implications to improve LL quality, visibility and processes have

been drawn from the cross-case analysis and practices used by participating

organisations, they include:

introducing an easily accessible, intelligible and user-friendly LL database

introducing LL ownership — a person accountable for LL implementation

cataloguing LL according to themes

keeping LL in one place

developing a clear action plan for capturing, documenting and sharing LL

throughout the project.

Within- and cross-case analyses found that the use of IntellectWeb Tools such as a

wiki can improve the visibility and capture of LL more informally throughout the

project. Normally, LL are captured and stored in a project folder, LL spreadsheet or

shared drive. The use of more interactive tools to capture and share LL could visibly

improve their use.

These IntellectWeb Tools have recently become an alternative to more static

knowledge repositories; they serve to not only store any explicit knowledge, but are


199

also used for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. Cross-case analysis

revealed that one of these tools, a wiki, can become both the avenue for LL as well

as the facilitator for tacit KS between geographically dispersed projects.

The implications for how to ensure updated and dynamic wikis for I-PKS were

drawn from the comments raised by respondents across four cases and are presented

in Figure 7.1. According to the respondents a wiki‘s design should be user friendly

and intelligible, have search capability with indexing for a more intuitive way of

finding knowledge, and be integrated with project management processes and quality

systems to manage projects from end–to-end. Feedback from respondents provided

types of information and project knowledge available and stored in wikis:

static information

links to processes

LL

valuable links

technical information

space for collaboration and knowledge exchange.

Consequently wiki entries should be categorised by the level of control and

maintenance required:

require ownership to maintain and quality control

require moderate ownership control and maintenance

free entries.

According to respondents wikis must have an owner — a person responsible for

updating and maintaining some of the entries, especially those related to static info

and LL. The other entries associated with collaboration and sharing of tacit

knowledge should be maintained by employees, encouraged to use wikis by their

leaders and an open OC. A comprehensive, intelligible and user-friendly tool

supported by leadership engagement, a collaborative culture and ownership will

ensure an effective and vibrant tool for I-PKS. Figure 7.1 provides some suggestions

on how to ensure wikis are an updated and dynamic collaborative tool for I-PKS.


200

Despite PMs‘ lack of time to maintain wikis and update LL databases, there does

exist the PMO, which can provide a great advantage for PMs in managing project

knowledge and facilitating access to all kinds of knowledge. Two PMO roles,

administrative and knowledge intensive, can help to facilitate KS by providing

expertise and organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation,

and explicit KS by ensuring transparent project management processes and by

managing repositories for LL including collaborative tools.

Figure 7-1: Suggestions how to ensure updated and dynamic collaborative tool for I-PKS

Updated and Dynamic WIKI

User friendly (for example have search capability with indexing for more intuitive way of finding knowledge)

Intelligible

Comprehensive (have end to end processes)

DESIGN

REQUIRE OWNERSHIP TO MAINTAIN AND QUALITY

CONTROL

REQUIRE MODERATE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL

AND MAINTENANCE FREE ENTRIES

Explicit knowledge Tacit and explicit

knowledge Tacit knowledge

Static info

Links to processes

LL

Valuable links

Technical info

Space for collaboration and knowledge exchange

CONTENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ENTRIES

Active support and engagement to use wiki

Once you show them how to do things and they find it at least remotely useful then they‘re more than happy enough to go along with it (D3).

LEADERSHIP ENGAGEMENT

Cultural norms and practices supporting the use of wiki

Whilst the wiki is probably the way to do things and I don‟t think in itself it‟s the solution, it can‟t be seen purely as being a magic bullet. It comes down to actually having the organisational culture…. Because without creating that appropriate culture and encouraging that culture, it‟s just spending lots of money on a technical project which then nobody uses (G4)

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE

A person responsible for updating and maintaining entries.

Someone‟s got to drive it! You‟re still going to need people to maintain it, that‟s my main bug-bear. You‟ve got to have, it‟s the maintenance to put data in there because as soon as it comes bad, people don‟t trust it and they don‟t go back to there as a rule. (A2)

OWNERSHIP


202

7.5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL

CULTURE, TRUST AND MECHANISMS

The analysis of culture and trust across all four cases provided evidence, formalised

as Proposition 6, that the perception towards trusting behaviours and value of trust

as facilitator of KS were influenced by the culture. For example at Beta, benevolence

and integrity trusts were perceived low priority because the OC was based on control

and measures, and knowledge was normally hard coded, therefore there was no risk

associated with KS. This is consistent with the observation made by Hosmer (1995)

and Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner (1998) who concluded that the use of

these mechanisms (control and measures) minimises the need to trust employees to

act in organisationally desirable ways. This is because trust involves the assumption

of risk, a probability of loss, thus the use of monitoring and control mechanisms

reduce the risk and the need to trust. On the other hand at Gamma, where the culture

was focused on open communication and shortcomings were seen as opportunities

rather than failures, benevolence trust was simply assumed in the organisation, thus

not perceived as important for KS. The cross-case examination of data concluded

that an OC that fosters a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, and

facilitates a collaborative environment in which people are encouraged to share

knowledge is more likely to improve trusting relationships. Accordingly, this

research extends the theoretical proposition of Whitener et al. (1998) by providing

empirical evidence that OC is likely to affect trusting behaviours and the perception

towards trust as a facilitator of KS. Moreover, this research also extends the study

conducted by Issa and Haddad (2008) who found that the ‗proper organisational

culture‘ is significantly related to mutual trust between employees, but considered

interrelations between OC, trust and knowledge sharing only to a limited extent, and

did not focus on cultural nor trust dimensions.

Moreover, analysis of cases Beta, Gamma and Delta showed that culture appears to

also affect the use of KSM. Chapter 6, Section 6.6, showed that at Beta, the culture is

evidence-based relying on explicit sources for knowledge, whereas Gamma and MIN

Delta who display characteristics of a Clan type culture promoting informality and

collaboration, rely primarily on colleagues. This is consistent with other research (De


203

Long & Fahey, 2000) which argues that some firms rely heavily on formal meetings,

while others promote frequent, unplanned and unstructured interactions among

employees. Depending on the culture, these formal and informal interactions are

valued differently, which results in different patterns of KS.

Combining these two findings together, it can be observed that different culture types

appear to affect the utility of different mechanisms to share knowledge, and as a

result influence trusting behaviours. Accordingly, cross-case analysis formally

proposed that: an OC that facilitates the characteristics of a Clan type culture is more

likely to result in people valuing organic sources of knowledge, therefore enabling

trust as a key facilitating driver. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven and

based on control, efficiency and measures (characteristics of Hierarchy and Market

types) are more likely to value non-organic sources of knowledge and therefore

display a tendency to develop trust primarily in the ability of these sources

(Propositions 7a and 7b).

7.6. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRATED

RESEARCH FINDINGS

This thesis has examined the way that OC, trust, and mechanisms influence I-PKS

behaviours. Existing research implies that effective I-PKS is a part of successful

organisation (Bower & Walker, 2007; Kotnour, 1999; Schindler & Eppler, 2003;

Walker, et al., 2004). This research demonstrates that I-PKS is a complex matter,

influenced by a range of factors, which some are interrelated.

The following points, outlined in Table 7.1 present practical implications of this

research, which are set for PBOs to bring the awareness of I-PKS patterns and to

ensure more effective knowledge sharing between projects. These implications —

Emphasise on need for awareness and evaluation of dominant OC type as

determinant of different I-PKS patterns


204

Provide insight into the active role of leadership in fostering KS (1) between

PMs from Hierarchy and Market type cultures, and (2) between

geographically dispersed PMs

Give managers guidelines on how to build trust to improve I-PKS behaviours

Offer directions on how to ensure more frequent face-to-face interactions and

greater useability of LL documents for more effective I-PKS

Outline a list of responsibilities held by PMO personnel to facilitate I-PKS.

Table 7-1: Research findings and implications for practice

RESEARCH FINDINGS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Based on the findings from this research, different cultural values may lead to different I-PKS patterns.

It is recommended for a PBO to be aware of, and evaluate its dominant culture characteristics. This will uncover knowledge sharing patterns specific for a given culture type.

Application of Cameron and Quinn (2005) Competing Value Framework may be useful in determining the dominant culture.

This research suggests that PMs from cultures focused on evidence, control, measurement and result orientation (displaying values of Hierarchy and Market type) appear to heavily value non-organic mechanisms to share knowledge, and rely primarily on explicit rather than tacit knowledge, thus do not utilise their knowledge capabilities to its fullest extent.

It is recommended that leadership in Hierarchy and Market driven cultures should be supportive and participative.

Support from leaders can endorse feelings of belongingness, enhance the collaborative climate and help PMs recognise they are not competing amongst themselves, but are part of a team who, by sharing knowledge, will build its knowledge capabilities and gain a competitive position in the market.

This research observed that different knowledge sharing patterns will occur between co-located versus dispersed PMs, who are more likely to display evidence of cultural differences, which may lead to limited KS behaviours.

It is recommended that active leadership engagement could potentially improve KS between dispersed PMs by encouraging the use of collaborative tools for KS and ensuring transparency of project management norms and practices.

This research suggests that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability trust and knowledge sharing. This finding shows tremendous value of integrity trust during I-PKS behaviours, and implies that organisations should consider investing in trust building endeavours to improve their knowledge sharing outcomes.

In order to enhance conditions for trust building, managers may consider to:

review organisational norms and practices that encourage or discourage the high frequency of interaction and collaboration

support and recognise KS initiatives

endorse and maintain a friendly and non-competitive atmosphere at work


205

create an atmosphere for learning not blaming

To enhance ability trust managers may consider to:

Ensure the visibility of other people‘s skills and competencies; this will bring the awareness of ‗who knows what‘

Ensure confidence in the measures evaluating people skills and expertise

This research confirmed that PMs are verbally inclined and people-oriented. They primarily value face-to-face interactions over e-mails or technology based tools, when sharing knowledge between projects.

Where possible, it may be useful to facilitate face-to-face interactions by designing open plan offices or creating designated areas where PMs can meet and exchange valuable tips and experience.

Based on the findings from this research documented lessons learned are not utilised to their fullest extent. This is due to the problems related to poor quality, visibility, and lack of comprehensive processes to capture, store, and reuse this documented knowledge.

To ensure greater useability of past projects lesson, it is recommended to:

Introduce an easily accessible, intelligible and user-friendly LL database in a form of a collaborative tool such as wiki (discussed in detailed in Section 7.4.1 and outlined in Figure 7.1)

Introduce LL ownership — a person or an entity accountable for LL implementation and maintenance

Catalogue LL according to themes

Keep LL in one place

Develop a clear action plan for capturing, documenting and reusing LL throughout the project

Findings from this research suggest that a well implemented PMO is likely to provide a significant advantage for PMs in managing project knowledge and facilitating access to not only explicit, but also a tacit knowledge

If possible, PBO may consider to assign PMO personnel with responsibilities that will ensure more effective I-PKS, they include:

- providing expertise, mentoring and advice for projects

- organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation

- having an ownership and maintaining knowledge input LL and collaborative mechanisms

7.7. SUMMARY

The aim of this research was to examine the role of OC, trust and KSM in I-PKS by

investigating behaviours related to KS from a PM perspective. This chapter

discussed findings from the analysis related to these factors and outlined some


206

practical implications. The next chapter concludes the research by providing a

summary of overall findings, research contributions, limitations and directions for

future studies.

Chapter 8 | Conclusions

207

8. Conclusions

8.1. INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 recognised the need to investigate KS behaviours in an inter-project

context and highlighted the limited research in this area, which has focused primarily

on a range of mechanisms to share knowledge including transfer of LL and post

project reviews. Accordingly, Chapter 3 (I-PKS Framework) detailed the literature

review conducted outside the project management field, in order to identify factors

that can potentially influence inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). This critique

resulted in the I-PKS Framework which comprises three main factors: organisational

culture (OC), trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM), all of which defined

the scope of this research. This research then examined how OC, trust and KSM

influence I-PKS from the PMs‘ perspective and so an inductive theory building

approach was conducted. This methodology is presented in Chapter 4, where four

research questions informed by the I-PKS Framework were posed. These questions

guided the empirical investigation and analysis presented in Chapter 5 (Within-case

Analysis) and Chapter 6 (Cross-Case Analysis), and based on this analysis, seven

propositions were formalised. These propositions captured the role of OC, trust and

KSM in I-PKS and were discussed in Chapter 7, which also proposed practical

applications to improve I-PKS.


208

The overall findings from this thesis, as discussed in Chapter 7, demonstrate that I-

PKS depends on multiple factors, some of which are interrelated. The sharing of

knowledge requires both environment (trusting relationships and a culture that

promotes teamwork and a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work), as well as

mechanisms that facilitate KS to occur. Accordingly, this research offers a number of

contributions to the body of knowledge and the practice of KS.

This concluding chapter summarises the study findings, providing answers to the

research questions, acknowledging the study contributions and limitations, and

providing directions for future research.

8.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE,

TRUST AND MECHANISMS IN INTER-PROJECT

KNOWLEDGE SHARING

To fulfil the research aim, that was to investigate how OC, trust and KSM influence

I-PKS behaviours, this section reports on overall findings from the thesis, illustrated

in Figure 8.1, which are related to the factors from the I-PKS Framework and

captured in the research questions.


209

Figure 8-1: Integrated research findings

8.2.1. Cultural Influences on Inter-Project

Knowledge Sharing

Results from this research showed that OC affects I-PKS in at least two ways.

Firstly, cultures which display Market type values, such as competitiveness and

achievement, and which focus on performance measures are likely to show evidence

of hesitancy to share knowledge. On the other hand, cultures with Clan type

characteristics, having a collaborative environment in which people are encouraged

to communicate, and which create a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work,

are likely to openly share knowledge even related to project shortcomings. Secondly,

geographically dispersed PMs are more likely to display evidence of cultural

differences. These cultural differences, manifested by the presence of silos, a

distinction between ‗us versus them‘, a lack of common norms and approaches in


210

managing projects, and poor collaboration were observed to result in limited KS

between dispersed PMs.

8.2.2. Influence of Ability, Integrity and

Benevolence Trusts on Inter-Project

Knowledge Sharing

This thesis showed that ability and integrity trust, and in a more limited fashion

benevolence trust, increase the likelihood of I-PKS. This means that trust amongst

work peers has a strong impact on KS in the inter-project context, and when trust

exists, PMs are more willing to seek and confidently apply knowledge received from

others to their project. Furthermore, this research revealed that ability and integrity

trusts are related, indicating that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between

ability trust and KS. In other words, PMs will seek knowledge from a person whose

skills and expertise they believe in, but it would be the presence of integrity trust that

reinforces KS to occur. In contrast, the lack of integrity trust is likely to result in

limited KS behaviours, even if ability trust exists. That is to say, even if a person has

a wealth of expertise, others would be reluctant to seek knowledge from him/her if

they do not believe in this person‘s credibility.

8.2.3. Utilisation of Knowledge Sharing

Mechanisms to Improve Inter-Project

Knowledge Sharing Behaviours

Four main mechanisms have been identified as the preferred ways to improve I-PKS:

face-to-face, LL, collaborative tools and project management offices (PMOs). PMs

prefer talking to each other instead of searching through databases, and several

reasons were found to support this claim. Nevertheless, face-to-face interaction is not

always possible (due to the geographical dispersion of PMs) or recommended (some

knowledge requires evidence better stored in a documented form). Staff changes and

the finite character of projects often make it hard to identify the person who worked


211

on the task of interest. Therefore, it is useful to document knowledge for future

projects. This is often achieved by capturing and storing experiences in the form of a

LL databases.

LL databases, however, are often underutilised. PMs do not see their value,

producing them only as a formality — just ―to tick the box‖. A number of problems

associated with the poor capture and use of LL were categorised into problems with

quality, visibility and processes. They include a lack of consistency and clear

uniform guidelines on how LL should be produced, the lack of a concise location

where LL are stored, or LL and LL spreadsheets being too long which makes it

difficult to find relevant information. Also, the lack of feedback on how LL are

progressing was another reason PMs did not see much value in producing LL and did

so only to meet formal requirements.

Based on practices used by participating organisations, practical applications to

improve LL quality, visibility and processes have been proposed. The use of

collaborative tools such as wiki can potentially replace the static LL databases. Busy

and time-oriented PMs are not interested in searching for information in a pile of

irrelevant documents, which is tiresome and time consuming. Easily accessible,

intelligible, and user friendly collaborative tools can ensure easy access to project

knowledge, and are likely to improve KS between geographical locations.

A well implemented PMO is likely to provide a significant advantage for PMs in

managing project knowledge and facilitating access to not only explicit, but also a

tacit knowledge. A PMO could facilitate tacit KS by:

providing expertise, mentoring and advice for projects

organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation

having an owner and being a central repository for LL.

Overall, this research showed that, despite the importance of face-to-face

mechanisms, well implemented collaborative mechanisms and knowledge-based

PMOs have the capability to share both tacit and explicit knowledge and can improve

I-PKS, especially between geographically dispersed PMs.


212

8.2.4. The Relationships Between

Organisational Culture, Trust and Knowledge

Sharing Mechanisms in Improving Inter-Project

Knowledge Sharing

Findings from this thesis showed that the perception towards the value of trust as a

key facilitating factor of KS behaviours is likely to be determined by organisational

culture. Results, outlined in Chapter 6 Section 6.4.2, showed that cultures which

display Clan type values are more likely to foster trusting relationships between

peers. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven and based on control,

efficiency and measures (cultures that facilitate Hierarchy and Market type

characteristics) are less likely to value trusting relationships with their peers, and

appear to display trust mainly in mechanisms.

Furthermore, the results presented in Chapter 6 Section 6.6 also showed that cultures

that facilitate Clan type characteristics are more likely to result in people valuing

organic/collaborative sources of knowledge and therefore enable trust as a key

facilitating driver. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven, based on control,

efficiency and measures are more likely to value non-organic/static sources of

knowledge, which input is controlled and verified, and therefore display a tendency

to develop trust primarily in the ability of these sources.

This means that evidence-based cultures, which focus on measures and store

knowledge in documents for proof and verification, rely mostly on explicit

knowledge. However, it is the tacit knowledge that has a substantial value for

organisations and constitutes a critical component for successful project management

efforts. Therefore, cultures that primarily rely on static or unambiguous information

do not utilise their knowledge capacities to their full extent. On the other hand,

cultures based on trust, collaboration and non-blaming often share their knowledge

informally, relying on both explicit knowledge stored in documents, as well as

knowledge acquired informally from their colleagues, as a result these cultures better

utilise their knowledge potential.


213

8.3. CONTRIBUTIONS

The findings drawn from this research provide a number of contributions to the body

of knowledge and practice. This section reports on each of the contributions and how

they refer to the findings of existing theories and research.

8.3.1. Contributions to Theory and Methods

Organisational culture influences the willingness to share knowledge between

projects

The current literature established that OC influences KM efforts (Alavi, et al., 2006;

De Long & Fahey, 2000; Gray & Densten, 2005; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Sveiby &

Simons, 2002). However, only recently has research on project management focused

its interest on OC in the context of KS, and some preliminary theoretical (Ajmal &

Koskinen, 2008) and empirical (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007) studies have been

conducted. Furthermore, the complexity and context dependency of these two

concepts, OC and KS, mean that there is still limited empirical evidence stating the

relationships between them. In response, this research makes a significant

contribution by providing rich empirical evidence of the relationships between OC

and the willingness to share knowledge, demonstrating which cultural values are

more and which are less likely to improve I-PKS behaviours. The use of interviews

and the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) in the cross

examination of OC resulted in rich empirical contributions. Furthermore, this thesis

contributes to the project management literature by introducing Cameron and Quinn

(2005) CVF to evaluate knolwedge sharing in the inter-project context.

Organisational culture influences trusting behaviours

This thesis extends the theoretical proposition of Whitener et al. (1998), which states

that different cultures will show different trustworthy behaviours, and in doing so

provides empirical evidence that OC is likely to affect the perception of the value of

trust during KS. This research also extends the study conducted by Issa and Haddad


214

(2008) who found that the ‗proper organisational culture‘ is significantly related to

mutual trust between employees, but considered interrelations between OC, trust and

knowledge sharing only to a limited extent, and did not focus on cultural nor trust

dimensions. In addition to offering empirical support, this research provides evidence

demonstrating that certain cultural values, similar to the Clan type cultures of

collaboration, and a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, are more likely to

improve trusting relationships with peers. In contrast, cultures that are empirically

driven, and based on control, evidence and measures, (displaying fundamentals of

Hierarchy and Market type cultures), are less likely to report on trusting

relationships.

The role of the three forms of trust in knowledge sharing in the context of

project management

Based on the literature reviewed in Chapter 3, there is limited research on different

trust dimensions in KS (Levin & Cross, 2004; Holste & Fields, 2010), and minimal

research on the impact of trust on KS in a project environment (Ding, et al., 2007;

Koskinen, et al., 2003; Maurer, 2010). Accordingly, this research demonstrates the

first attempt to investigate the three forms of trust in the inter-project context, and

subsequently, this research argues that for a better understanding of trusting

behaviours it is important to consider trust as a multidimensional concept. It is also

argued that different trust dimensions will have different effects on KS behaviours.

Comprehensive/holistic view of inter-project knowledge sharing

There is limited research to date focusing on I-PKS, concentrating primarily on

mechanisms to share knowledge (Kotnour, 1999; Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Purdon,

2008; Turner, et al., 2000) and only to some extent to the role of OC (Ajmal &

Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007). This research conducted an extensive

literature search and identified factors that could potentially influence I-PKS. These

factors were then captured in the I-PKS Framework. Moreover, this research

examined the application of these factors in the inter-project context. As such this

research contributes to the project management literature by providing a more

comprehensive and holistic view of I-PKS from the perspective of PMs, bringing the


215

concepts of OC, the three forms of trust, and a range of KSM into the picture.

Furthermore, by suggesting the existence of relationships between these factors, this

research highlights the role of Clan type cultures, which promote social interaction

and the organic mechanisms to share knowledge, which in turn facilitate the

development of trusting relationships, hence create opportunities for sharing both

tacit and explicit knowledge.

Relationship between OC, trust, and KSM

There is a body of knowledge stating that organisational culture influences trust (Issa

& Haddad, 2008; Whitener, et al., 1998), and there is a research done implying that

organisational culture influences the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms (Alavi, et

al., 2006). Issa and Haddad (2008) found that ‗proper organisational culture‘, mutual

trust between employees and the use of collaborative tools will improve knowledge

sharing, but these authors considered interrelations between these factors only to a

limited extend, stating that organisational culture is significantly related to mutual

trust between employees. This thesis contributes to current research by making an

attempt to investigate how the three factors of OC, trust, and KSM interrelate.

Relationship between ability and integrity

A significant contribution to the theory is the finding on relationships between

integrity and ability trust. According to the literature reviewed in Chapter 3, there is

limited research investigating the relationships between trust dimensions. Results

from this study suggest that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability

trust and KS. Cross-case analysis revealed that PMs will be reluctant to seek

knowledge from a person whom they perceive has not been honest with them in the

past, even though it is believed this person is knowledgeable and possesses

information they seek. This finding draws attention to the value of integrity trust in I-

PKS endeavours.

Multi-method approach in examining organisational culture

Authors advocate that examining culture in its organisational context using

qualitative data provides more valuable insights into the nature of this complex


216

phenomenon (e.g. Bellot, 2011; Sackmann, 1991). This research demonstrated that a

qualitative investigation of OC yields a more insightful understanding of corporate

values and shared beliefs. The Gamma case showed discrepancies between the

results obtained from interviews and the questionnaire. Interview findings suggested

that Gamma displays principles of a Clan culture; however, findings from the OCAI

showed that the dominant culture was that of a Hierarchy type. Coffey (2010, pp.

190, 198) has also encountered similar difficulties where two of his mini-case studies

demonstrated conflicting responses with the priory conducted survey. Conducting

four mini cases helped to further explain the results obtained from the survey, and

provided the complete picture of OC in participating companies. Similarly in this

research, two follow-up interviews conducted with a PM and a from a PMO

representative helped to identify reasons for the discrepancies between results

obtained from OCAI and the interviews. Consequently, this research demonstrates

that using a mixed method approach in investigating culture provides accurate and

insightful findings.

Strategy to examine trust

In exploring trust, most research uses questionnaires (Becerra & Gupta, 2003; Holste

& Fields, 2010; Levin & Cross, 2004; Maurer, 2010; Pinto, et al., 2009; Ridings, et

al., 2002), despite the fact that previous studies conducted by Borgatti and Cross

(2003) showed survey respondents were uncomfortable to answer questions related

to trust. Therefore this research, along with the questionnaire, conducted face-to-face

interviews to obtain more insightful responses. To allow the respondent to feel more

comfortable in answering questions related to trust, this research firstly asked

questions related to other factors investigated in this study, such as OC and KSM,

leaving questions related to trust to the end. At the end of the interview, when a

closer rapport between the interviewer and respondent had been established, the

investigator asked the respondent to indicate how important ability, benevolence and

integrity trust were for I-PKS and then asked to further elaborate on their choice,

explaining their responses. This approach obtained valuable comments and insight

related to trust, which would not have been possible if only the questionnaire had

been applied.


217

8.3.2. Practical Contributions

Finally, this thesis offers a range of practical contributions, as detailed in Chapter 7

(Discussion and Practical Implications) Sections 7.2.3.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.1, and Section

7.6. This research (1) emphasises on need for awareness and evaluation of dominant

OC type as determinant of different I-PKS patterns, (2) provides insight into the

active role of leadership in fostering KS, (3) gives managers guidelines on how to

build trust to improve I-PKS behaviours, (4) offers directions on how to ensure more

effective face-to-face interactions and greater useability of LL documents for

positive I-PKS outcomes, (5) outlines a list of responsibilities held by PMO

personnel to facilitate I-PKS, (6) proposes how to ensure the development of an

updated and dynamic collaborative tool such as a wiki, as a substitute for static LL

documents, for both tacit and explicit KS, and KS between geographical locations.

In the short term it is suggested that managers evaluate the dominant characteristics

of organisational culture. This will help to uncover knowledge sharing patterns

specific for a given culture type. In addition, managers should also create

environment for face-to-face interactions, improve useability of lessons learned by

following steps provided in Section 7.6, and assign responsibilities to PMO

personnel, listed in Section 7.6 that will ensure more effective I-PKS. This should

provide some quick solutions to improve I-PKS behaviours.

In the long term it is recommended to promote supportive and participative

leadership style, which could potentially enhance collaborative climate, endorse

feelings of belongingness, ensure transparency of project management norms and

practices, and encourage the use of collaborative tools for KS. It is also

recommended to enhance conditions for trust building. This process, although

lengthy/time-consuming could potentially bring tremendous value for organisation

ensuing positive I-PKS outcomes.


218

8.4. LIMITATIONS

While the contributions of this study are considerable, there are also a number of

limitations.

Limitations related to the research scope

Although this research claims to provide a more holistic view of I-PKS, it is

acknowledged that there could potentially be other factors that contribute to I-PKS

which are not covered in this study. According to the literature reviewed in Chapter

3, OC, trust and KSM appeared to contribute the most to I-PKS. Limiting the

research scope to these factors allowed the researcher to maintain a realistic, feasible

and manageable focus.

This study was limited to the PMs‘ perspective due to their key role in knowledge

flow. Including other project members, who normally come from different

backgrounds and professions, could potentially introduce unwanted complexity.

Although this study argues that a PM is at the centre of a project network, possessing

a broad knowledge about project issues (Blackburn, 2002; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007;

Loo, 2002), it does acknowledge that other project members play an important role in

I-PKS. Future studies could consider investigating the role of other project members

in I-PKS, taking into account project complexity and the backgrounds of these

individuals.

Finally, by examining KSM, this research focused only on those reported by

respondents, and utilised by participating cases. There are a range of other KSM not

covered in this research which could potentially improve I-PKS.

Limitations related to the research design and conduct

There were a number of limitations related to the case study design and how it was

conducted. This research claims that the choice of cases followed purposeful logic,

this was indeed done, but to an extent. The identification of cases was also based on


219

availability and local proximity. As a result, all the case studies conducted were

Australian and came from a range of sectors.

The data was collected and analysed by a single researcher which could have

introduced researcher bias. Nevertheless, (1) the application of NVivo software for

data management, (2) draft report reviewed by participating organisations, and (3)

two rounds of analysis, recommended by Sackmann (1991) and Eisenhardt &

Bourgeois (1988), conducted in a span of few months minimised the potential bias.

8.5. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Although this research offered many interesting insights into the problem of I-PKS,

further investigations are required to fully understand the complexity of the problem.

Given the inductive research approach, the finding from this thesis opened new paths

of inquiry related to I-PKS. Therefore, as advised by Eisenhardt and Graebner

(2007), it is suggested that the specific findings may serve as hypotheses for studies

of I-PKS using deductive research methodologies.

According to the analysis conducted in this study, not each form of trust appeared to

be equally contributing to I-PKS. The most contributing were ability and integrity,

whereas benevolence appeared to contribute only to some extent. Levin and Cross

(2004) found that benevolence trust improves the usefulness of both tacit and explicit

knowledge exchange. Analysis of Delta case showed that benevolence was primarily

valued when knowledge that was shared related to sensitive, people-related issues or

contextual knowledge, but when sharing technical or explicit knowledge,

benevolence trust appeared less important because there was a low emotional impact

involved in the transfer of this more tangible knowledge. Accordingly, evidence from

Delta provided some limited support that the value of benevolence trust is contextual,

and depends on the type of knowledge one seeks from other projects. Future research

may consider further investigating circumstances in which benevolence trust in a KS

context matters the most.


220

The role of active leadership engagement was not included in the I-PKS Framework,

but was shown to play a part in I-PKS. Further research could consider a

comprehensive investigation of the role of active leadership engagement in fostering

KS in a project environment.

Finally, this study was focused on a dyadic and organisational level of analysis, not

on the individual level, which includes a person‘s absorptive capacity or status (Shu,

et al., 2009; Szulanski, 1996). Status could potentially contribute to I-PKS

behaviours. For example, a PM who has been in a position for a long time and has a

wealth of experience, and a high status in the organisation will be more likely to be

approached for knowledge than someone who has not yet established such a position

of importance. Absorptive capacity appears more relevant to the knowledge

acquisition process than to KS. Nevertheless, further studies may consider

investigating I-PKS at the individual level.

References

221

REFERENCES

Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.

Aita, V., & Mcllvain, H. (1999). An Armchair Adventure in Case Study Research. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 253-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008). Knowledge Transfer in Project-Based Organizations: An Organizational Culture Perspective. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 7-15.

Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105-1120.

Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: a transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105-1120.

Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2006). An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191-224.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS, 1(Article 7), 1-37.

Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2001). Case study methodology as a means of theory building: performance measurement in facilities management organisations. Work Study, 50(2/3), 95-104.

Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Impact of cultural differences on knowledge management in global projects. The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 40(3/4), 239-253.

Antoni, M., Nilsson-Witell, L., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2005). Inter-project improvement in product development. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 876-893.

Arenius, M., Artto, K., Lahti, M., & Meklin, J. (2003). Project Companies and the Multi-Project Paradigm—A New Management Approach. In J. Pinto, D. Cleland & D. Slevin (Eds.), The Frontiers of Project Management Research: Project Management Institute.

Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.

Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J., & Moreland, R. (2000). Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Learning from the Experience of Others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1-8.

Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003a). Introduction to the special issue on managing knowledge in organizations: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Management Science, 49(4), V-VIII.

Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003b). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582.

Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

References

222

Becerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. (2003). Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 32-44.

Bellot, J. (2011). Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture. Nursing Forum, 46(1), 29-37.

Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.

Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 5(1), 68-75.

Bhattacherjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211-241.

Billows, R. (2006). The Project-based organisation. from http://www.4pm.com/ Blackburn, S. (2002). The project manager and the project-network. International Journal of

Project Management, 20(3), 199-204. Blomqvist, K. (1997). The many faces of trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(3),

271-286. Blomqvist, K. (2009). Trust In Organizational Knowledge Processes. Paper presented at the

10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Università Degli Studi Di Padova, Vicenza, Italy.

Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.

Bower, D., & Walker, D. (2007). Planning Knowledge for Phased Rollout Projects. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 45-61.

Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2004). Building Project Capabilities: From Exploratory to Exploitative Learning. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1601 - 1621.

Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157-166.

Brown, J., & Gray, E. (1995). The people are the company. from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/01/people.html

Burgess, D. (2005). What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit? Journal of Business Communication, 42(4), 324-348.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition: Harvard University Press.

Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (Revised ed.). San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.

Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568.

Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 87-98.

Carrillo, P. (2005). Lessons learned practices in the engineering, procurement and construction sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(3), 236-250.

Carrillo, P., Robinson, H. S., Anumba, C. J., & Bouchlaghem, N. M. (2006). A knowledge transfer framework: the PFI context. Construction Management & Economics, 24(10), 1045-1056.

Cavana, R., Delahaye, B., & Sekeran, U. (2001). Applied Business research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. QLD, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

http://www.4pm.com/

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/01/people.html

References

223

Chinowsky, P., & Carrillo, P. (2007). Knowledge management to learning organization connection. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(3), 122-130.

Chinowsky, P., Molenaar, K., & Realph, A. (2007). Learning organizations in construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23(1), 27-34.

Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.

Cleland, D., & Ireland, L. (1994). Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation - fifth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Coffey, V. (2010). Understanding Organisational Culture in the Construction Industry. Abingdon, Oxon: Spon Press/ Taylor & Francis.

Cook, S., & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381-400.

Cross, R., Parker, A., & Borgatti, S. (2000). A bird’s-eye view: Using social network analysis to improve knowledge creation and sharing. Knowledge Directions, 2(1), 48-61.

Dai, C. X., & Wells, W. G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 523-532.

Davenport, T. H., De Long, D. W., & Beers, M. C. (1998). Successful Knowledge Management Projects. Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T. H., Prusak, L., & Strong, B. (2008). Business Insight (A Special Report):

Organization; Putting Ideas to Work: Knowledge management can make a difference -- but it needs to be more pragmatic. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition.

De Long, D., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 113-127.

Denison, D. R., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). Organizational culture and organizational development: A competing values approach. Research in organizational change and development, 5(1), 1-21.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In K. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 1-28). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Desouza, K. C., & Evaristo, R. J. (2006). Project management offices: A case of knowledge-based archetypes. International Journal of Information Management, 26(5), 414-423.

Ding, Z., Ng, F., & Cai, Q. (2007). Personal constructs affecting interpersonal trust and willingness to share knowledge between architects in project design teams. Construction Management and Economics, 25(9), 937–950.

Dyer, W., & Wilkins, A. (1991). Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better theory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 613-619.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of Management Review, 16(3), 620-627.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics Of Strategic Decision Making In High-Velocity Environments: Toward a Midrange Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 737-770.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.

References

224

Eskerod, P., & Skriver, H. J. (2007). Organisational culture restrainning in-house knowledge transfer between project managers - a case study Project Management Journal, 38(1), 110-123.

Evans, D. (1995). How to write a better thesis or report: Melbourne University Press Carlton, Vic.

Evaristo, R., & van Fenema, P. C. (1999). A typology of project management: emergence and evolution of new forms. International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), 275-281.

Fernández, W. D. (2004). Using the Glaserian approach in grounded studies of emerging business practices. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(2), 83-94.

Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational Learning. The Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803-813.

Fong, P. (2005). Co-creation of knowledge by multidisciplinary project teams. In P. Love, P. Fong & Z. Irani (Eds.), Management of Knowledge in Project Environments. Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Fong, P. (2008). Can We Learn from Our Past? Managing Knowledge Within and Across Projects. In I. Becerra-Fernandez & D. Leidner (Eds.), Knowledge management: an evolutionary view (Vol. 12, pp. 204-226). Armonk, New York: ME Sharpe Inc.

Fong, P., & Kwok, C. (2009). Organizational culture and knowledge management success at project and organizational levels in contracting firms. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(12), 1348-1356.

Fong, P., & Wong, K. C. (2009). Knowledge and experience sharing in projects-based building maintenance community of practice. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 3(3), 275-294.

Foos, T., Schum, G., & Rothenberg, S. (2006). Tacit knowledge transfer and the knowledge disconnect. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(1), 6-18.

Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.

Frappaolo, C. (2008). Implicit knowledge. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 23-25.

Friesl, M., Sackmann, S. A., & Kremser, S. (2011). Knowledge sharing in new organizational entities: The impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micro-politics and suspicion. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 18(1), 71-86.

Gable, G. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: An example in information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112-127.

Gamble, P. R., & Blackwell, J. (2001). Knowledge Management: A State Of The Art Guide. London: Kogan Page.

Garcia-Perez, A., & Ayres, R. (2009). Wikifailure: The Limitations of Technology for Knowledge Sharing. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Università Degli Studi Di Padova, Vicenza, Italy.

Gephart, R. (2004). Qualitative Research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462.

Gilbert, C. G. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. The Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741-763.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wledenfeld and Nicholson.

Goh, S. C. (2002). Managing effective knowledge transfer: An integrative framework and some practice implications. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), 23-30.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

References

225

Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2005). Towards an integrative model of organizational culture and knowledge management. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9(2), 594-603.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 2, pp. 105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473-496.

Hansen, M. T. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-85.

Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2001). Leadership style and market orientation: an empirical study. European journal of marketing, 35(5/6), 744-764.

Hartley, J. (2004). Case study research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 323-333). London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy, 29(7-8), 871-893.

Hoffman, E., Kinlaw, C., & Kinlaw, D. (2001). Developing superior project teams: a study of the characteristics of high performance. In: Project teams. from <http://www.nasateammates.com/About/findings.pdf>

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Holste, J. S., & Fields, D. (2010). Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 128 - 140.

Hosmer, L. T. (1995). Trust: The connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 379-403.

Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J., & Arrfelt, M. (2007). Strategic supply chain management: Improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal, 28(10), 1035-1052.

Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165.

Irani, Z., Sharif, A. M., & Love, P. (2009). Mapping knowledge management and organizational learning in support of organizational memory. International Journal of Production Economics, 122(1), 200-215.

Issa, R., R. A., & Haddad, J. (2008). Perceptions of the impacts of organizational culture and information technology on knowledge sharing in construction. Construction Innovation, 8(3), 182-201.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there?: antecedents of trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(4), 29-64.

Jasimuddin, S. M. (2008). A holistic view of knowledge management strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 57-66.

Johannessen, J. A., Olaisen, J., & Olsen, B. (2001). Mismanagement of tacit knowledge: the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. International journal of information management, 21(1), 3-20.

Julian, J. (2008). How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and continuous improvement. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 43-58.

Kadefors, A. (2004). Trust in project relationships--inside the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 22(3), 175-182.

Kanawattanachai, P., & Yoo, Y. (2002). Dynamic nature of trust in virtual teams. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 187-213.

http://www.nasateammates.com/About/findings.pdf

References

226

Kasper-Fuehrer, E. C., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2001). Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations. Journal of Management, 27, 235-254.

Kasper, H. (2002). Culture and leadership in market-oriented service organisations. European journal of marketing, 36(9/10), 1047-1057.

Kasvi, J. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hailikari, M. (2003). Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 21(8), 571-582.

Keegan, A., & Turner, J. R. (2001). Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices. Management Learning, 32(1), 77-98.

Keller, R. T., & Holland, W. E. (1983). Communicators and Innovators in Research and Development Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 742-749.

Kerzner, H. (2003). Strategic planning for a project office. Project Management Journal, 34(2), 13-25.

Keskin, H., Akgun, A., E., Gunsel, A., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). The Relationship Between Adhocracy and Clan Cultures and Tacit Oriented KM Strategy. Journal of Transnational Management, 10(3), 39-53.

King, W. (2006a). Knowledge sharing. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), The encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 493–498). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

King, W. (2006b). Knowledge transfer. In D. G. Schwartz (Ed.), The encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 538–543). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.

King, W. (2009). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. In W. R. King (Ed.), Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning (Vol. 4, pp. 3-13). New York: Springer US.

Koskinen, K. U., Pihlanto, P., & Vanharanta, H. (2003). Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 281-290.

Kotlarsky, J., & Oshri, I. (2005). Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 37-48.

Kotnour, T. (1999). A Learning Framework for Project Management. Project Management Journal, 30(2), 32-38.

Lamond, D. (2003). The value of Quinn's competing values model in an Australian context. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(1/2), 46 - 59.

Lampel, J., Scarbrough, H., & Macmillan, S. (2008). Managing through Projects in Knowledge-based Environments Special Issue Introduction by the Guest Editors. Long Range Planning, 41(1), 7-15.

Landaeta, R. E. (2008). Evaluating Benefits and Challenges of Knowledge Transfer Across Projects. Engineering Management Journal, 20(1), 29-39.

Lee, H., & Choi, B. (2003). Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: An integrative view and empirical examination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(1), 179-228.

Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490.

Lewis, J., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social forces, 63(4), 967-985. Liebowitz, J. (2005). Conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management. In P. Love,

P. Fong & Z. Irani (Eds.), Management of Knowledge in Project Environments (pp. 1-18). Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Liebowitz, J. (2008). 'Think of others' in knowledge management: making culture work for you. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 6(1), 47-52.

References

227

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Liu, L. L., & Yetton, P. Y. (2007). The Contingent Effects on Project Performance of Conducting Project Reviews and Deploying Project Management Offices. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(4), 789-799.

Loo, R. (2002). Working towards best practices in project management: A Canadian study. International Journal of Project Management, 20(2), 93-98.

Love, P., Edwards, D., Love, J., & Irani, Z. (2011). Champions of practice: context and habitus for unbounded learning in construction projects. Facilities, 29(5/6), 193-208.

Love, P., Fong, P., & Irani, Z. (2005). Management of Knowledge in Project Environments. Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Love, P., Irani, Z., & Edwards, D. (2003). Learning to reduce rework in projects: analysis of firm's organisational learning and quality practices. Project Management Journal, 34(3), 13-25.

Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437-455.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Maurer, I. (2010). How to build trust in inter-organizational projects: The impact of project staffing and project rewards on the formation of trust, knowledge acquisition and product innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 28(7), 629-637.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J., & Schoorman, D. (1995). An integration model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123-136.

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Mintzberg, H. (1973). The nature of managerial work: Harper & Row. Mintzberg, H. (1979). Structuring of organizations: a synthesis of the research. Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational

advantage. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.

Ndoni, D. H., & Elhag, T. M. S. (2010). The integration of human relationships in capital development projects: A case study of BSF scheme. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(3), 479-494.

Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2006). Sharing Knowledge Across Projects: Limits to ICT-led Project Review Practices. Management Learning, 37(2), 167-185.

Newell, S., David, G., & Chand, D. (2007). An analysis of trust among globally distributed work teams in an organizational setting. Knowledge and process management, 14(3), 158-168.

Newell, S., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., Bresnen, M., & Obembe, A. (2008). Interdependencies in Complex Project Ecologies: The Case of Biomedical Innovation. Long Range Planning, 41(1), 33-54.

Ngoasong, M., & Manfredi, F. (2007). Knowledge Management in Project-Based Organizations: The Interplay of Time Orientations and Knowledge Interventions. Paper presented at the Knowledge Management Conference.

References

228

Nguyen, T., Smyth, R., & Gable, G. (2004). Knowledge Management Issues and Practices: A Case Study of a Professional Services Firm. Paper presented at the Fifteenth Australasian Conference on Information Systems.

Nobeoka, K. (1995). Inter-project learning in new product development. Academy of Management Journal, 432-436.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press.

Office of Government Commerce UK. (2005). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2 (4th ed. ed.). London: London : TSO.

Parker, D., & Craig, M. (2008). Managing Projects, Managing People: Palgrave Macmillan. Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in

marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10), 785-802. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice.

Organization Science, 1(3), 267-292. Pinto, J. K., Slevin, D. P., & English, B. (2009). Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of

owner/contractor relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6), 638-648.

Polanyi, M. (1967). The Tacit Dimension: Peter Smith Publisher Inc. Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge

codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30(9), 1373-1394. Project Management Institute, I. (2004). A Guide to the Project Management Body of

Knowledge (PMBOK guide) (3rd ed.). Pennsylvania, USA. Project Management Institute, I. (2008). A guide to the project management body of

knowledge:(PMBOK guide) (4 ed.): Project Management Institute, Inc. Proverbs, D., & Gameson, R. (2008). Case Study Research. In A. Knight & L. Ruddock (Eds.),

Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment (pp. 99-110). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Prusak, L. (1997). Knowledge in organizations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Prusak, L. (2001). Where did knowledge management come from? IBM Systems Journal,

40(4), 1002-1007. Purdon, P. (2008). Using Lessons Learned to Improve Project Management. Paper presented

at the AIPM Conference. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of

cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267. Renzl, B. (2008). Trust in management and knowledge sharing: The mediating effects of fear

and knowledge documentation. Omega, 36(2), 206-220. Richards, L. (2006). Teach-yourself NVivo 7: the introductory tutorials. from

http://download.qsrinternational.com/Document/NVivo7/NVivo7_Tutorials_Lyn_Richards.pdf

Ridings, C. M., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 271-295.

Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18-35.

Rose, K. H. (2007). Post-project reviews to gain effective lessons learned. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 100.

Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393-404.

Sackmann, S. (1991). Uncovering culture in organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 295-317.



References

229

Sackmann, S. (1992). Culture and Subcultures: An Analysis of Organizational Knowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 140-161.

Sako, M. (1992). Prices, Quality and Trust, Inter-firm Relations in Britain & Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 45(2), 109-119. Schindler, M., & Eppler, M. J. (2003). Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project

learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 219-228.

Scott, J. E., & Gable, G. (1997). Goal congruence, trust, and organizational culture: strengthening knowledge links.

Senge, P. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Milsons Point, N.S.W.: Random House Business.

Shannon, C. (2001). A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review, 5(1), 3-55.

Sharif, M., Zakaria, N., Ching, L. S., & Fung, L. S. (2005). Facilitating Knowledge Sharing Through Lessons Learned System. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice.

Sharp, D. (2003). Knowledge management today: Challenges and opportunities. Information Systems Management, 20(2), 32-37.

Shaw, R. (1997). Trust in the balance: Building successful organizations on results, integrity, and concern. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shu, W., Chuang, Y.-H., & Sheng Lin, C. (2009). Knowledge Sharing with Online Social Networks. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Università Degli Studi Di Padova, Vicenza, Italy.

Siakas, K. V., Georgiadou, E., & Balstrup, B. (2010). Cultural impacts on knowledge sharing: empirical data from EU project collaboration. The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 40(3/4), 376-389.

Smith, E., A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311-321.

Smyth, H. (2006). Measuring, developing and managing trust in relationships. In S. Pryke & H. Smyth (Eds.), The Management of Complex Projects - a Relationship Approach (pp. 316). Carlton: Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Smyth, H., Gustafsson, M., & Ganskau, E. (2010). The Value of Trust in Project Business. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 117-129.

Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communications. Management Science, 32(11), 1492-1512.

Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551-556.

Stinchcombe, A. L. (1987). Constructing Social Theories: University of Chicago Press. Sutrisna, M. (2009). Research Methodology in Doctoral Research: Understanding the

Meaning of Conducting Qualitative Research. Paper presented at the Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Doctoral Workshop, Liverpool, UK.

Sveiby, K. E., & Simons, R. (2002). Collaborative climate and effectiveness of knowledge work–an empirical study. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 420-433.

Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring Internal Stickness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practice within the Firm. Strategic Management Journal (1986-1998), 17(Winter Special Issue), 27-43.

Taylor, J., & Levitt, R. (2005). Inter-organisational Knowledge Flow and Innovation Diffusion in Project-based Industries. Paper presented at the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The qualitative report, 3(3), 1-17.

References

230

Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.

Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4), 355-366.

Trochim, W. (2006). Positivism & Post-Positivism. Research Methods Knowledge Base, from http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476.

Turner, R., & Keegan, A. (2000). The management of operations in the project-based organisation. Journal of Change Management, 1(2), 131-148.

Turner, R., Keegan, A., & Crawford, L. (2000). Learning by Experience in the Project-Based Organization.

Turner, R., & Muller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1-8.

Walker, D. (2004). The Knowledge Advantage (K-Adv): Unleashing Creativity and Innovation Guide for the Project 2001-004 (2B)—Delivering Improved Knowledge Management and Innovation Diffusion project for advice and collaboration on CRC CI project.

Walker, D., & Christenson, D. (2005). Knowledge wisdom and networks: a project management centre of excellence example. The Learning Organization, 12(3), 275-291.

Walker, D., Wilson, A., & Srikanathan, G. (2004). The Knowledge Advantage (K-Adv) Unleashing Creativity and Innovation Guide for the Project 2001-004. Brisbane: CRC in Construction Innovation.

Ward, L. (2000). Project Management Terms: A Working Glossary 2nd Edition: ESI International.

Waterfield, R. A. H. t. b. (1987). Plato: Theaetetus. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Weiss, J., & Wysocki, R. (1992). 5-phase project management: a practical planning &

implementation guide Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books. Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., & Werner, J. M. (1998). Managers as

initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 513-530.

Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative health research, 11(4), 522-537.

Wiig, K. (1997). Knowledge Management: Where Did It Come From and Where Will It Go? Expert Systems With Applications, 13(1), 1-14.

Winsor, D. (1988). Communication failures contributing to the Challenger accident: an example for technical communicators. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 31(3), 101-107.

Wong, E., Then, D., & Skitmore, M. (2000). Antecedents of trust in intra-organizational relationships within three Singapore public sector construction project management agencies. Construction Management and Economics, 18(7), 797-806.

Yang, J. T. (2007). Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. Tourism Management, 28(2), 530-543.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Forth ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Inc.

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/positvsm.php

References

231

Appendixes

233

APPENDIX A - Study Outcomes

ID JOURNAL SUBMISSIONS

J1A

Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G. D., & Trigunarsyah, B. The role of trust in inter-project knowledge transfer. Submitted to Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary Engineering

J2 A

Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G., Trigunarsyah, B., Interactions between organisational culture, trust, and mechanisms in inter-project knowledge sharing. Submitted to International Journal of Project Management

J3 A

Pemsel, S., Wiewiora, A., Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations. Submitted to International Journal of Project Management

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS (PEER REVIEWED)

C1B

Wiewiora, A., Liang, C., & Trigunarsyah, B. (2010). Inter- and intra- project knowledge transfer: analysis of knowledge transfer techniques. Paper presented at the PMI Research and Education Conference 2010, Washington DC, USA.

C2A

Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G. D., & Trigunarsyah, B. (2010). The role of trust in inter-project knowledge transfer. Paper presented at the ICOMS Asset Management Conference Adelaide 2010 Conference Proceedings. (Paper nominated for journal submission)

C3A

Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Gable, G. & Murphy, G. (2009). Barriers to effective knowledge transfer in Project-Based Organisations. Paper presented at the Global Innovation in Construction Conference, September 2009, Loughborough, UK

C4A

Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G. & Gable, G. (2009). The impact of unique for projects´ characteristics on knowledge transfer in Project Based Organisations. Paper presented at the 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, p 888-896, September 2009, Vicenza, Italy, ISBN 978-1-906638-40-5

C6B

Chen, S., Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Gable, G. & Murphy, G. (2009). “Project team’s internal and external social networks and their influence on project performance”. Proceedings of 10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, p 957-963, September 2009, Vicenza, Italy, ISBN 978-1-906638-40-5

C7B

Chen, L., Gable, G. G., Wiewiora, A., & Trigunarsyah, B. (2009). The interrelations among the project teams conduit networks, knowledge network and its performance. Proceedings of 2009 International Conference on Engineering Management and Service Sciences, IEEE, Beijing, China.

DOMESTIC PEER REVIEWED CONFERENCE PUBLICATIONS

C8A

Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B. & Murphy, G. (2009). The Need For Unique Approach In Knowledge Transfer For Project Based Organisations. Proceedings of The Second Theme Postgraduate Conference, p 94-104, March, Brisbane, Australia, ISBN 978-174107-270-9

C9B

Chen, S., Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B. (2009). The Research Approach On How To Overcome Lack Of Trust And Lack Of Social Networks Within Small And Medium Project Teams In Project-Based Organisations. Proceedings of The Second Theme Postgraduate Conference, p 104-117,

Appendixes

234

March 2009, Brisbane, Australia, ISBN 978-174107-270-9 BOOK CHAPTERS

BCh1A

Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., & Murphy, G. (2009). Knowledge transfer in project based organisations: the need for a unique approach. In T. Yigitcanlar (Ed.), Rethinking Sustainable Development Planning, Designing, Engineering and Managing Urban Infrastructure and Development. Hersey PA, USA: Engineering Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

BCh2B

Chen, S., Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B. (2009). The Research Approach On How To Overcome Lack Of Trust And Lack Of Social Networks Within Small And Medium Project Teams In Project-Based Organisations. In T. Yigitcanlar (Ed.), Rethinking Sustainable Development Planning, Designing, Engineering and Managing Urban Infrastructure and Development. Hersey PA, USA: Engineering Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global).

A - Publications which represent outcome of this research

B - Publications related to the research problem

Appendixes

235

APPENDIX B – The Case Study Protocol

Before the final version of the case study protocol emerged, the interview process

and questions were piloted by three academics, and five project management

practitioners. The academics were researchers own supervisory team. The

practitioners came from a range of industries, including four executive managers that

have been involved in providing project management consultancy to project-based

organisations (PBOs) across a range of industries, and one senior structural engineer

who worked for a multinational organisation providing leadership in management,

engineering, environment, planning and architecture.

The aim of this pilot was to assist in ensuring the consistency and organisation of the

interview process, and the relevance and format of investigation questions. The pilot

study made apparent that some terminology needed to be clarified. In result key

concepts of the study, including knowledge sharing, inter-project knowledge sharing,

and transfer of lessons learned were explained to each interviewee prior to

conducting the interview. It also became apparent that some questions used in the

pilot study were overlapping. In result, these questions were removed from the

protocol to ensure better flow of the data collection.

CASE STUDY PROTOCOL

The protocol defines the instruments and procedures to follow in conducting the case study and guides the investigator in data collection process.

Part 1: Introduction to the research (5 min.)

Introduce myself and the research

Introduce following concepts: knowledge, knowledge sharing/transfer, inter-

project knowledge sharing, and transfer of lessons learned to achieve common

understanding

Appendixes

236

Ensure confidentiality and provide ethics consent form for signature

QUT has strict policy on ethics, and in order for this research to be carried, ethics

had to be approved. That’s why before we start the interview I would like to

ensure you that this interview is absolutely confidential, and in no way it could

be apparent that responses came from you. Could you please read and sign this

consent form to confirm your agreement to participate in this study.

Ask for permission to record the interview

Part 2: Case Study Questions (40 min.)1

Demographic

1. How long have you been working for [company name]? 2. What is your position in [company name]? 3. How long is your experience in project management? 4. What is the standard size of project do you usually work on? (number of

people involved, budget, duration) 5. According to the following typology2, what is the type of project you are

typically involved? (1) projects that have been done before; (2) projects that have not been done before; (3) projects that have some new work, for which no experience base exists;

6. What project management methodology [company name] follows? Investigation questions

1. Do you turn for knowledge or advice to solve issues in your project to colleagues working on other than your project?

2. What type of information/advice would you normally seek from them? 3. How often do you seek knowledge from them? 4. How often do you interact with them? 5. Do you share office with them? YES/NO, Where are they located? 6. How does [the organisation] facilitate inter-project knowledge sharing? 7. How does [the organisation] facilitate collaboration between projects? 8. Does the company organise workshops, seminars where people from

other projects/other project managers can exchange knowledge? What are they? Do you find them useful?

1 The interviews did not always follow the exact interview structure presented in the case protocol. Often the investigator used additional probing questions to clarify answers or to expand interesting comments raised by interviewees. 2 Typology proposed by Cleland and Ireland (1994)

Appendixes

237

9. What is normally done to help new employees to get off speed? 10. Does the organisation reward individuals for knowledge sharing? In

what way? 11. Are project managers/members normally willing to share shortcomings

that occurred in their projects with colleagues outside their project? - (Can you give example?)

12. What means do you normally use when you seek/share knowledge outside your project?

13. What would be your preferred means? Why? 14. To promote cross-division collaboration, does company offer

collaborative tools such as corporate subversion repository, teleconferences, Wikis? Do you use them? What is your attitude towards these tools?

15. Does your organisation have dedicated program or project support unit (also known as project management office (PMO)?

16. From your perspective, how does PMO facilitate knowledge sharing between projects? (Can you give example?)

17. Do you produce lessons learned after project stages/milestones? 18. In what stages of the project do you normally produce LL? 19. Do you review past plans or lessons learned during planning phase of the

project? (if not ask why?) (if yes, do you find them useful and why?) 20. What is included in lesson learned? 21. How do lessons learned are captured in your organisation? (text file,

word doc, pdf etc?) 22. Are LL easily accessible in your organisation? 23. Can you give example when such inter-project knowledge sharing

worked really well? and why it worked well? 24. When you sought knowledge, related to a recently completed project,

from a person from other project, how important for you were the following characteristics of that person?

Attributes Important Moderate Not

Important

Competence

Skills and experience

Positive intention

Willingness to help

Honesty in information sharing

Credibility

Appendixes

238

25. Please explain why [this attribute] is [Important/Moderate/Not important] for you?

Closing Phase

Check with respondents if there is a possibility to contact them again in case any clarification is required.

Part 3: Data collection procedures

Details of key contact person

Site 1: Name........................e-mail......................tel. no............... Site 2: Name........................e-mail......................tel. no.............. Site 3: Name........................e-mail......................tel. no.............. Site 4: Name........................e-mail......................tel. no...............

Preparation prior to site visit

- Ensure a room is booked for the interview - Tape recorder - Review of case study questions

List of interviewees

1. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 2. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 3. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 4. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 5. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 6. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 7. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 8. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 9. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number] 10. [Name of interviewee] [e-mail] [contact number]

Data collection plan

The calendar period for the site visits

Sample of the interview agenda at Delta

Appendixes

239

Evaluation

References to relevant investigated documents and observations

(Including organisational structure charts, LL spread sheets, and other relevant

documents.)

Field notes

Following advice of Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) an interview notes were

maintained and updated after each interview. These notes included information of

what has been identified and explored during the interview, and captured overall

impression of the interview. Nevertheless, these field notes were not used during

data analysis process. They were used only to recapture what happened during the

interview and recall the main points that were observed.

Appendixes

240

Appendixes

241

APPENDIX C - Correspondence with

Study Participants

This appendix provides templates of e-mails sent to key contact persons and

respondents during planning and conducting data collection.

E-MAIL SENT TO KEY CONTACT PERSON TO INITIATE DATA COLLECTION (EXAMPLE)

Dear [Key contact person], This is Anna Wiewiora from QUT. We met in July and discussed the opportunity to interview [Gamma] employees and investigate knowledge sharing between projects at [Gamma]. I have recently obtained ethical clearance required for data collection, and would like to begin the interview process at [Gamma]. Would October be a suitable month to conduct the interviews? Would you wish to schedule interviews yourself or prefer me to personally contact the potential respondents? Ideally, I would like to interview 15 people including project managers, project officers, personnel of the Project Management Office, and others that play a significant role in inter-project communication and knowledge transfer. As discussed, this research will adopt a "minimal impact" approach, so it will only include short 45 minutes interviews and review of documents. There is no cost to the participating organisation and in return for collaboration in the study [Gamma] will be provided with a summary report detailing the findings of the research. I trust that our collaboration will be fruitful for both parties and produce valuable results to [Gamma]. Thank you very much for your support and the opportunity to work with [Gamma] employees in this important research area. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Kind Regards,

Anna Wiewiora

PhD Candidate | School of Urban Development | Faculty of Built Environment

and Engineering | Queensland University of Technology

Phone: 04 1674 3533 | Emails: [email protected] or

[email protected]| CRICOS No. 00213J

mailto:[email protected]


Appendixes

242

E-MAIL SENT TO POTENTIAL INTERVIEWEES (EXAMPLE)

Dear [Name of the potential interviewee], This is Anna Wiewiora from QUT Faculty of Engineering. (Key contact person] gave me your e-mail and informed that you have agreed to participate in data collection for the research on inter-project knowledge sharing in project-based organisations. [Key contact person] advised me to contact you directly and schedule an interview. The

interview would last approximately 45 minutes, and will focus on your experience in

seeking and sharing knowledge, best practices and lessons learned between projects.

If possible can we please arrange the interview by the end of this week? Please let me know of your availability and suggest a suitable time for you to meet up. Thank you very much for your support and the opportunity to share your experience. Hope to hear from you soon. Kind Regards,

Anna Wiewiora





E-MAIL UPDATING KEY CONTACT PERSON ABOUT THE STUDY PROGRESS (EXAMPLE)

Dear [Key contact person],

Thank you very much for the opportunity to conduct the interviews at [Gamma].

The data collection process has gone smoothly thanks to your support and to the great

efforts contributed by the respondents.

The next stage of the research is to conduct approx 15 min web-based questionnaire. The

questionnaire will be available to [Gamma] employees in February. I will contact them

directly asking for the participation.

I will then provide [Gamma] with a detailed report on the inter-project knowledge sharing

best practices including some specific recommendations for [Gamma] projects.

Kind Regards,

Anna Wiewiora









Appendixes

243

E-MAIL SENT TO PARTICIPANTS ASKING TO FILL OUT WEB-BASED QUESTIONNAIRE ON OC AND

TRUST (EXAMPLE)

Dear [Name of the participant],

This is Anna Wiewiora from QUT. Thank you again for sharing your insights and experience

on knowledge sharing practices at [Gamma] during our meeting few months ago. Your

frank responses provided a valuable contribution to the study.

I am now approaching the final stage of the study in which I would like to invite you to take

part in an online questionnaire. It should only take about 15 minutes to complete.

The questionnaire is strictly confidential. It contains questions, which covers aspects of

organisational culture and knowledge sharing practices.

To access it, please click on (or copy and paste) the URL below:

http://qtrial.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV

With your help in filling out this questionnaire we will be able to gain more reliable and

credible findings for the final report and research results.

Thank you for your help and support.

Kind Regards,

Anna Wiewiora







Appendixes

244

Appendixes

245

APPENDIX D - Consent Form

This appendix presents The Consent Form that had to be signed by every respondent

prior to conducting the interview. It includes a short description of the study,

expected benefits of the participation, and confidentiality assurance. The Form was

prepared as a part of Ethical Clearance granted prior to data collection (Ethics No:

0900000432).

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION for QUT

RESEARCH PROJECT

“Improving Inter-project Knowledge Transfer in

Project-Based Organisations”

Research Team Contacts

Anna Wiewiora As. Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah Dr Glen Murphy 04 16743533 07 3138 8303 07 3138 1397

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Description

An important part for managing the knowledge is its transfer to locations where is needed

and can be used. This research focuses on the problem of inter-project knowledge transfer

based on the idea that despite project uniqueness, each project activity can be repetitive

and reused in different projects. This means that knowledge from one project is valuable

and can be reused in other projects. Therefore it is important to share knowledge across

projects in order to avoid unnecessary re-invention of lessons already learned. The transfer

of organisational knowledge, such as best practices, can be hard to achieve because it is

difficult to connect the right person with the source of knowledge he or she requires. This

study will examine the relationships between key elements determining effective inter-

project knowledge transfer. This will help to provide guidelines for project-based

organisations to ensure inter-project knowledge transfer, best practice approaches on how

to ensure effective knowledge communication and transfer of lessons learned beyond the

project, as well as advice regarding the best knowledge transfer techniques for different

PBO types.


Appendixes

246

The research team requests your assistance by sharing with us best practices in inter-

project knowledge communication and lessons learned transfer.

Participation

Your participation in this project is voluntary. If you do agree to participate, you can

withdraw from participation at any time during the project without comment or penalty.

Your decision to participate will in no way impact upon your current or future relationship

with QUT.

Your participation will involve focused interview to investigate matters related to inter-

project knowledge communication.

- Approximate interview time will be 30 - 45 min plus 10 - 20 min web-based questionnaire.

Expected benefits

As a result of your participation you will be provided with a detailed report relating to the

study that will answer the following questions regarding your organisation:

What type of communication is the most effective for inter-project knowledge transfer?

How to improve the communication process to ensure more effective knowledge transfer?

How to overcome barriers that cause ineffective inter-project knowledge transfer?

How organisation can improve knowledge transfer across projects? Risks

There are no risks beyond normal day-to-day living associated with your participation in this

project.

Confidentiality

Organisation’s name and participants' names will not be included in all reports and

publications unless approval is obtained from the relevant participants.

Consent to Participate

We would like to ask you to sign a written consent form (enclosed) to confirm your

agreement to participate.

Questions / further information about the project

Please contact the researcher team members named above to have any questions

answered or if you require further information about the project.

Concerns / complaints regarding the conduct of the project

QUT is committed to researcher integrity and the ethical conduct of research projects.

However, if you do have any concerns or complaints about the ethical conduct of the

project you may contact the QUT Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or

Appendixes

247

[email protected]. The Research Ethics Officer is not connected with the research

project and can facilitate a resolution to your concern in an impartial manner.

CONSENT FORM for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

“Improving Inter-project Knowledge Transfer in

Project-Based Organisations”

Statement of consent

By signing below, you are indicating that you:

have read and understood the information document regarding this project

have had any questions answered to your satisfaction

understand that if you have any additional questions you can contact the research team

understand that you are free to withdraw at any time, without comment or penalty

understand that you can contact the Research Ethics Officer on 3138 2340 or [email protected] if you have concerns about the ethical conduct of the project

the interview will include a digital recording

agree to participate in the project.

Name

Signature

Date / /



Appendixes

248

Appendixes

249

APPENDIX E - Questionnaire

This appendix reports on questions send to case study respondents. Before the

submission of the questionnaire, pilot questionnaire was conducted with eight

people: three academics, two practitioners, and three PhD students. After considering

their feedback, questions were realised to case study participants.

Introduction and Confidentiality Statement

Dear Respondent,

We ask for your collaboration to complete this questionnaire. Your efforts to complete it honestly and fully will determine the quality of this research.

We guarantee that all your information and answers will remain strictly confidential to the research team. Only the aggregated level data will be reported and no judgment or evaluation of individuals will be made.

This research meets the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. The ethics approval number is 0900000432. The contact person with regards to Ethical Clearance is Janette Lamb, tel. 07 3138 5123, e-mail: [email protected]

Thank you for your effort and contribution to the study.

Regards, Anna Wiewiora Research Centre Room: O401, Block O School of Urban Development / Project Management Faculty of Build Environment and Engineering Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Ph.: 04 16743533 E-mail: [email protected]

TELL US ABOUT YOUR ORGANISATION, FOCUSING ON THE UNIT/DIVISION/OR

DEPARTMENT YOU ARE CURRENTLY WORKING IN.


Appendixes

250

For each of the next 6 statements please distribute 100 points amongst the four items (A, B, C and D) depending on the extent to which each item best describes your organisation3. Make sure the total distributed for each statement equals 100, as per the example shown

below.

E.g.: Knowledge sharing in organisations can be achieved by:

A. building mutual trust 30

B. improving information and communication technologies 20

C. motivating employees with incentives 10

D. building knowledge sharing culture 40

Total 100

1) My organisation is ... A. a very personal place. It is like an extended family, people seem to share a lot of themselves.

B. a very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick their necks out and take risks.

C. very results oriented. The major concern is with getting the job done, people are very competitive and achievement oriented.

D. a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generally govern what people do.

Total 100

2) The leadership in my organisation is generally considered to

exemplify... A. mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.

B. entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking.

C. a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus.

D. coordinating, organising, or smooth-running efficiency.

Total 100

3) The management style in my organisation is characterised by... A. teamwork, consensus, and participation.

B. individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness.

C. hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement.

D. security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability in relationships.

Total 100

4) The glue that holds my organisation together is... A. loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organisation runs high.

B. commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis

3 Items measuring organisational culture were adopted from Cameron and Quinn (2005)

Appendixes

251

on being on the cutting edge.

C. the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressiveness and winning are common themes.

D. formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organisation is important.

Total 100

5) My organisation emphasises... A. human development. High trust, openness, and participation persist.

B. acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new things and prospecting for opportunities are valued.

C. competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winning in the marketplace are dominant.

D. permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operations are important.

Total 100

6) My organisation defines success on the basis of... A. the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment, and concern for people.

B. having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader and innovator.

C. winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitive market leadership is key.

D. efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-cost production are critical.

Total 100

WHEN ANSWERING THE REMAINING QUESTIONS PLEASE HAVE IN

MIND THE MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED PROJECT IN WHICH YOU HAVE

BEEN INVOLVED.

Think of a person, outside that project team, who were most important in providing you with knowledge on that project (e.g. other project managers and/or project members from your organisation not working on that project)

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with following statements related to that person4.

Strongly agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

This person is very capable of performing his/her job.

oo oo oo oo oo

4 Items measuring the three trust dimensions were adopted from Mayer and Davis (1999) and used also in Becerra and Gupta (2003).

Appendixes

252

I fell very confident about this person's skills. oo oo oo oo oo

This person has much knowledge about the work that he/she need to do.

oo oo oo oo oo

This person is known to be successful with the things he/she tries to do.

oo oo oo oo oo

This person really looks out for what is important for me.

oo oo oo oo oo

This person is very concerned about my welfare. oo oo oo oo oo

My needs are very important to this person. oo oo oo oo oo

This person would go out of his/her way to help me.

oo oo oo oo oo

This person has a strong sense of justice. oo oo oo oo oo

I never have to worry about whether this person will stick to her/his word.

oo oo oo oo oo

This person tries hard to be fair in dealings with others.

oo oo oo oo oo

Sound principles seem to guide this person's behaviour.

oo oo oo oo oo

Appendixes

253

APPENDIX F – Example of the Report

Sent to Participating Organisation

This appendix provides an example of the report sent to one of the four participating

organisations. For the confidentiality purpose the actual name of the organisation

was changed to BETA.

Anna Wiewiora PhD Candidate Cooperative Research Centre for Integrated Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM) Faculty of Build Environment and Engineering Queensland University of Technology Supervisory Team: Associated Professor Bambang Trigunarsyah Dr Glen Murphy Professor Guy Gable

BETA INTER-PROJECT

KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Analysis report

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3

RESEARCH AIM ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3

RESEARCH APPROACH ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

FUTURE ACTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................. 3

KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3

KEY FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4

INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS – TRUST ................................................................................................................................... 4

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BETA ...................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.5

ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS .................................................................................................................................................. 6

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BETA ............................................................................................................................ 7

KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS ................................................................................................................................... 8

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BETA .......................................................................................................................... 10

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 12

RECOMMENDATIONS ON TRUST ......................................................................................................................................... 12

RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE TRANSFER OF LESSONS LEARNED ................................................................. 13

WIKI ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

FURTHER ACTIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 16

FURTHER READINGS........................................................................................................................................................... 16

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: SWOT ANALYSIS ON WIKI ACROSS THREE PROJECT-BASED ORGANISATIONS ..................................................... 14

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: TRUST DIMENSIONS ................................................................................................................................................ 5

TABLE 2: ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS AFFECTING KNOWLEDGE SHARING ............................................................................ 6

TABLE 3: USE OF KNOWLEDGE SHERING MECHANISMS AT BETA .......................................................................................... 8

TABLE 4: LESSONS LEARNED ISSUES ...................................................................................................................................... 9

TABLE 5: THE MAINTENANCE OF WIKI ENTRIES ................................................................................................................... 15

I n t r o d u c t i o n

This report provides findings from the interviews conducted with Beta personnel on knowledge sharing practices between Beta’ projects in the Business Improvement and Transition and Customer Projects. Beta is one of three project-based organisations participated in the study. The report is structured as follows - 1. Overview of the research. 2. Research approach used for data collection. 3. Key findings thus far. 4. Implications for Beta. 5. Recommendations. 6. Plan for further action.

RREESSEEAARRCCHH AAIIMM

Current research shows that every project can provide valuable knowledge to other projects due to an unexpected action, unique approach or problem experienced during project phases. Furthermore, it is apparent that the risk of knowledge loss at a project’s end is a serious problem for organisations. Companies can save considerable costs, resulting from redundant work and the repetition of mistakes - if they master the project learning cycle. Consequently, the aim of this is: To develop an approach for effective inter-project knowledge sharing within project-

based organisations

The approach will help to direct Beta to achieve more effective knowledge share between projects and to improve its long term performance. G

RREESSEEAARRCCHH AAPPPPRROOAACCHH

Six semi-structured interviews have been conducted to date with various project leaders and project members from the Business Improvement and Transition and Customer Projects Departments. The aim of the interviews was to capture practices in inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). The average interview was 45 minutes. All interviews were recorded and later transcribed for data analysis. Findings from the interviews focused on the key elements that appeared to be important in understanding the I-PKS, contributing to model development. G

FFUUTTUURREE AACCTTIIOONNSS The project team intends to consider for utilisation the initial findings contained within this report. Additional interviews, followed by 10-15 min questionnaire for quantitative analysis, will contribute to a clearer picture of the way in which Beta transfers project knowledge between projects.

KKEEYY FFIINNDDIINNGGSS

This report provides findings to date on inter-project knowledge sharing with the focus on:

1. Organisational factors including the role of organisational culture and project managers’ geographical dispersion.

2. It reveals findings on three trust dimensions: ability, benevolence, and integrity.

3. It examines mechanisms used to share knowledge in Beta providing comprehensive analysis on the use of lessons learned and wikis.

4. The last section discusses implications for Beta and provides recommendations drawn from the cross case analysis of participating organisations on how to build trusting relationships, improve transfer of lessons learned, and ensure effective and more dynamic wikis for better knowledge sharing.

K e y F i n d i n g s This section provides key findings focusing on critical elements affecting knowledge sharing between projects in Beta including:

Trust;

Organisational factors consisting of organisational culture and size; and

Knowledge sharing mechanisms focusing on lessons learn as a source of project knowledge.

IINNTTEERRPPEERRSSOONNAALL RREELLAATTIIOONNSS –– TTRRUUSSTT

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

BACKGROUND

Trust is a part of the human dimension of project management; and is one of the most important determinants of project success. Trust is positively related to development of project teams and improves the strength of working relationships by solidifying partnering roles. Furthermore, trust increases the willingness of various project stakeholders to cooperate in non-self motivated ways reducing transaction costs, and contributing to risk mitigation in projects. Trust creates a climate in which people feel more comfortable and secure in sharing ideas as well as searching for information. The impact of three dimensions of trust – ability, benevolence, and integrity on knowledge sharing between Beta projects was examined. Three trust dimensions play different roles in knowledge sharing.

Ability refers to the trustor's perception that another party is knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of competence or skills. Ability is domain-specific in that trustees can be highly proficient in one area may be viewed as having little experience in other areas.

Benevolence suggests that the trustee has some specific attachment to the trustor and would keep the best interests of the trustor at heart.

Integrity refers to the trustor's perception that the trustee will adhere to a set of principles such as honesty, and credibility during and after the knowledge exchange. Perceived integrity instils trustor's confidence in trustee behavior and reduces perceptions of risk. Also, if a project member does not give an honest advice, loses credibility, and will not be asked for an opinion again.

AMONG ALL TRUST DIMENSIONS ABILITY TRUST WAS PERCEIVED AS THE MOST

IMPORTANT FACTOR CONTRIBUTING TO KNOWLEDGE SHARING WITHIN AND

BETWEEN BETA PROJECTS.

Table 1 provides definitions of three forms of trust, and their indicators.

Table 1: Trust dimensions

Ability trust was referred to as only important in the transfer of codified knowledge.

Beta respondents did not reflect on benevolence or integrity as having significant impact in knowledge share at all. However, there were limited comments on benevolence and integrity trust. Additional interviews, will contribute to a clearer picture on the role of benevolence and integrity trust for Beta employees.

Trust Dimensions

ABILITY BENEVOLENCE INTEGRITY

Definition

A perception that another party is knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of competence.

Suggests that the trustee has some specific attachment to the trustor and would keep the best interests of the trustor at heart.

A perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable.

indicators competence, skills

and experience

positive intentions and willingness to

help

honesty and credibility

S U M M A R Y A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R B E T A

Among all trust dimensions ability trust was perceived as the most important factor contributing to knowledge sharing within and between Beta projects.

Furthermore, Beta respondents did not reflect on benevolence or integrity as having significant impact in knowledge share.

Trust essentially involves the assumption of risk (a probability of loss). In Beta there is minimal risk involved in knowledge sharing because people seldom rely on each other while searching for knowledge, instead they use databases, which input is reviewed and controlled. In the circumstances knowledge seeker is confident that knowledge he/she acquired comes from reliable sources. This confidence eliminates risk by ignoring possible alternatives. Absence of risk removes the need for investing in trust-building initiatives. This explains why benevolence and integrity trust were perceived as not important by Beta respondents. However, analysis from two other project-based organisations that participated in the study revealed that trust had a strong impact on knowledge sharing in inter-project context. It was found that when trust exists people are more willing to seek and more confident to apply knowledge received from others to a project. Therefore, Beta need to invest in building trust especially to encourage sharing of embodied and rich tacit knowledge that is often more valuable then schematic, simple and easily codified explicit knowledge.

The section ‘Summary of Findings’ provides practical directions on trust. Some

suggestions for managers on how to effectively develop and maintain trusting relationships are provided in the section ‘Recommendations’, at the end of the report.

OORRGGAANNIISSAATTIIOONNAALL FFAACCTTOORRSS

Organisatio

nal Culture

Size

BACKGROUND The organisational culture and subcultures surrounding project members influence their involvement in knowledge transfer and sharing of lessons learned. Organisational culture encourages (or discourages) trustworthy behaviour through the structuring of general patterns of communication, coordination, and decision making. Right organisational culture enhances trusting relationships, and help to enable more effective knowledge sharing. Without appropriate mechanisms to encourage cooperation, knowledge transfer may not work.

OVERALL: EMPLOYEES FROM THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AND TRANSITION

AND CUSTOMER PROJECTS ARE MOSTLY OPEN AND WILLING TO SHARE

KNOWLEDGE WITH THEIR COLLEAGUES, WITH SOME MINOR CASES OF

HESITANCY. Organisational factors include organisational culture, and size. Organisational culture has been analysed by looking at: willingness to share knowledge, open communication, presence of silos, employees’ involvement, teaching and sharing, learning from mistakes. These fundamentals have been found to influence knowledge sharing in organisations. Size represents geographical dispersion between project managers and office landscape architecture. Table 2 summarises the findings.

Table 2: Organisational factors affecting knowledge sharing

ORGANISATIONAL FACTORS INFLUENCING KNOWLEDGE SHARING (BETA)

Willingness to share, open communication

Mostly open and willing to share knowledge These reluctant to share are where in the role for a long time, or those focussed on career progressing

Presence of silos No silos have been identified

Employees Involvement Teaching and sharing

Organisation encourages, but does not actively contribute in facilitating inter-project knowledge share

Office Landscape Architecture

Open plan office architecture encourages frequent knowledge share Knowledge share between different geographical locations is minimal

Interviewees reported that their colleagues are mostly open and willing to share knowledge.

Three respondents agreed that those reluctant to share are those who were in a role for a long time, “when they have been in a role for so long, and they have lot of IP, and are not necessarily willing to share that with

younger people”, or are focussed on their career and perceive knowledge as a power and a way to promotion.

Those employees who are co-located share knowledge frequently. Open plan office architecture and specially designed “cages” allow for business related informal chats. However, it has been stated that knowledge sharing between different geographical locations is minimal. For example, it was reported that it’s very difficult to do a knowledge transfer in between Sydney and Brisbane. “So even though you can do email, phone calls, sometimes you can lose things in that communication and it’s really hard to transfer knowledge [that way]”.


Overall the analysis showed that Beta has well defined processes, rigour and discipline. It was reported, “when it cannot be measured it is not worth doing it”, and that information is really valuable when hard coded and documented. “When we later discuss things with [the] director, there is a need for data, for supporting evidence.” Culture in Beta is based on stability and control where employees are more likely to seek codified, explicit knowledge. There was only minor evidence on tacit knowledge sharing activities. Beta need to encourage informal interactions, and invest in development of trust to facilitate transfer of tacit knowledge.

KKNNOOWWLLEEDDGGEE SSHHAARRIINNGG MMEECCHHAANNIISSMMSS

Relational

Technolog

y

Project Management Procedure

BACKGROUND

There is a range of knowledge sharing mechanisms available for Beta employees including face-to-face formal and informal meetings, wikis, lessons learned repositories, Project Management Office, and other tools (such as e-mails and intranet). There are three types of knowledge sharing mechanisms: relational, technology, and project management procedures. Relational mechanisms promote mostly face-to-face communication; while technology based mechanisms include electronic or document knowledge exchange. Document exchange is a highly effective and efficient mechanism for sharing codified knowledge. It is often ineffective for transmitting complex and hardly codified tacit knowledge. In contrast, conversations and the transfer of people are relatively inefficient mechanisms for sharing codified knowledge, but for transferring tacit knowledge, they may be the only effective mechanisms [2].

IN BETA FORMAL MEETINGS ARE VALUED HIGHER THAN INFORMAL

INTERACTION. PEOPLE ARE HAPPY TO TALK, BUT INFORMATION IS ESPECIALLY

VALUED WHEN IS HARD CODED. Table 3 summarises findings on use of knowledge sharing mechanisms among Beta employees. Respondents commented on which means they perceived as important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.

Table 3: Use of knowledge sharing mechanisms at Beta

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

Beta (6) Number of

respondents/percentage

Important and /or primarily used


83.33%

Other Tools (i.e. e-mail, intranet)

3 50.00%


33.33%

Project Management Office 2

33.33%

Wikis 1

16.67%

Lessons Learned Database 0

0.00%

5 people reported formal meetings are important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.

Respondents reported that Beta wikis are too formalised and controlled. For most people in Beta wikis is used as a database to capture static info, not as an interactive tool to exchange knowledge.

However, no Beta respondents stated lessons learned repositories were

important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.

Further data analysis revealed the reasons why lessons learned were unpopular among employees in Beta. Lessons learned issues identified during the interviews are presented in Table 4. Issues with lessons learned quality, visibility, and processes have been identified.

Lessons learned quality represents clarity of lessons learned content and scope.

Visibility corresponds to the degree lessons learned can be accessed in the organisation.

Processes refer to lessons learned development and implementation.

Table 4: Lessons learned issues

LESSONS LEARNED ISSUES

QUALITY Lack of consistency in a way how lessons learned are produced and stored

VISIBILITY

Lessons learned are captured and stored in way that is conductive to sharing

It is hard to find relevant information

Lessons learned are not stored in a concise location

PROCESSES

Lack of lessons learned ownership - someone responsible for implementing changes, and following up

Lack of clear avenue for the projects to share LL. “We have document management system, wikis, blogs, but that‟s about the individual‟s initiative to utilise those tools”

Lessons learned are not captured throughout the project, especially the long duration projects as a result lessons learned are forgotten


Data from interviews demonstrated that knowledge was primarily shared during formal meetings. Furthermore, employees exchanged knowledge during informal interactions. Beta create opportunities for informal interactions for example providing specially designed ‘cages’. However, it was also found that information is more valued when is hard coded and formalised. Even wiki was used as a database to capture static info, not as a space for informal collaboration. Nevertheless, the use of lessons learned repositories was unpopular among Beta employees. The main concern with lessons learned, according to respondents, was a lack of consistency and clear uniform guidelines through the lessons learned process. One way to improve better capture and transfer of lessons learned is to extend the use of Wiki and create a space for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. The section “Recommendations” provides some directions for Beta on how to improve lessons learned quality, visibility, and processes. Recommendations come from cross case analysis and best practices used by participating organisations.

S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s Beta employees heavily rely on explicit rather than tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge provides rich context and is hard to articulate with formal language because it is not easily visible and expressible; it refers to personal ideas, experiences, and values. It is highly personal and hard to formalise, but it has a great value for the organisation. The sharing of tacit knowledge is a critical component of successful knowledge management efforts. Beta could benefit from better share of tacit knowledge. Beta create opportunities for interactions between co-located employees. Indeed, frequent and close interactions allow building a common understanding, increase the availability of people, and create knowledge sharing opportunities. In contrary poor relationships can result in hoarding knowledge sharing activities. However, strong ties themselves are not enough for effective sharing of knowledge. Ties between individuals must possess high level of trust for effective knowledge sharing to occur. Trust creates a climate in which people feel more comfortable and secure in sharing ideas as well as searching for information. Furthermore, cross-case analysis of participating in the study organisations revealed that ability, benevolence, and integrity facilitate and improve working relationships between members from different projects, which in turn has a positive effect on project outcomes. Greater level of trust in Beta could improve the sharing of highly complex and hardly codified tacit knowledge.

BETA NEED TO INVEST IN BUILDING TRUST ESPECIALLY TO ENCOURAGE SHARING OF EMBODIED AND

RICH TACIT KNOWLEDGE THAT IS OFTEN MORE VALUABLE THEN SCHEMATIC AND EASILY CODIFIED

EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE.

It has been found that Beta culture is characterised by measurement, process control, and use of quality tools. To acquire knowledge employees rely primarily on codified sources thus knowledge comes mainly from databases where “everything is black and white”. This explains for example why formal meetings are valued higher than informal interaction. People are happy to talk, but information is really valued when is documented “because when we later discuss things with director, there is a need for data, for supporting evidence.” Culture in Beta is based on stability and control where employees are more likely to seek codified, explicit knowledge.

BETA NEED TO INVEST IN RELATIONAL MECHANISMS AND ENCOURAGE INFORMAL INTERACTIONS TO

FACILITATE TRANSFER OF TACIT KNOWLEDGE.

In Beta wiki was used as a database to capture static info, not as a space for informal collaboration. Wiki in fact is a successful emerging tool supporting collaboration and content management. Wiki provides capabilities for messaging (e.g., e-mail), calendaring, online chat, and discussion forums.

BETA COULD EXTEND THE USE OF WIKI AND CREATE A SPACE FOR COLLABORATION AND TACIT

KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE.

Next section provides practical recommendations for Beta employees on how to build trusting relationships that lead to greater knowledge exchange and how to improve transfer of lessons learned and fully utilised wiki capability to become an avenue for lessons learned and interactive knowledge share.

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

This section provides recommendations for Beta managers to ensure better

knowledge share between projects. The recommendations focus on:

1. building trust and maintaining trusting relationships 2. improving transfer of lessons learned

RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS OONN TTRRUUSSTT

Recommendations on trust have been drawn from the cross case analysis of participating organisations and an extensive literature review. To intentionally create trust or manage another party’s propensity to trust it is a difficult task. However, it is possible to enhance conditions for trust-building. Trust is context and person-specific; hence the appropriate means and methods for building trust should be considered carefully. Literature provides a range of practices to build trust for business environment that can be appropriate for inter-project context.

Positive attitude towards colleagues and own organisation, and support and advice in a workplace help build organisational trust.

Distributed teams with a high rate of communication and interaction develop trust faster than teams with a low rate.

Socialization, personal interaction, and blending cultures are the drivers

for trusting relationships. Sharing sensitive information increases trust.

These statements suggest that the social dialogue among members notably supports the development of trust. Therefore, to effectively develop and maintain trusting relationships in Beta it is recommended for higher level managers to**:

REVIEW ORGANISATIONAL NORMS AND PRACTICES THAT ENCOURAGE OR

DISCOURAGE THE HIGH FREQUENCY OF INTERACTION AND COLLABORATION.

SUPPORT AND RECOGNISE KNOWLEDGE SHARING INITIATIVES. - Keep publicising key values such as trust—highlighting both

rewarded good examples and punished violations—in multiple forums.

ENDORSE AND MAINTAIN FRIENDLY AND NON-COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE AT

WORK. - Don’t divulge personal information shared in confidence. - When appropriate, take risks in sharing your expertise with people.

Be willing to offer others your personal network of contacts when appropriate.

CREATE ATMOSPHERE FOR LEARNING NOT BLAMING.

We recommend to encourage managers and employees to - Make clear both what they do and don’t know. - Admit it when they don’t know something rather than posture to

avoid embarrassment. - Defer to people who know more than they do about a topic.

**Some of the recommendations are aligned with those proposed by Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin (2003) and listed in the section.

RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS OONN HHOOWW TTOO IIMMPPRROOVVEE TTRRAANNSSFFEERR OOFF LLEESSSSOONNSS LLEEAARRNNEEDD

Recommendations on lessons learned have been drawn from cross case analysis and best practices used by participating organisations. To improve lessons learned quality, visibility, and processes the following solutions are proposed: INTRODUCE AN EASILY ACCESSIBLE, INTELLIGIBLE, AND USER-FRIENDLY LESSONS

LEARNED DATABASE

INTRODUCE LESSONS LEARNED OWNERSHIP – PERSON ACCOUNTABLE FOR LESSONS

LEARNED IMPLEMENTATION

CATALOGUE LESSONS LEARNED ACCORDING TO THEMES

KEEP LESSONS LEARNED IN ONE PLACE

DEVELOP CLEAR ACTION PLAN FOR CAPTURING, DOCUMENTING AND SHARING

LESSONS LEARNED THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT

WWIIKKII --

Avenue for lessons learned and interactive knowledge share

Wiki can improve visibility and capture lessons learned more informally throughout the project. Recommendations on wikis come from cross case analysis and best practices used by participating organisations. A SWOT analysis has been conducted looking for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with wikis across three participating organisations (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: SWOT analysis on WIKI across three Project-based Organisations

Types of information and knowledge available and stored in wikis are:

Static information Links to processes Lessons learned Valuable links Technical information Space for collaboration and knowledge exchange

Respondents reported that Beta wikis are too formalised and controlled. For most people in Beta wikis is used as a database to capture static info, not as an interactive tool to exchange knowledge. Wiki capability is not fully utilised and only rarely used for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. According to the respondents some information and knowledge entered into wikis require maintenance and quality control, other information should be freely managed and built up by every employee. Consequently wiki entries should be categorised by required for:

STRENGTHS

• Shared location that everyone can view and

update

• Overcome e-mail trafficking

• Interactive tool

• Allows discoverability and visibility

• User friendly

• Provides useful source of information for

project managers, customers, and new

employees

• Allows sharing of tacit knowledge

• Useful for business intelligence information

• Alternative communication type for

distributed projects

WEAKNESSES

• Too little information

• Poor quality of entries

OPPORTUNITIESReasons to apply wikis

• Share knowledge (also tacit) quickly and

informally

• Improve visibility

• Keep knowledge and information on all

projects in one space

• Better systematise LL

• Capture LL in earlier project stages

• Capture LL more informally

THREATSDangers associated with applying wikis

• Can easily get outdated while not used

• Poor quality entries

• Lack of time to maintain

• Just another IT tool to maintain (people who

use alternative tools will not update wikis)

• Relatively new tool, people are resistant to

use it and/or do not know how to use it

ownership to maintain and quality control; moderate ownership, control and maintenance; and free entries

Wiki entries related to static info and lessons learned should be regularly updated and controlled. Other entries associated with collaboration and share of tacit knowledge should be maintained by employees encouraged to use wikis by their leaders. Table 5 shows different knowledge types that can be stored in a wiki and the required level of maintenance and quality control.

Table 5: The maintenance of wiki entries

REQUIRE OWNERSHIP TO MAINTAIN AND QUALITY

CONTROL

REQUIRE MODERATE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL

AND MAINTENANCE FREE ENTRIES

Explicit knowledge Tacit and explicit

knowledge Tacit knowledge

Static info

Links to processes

LESSONS LEARNED

Valuable links

Technical info

Space for collaboration and knowledge exchange

Furthermore, according to respondents from all three case studies, to ensure an updated and dynamic wiki it is important to consider design and environmental factors. Comprehensive, intelligible and user-friendly design along with leadership engagement, collaborative culture and ownership will ensure an effective and vibrant wiki. An overall analysis showed that Beta wiki could become a new avenue for lessons learned, and the way to share both, tacit and explicit knowledge across geographical locations. Herein an appropriately implemented wiki can assist in better share of tacit knowledge.

F u r t h e r A c t i o n s

The research project team would like to formally acknowledge the assistance so far provided by Beta and its personnel involved in the study. The project team intends to continue its data collection, interviewing project team leaders, team members and any other relevant personnel. Additional interviews and document reviews, followed by 10-15 min surveys for quantitative analysis, will contribute to a clearer picture of the way in which Beta transfers project knowledge within and between projects. We trust you found the preliminary findings interesting and valuable to Beta. If you are aware of anyone who can contribute to the research on knowledge sharing in Beta projects please contact me (details below): Anna Wiewiora Room: O401, Block O School of Urban Development / Project Management Faculty of Build Environment and Engineering Queensland University of Technology (QUT) Ph. : 04 16743533 E-mail: [email protected]

F u r t h e r R e a d i n g s

[1] E. H. Schein, "Organizational culture," American Psychologist, vol. 45, pp. 109-119, 1990. [2] E. Hoffman, C. Kinlaw, and D. Kinlaw, "Developing superior project teams: a study of the characteristics

of high performance. In: Project teams," 2001. [3] A. E. Akgün, J. Byrne, H. Keskin, G. S. Lynn, and S. Z. Imamoglu, "Knowledge networks in new product

development projects: a transactive memory perspective," Information & Management, vol. 42, pp. 1105-1120, 2005.

[4] J. K. Pinto, D. P. Slevin, and B. English, "Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of owner/contractor relationships," International Journal of Project Management, 2008.

[5] E. C. Kasper-Fuehrer and N. M. Ashkanasy, "Communicating trustworthiness and building trust in interorganizational virtual organizations," Journal of Management, vol. 27, pp. 235-254, 2001.

[6] P. Eskerod and H. J. Skriver, "Organisational culture restrainning in-house knowledge transfer between project managers - a case study " Project Management Journal, vol. 38, p. 13, 2007.

[7] E. M. Whitener, S. E. Brodt, M. A. Korsgaard, and J. M. Werner, "Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior," Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, pp. 513-530, 1998.

[8] R. Issa, R. A. and J. Haddad, "Perceptions of the impacts of organizational culture and information technology on knowledge sharing in construction," Construction Innovation, vol. 8, pp. 182-201, 2008.

[9] S. M. Jasimuddin, "A holistic view of knowledge management strategy," Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 12, 2008.

[10] K. Blomqvist and P. Ståhle, "Building organizational trust," in 16th Annual IMP Conference, Bath, 2000. [11] J. Sydow, "Understanding the constitution of interorganizational trust," in Trust within and between

organizations: Conceptual issues and empirical applications, C. Lane and R. Bachman, Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 31–63.

[12] S. L. Jarvenpaa and D. E. Leidner, "Communication and trust in global virtual teams," Organization Science, vol. 10, pp. 791-815, 1999.

[13] G. R. Jones and J. M. George, "The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork," Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, pp. 531-546, 1998.

[14] R. C. O'Brien, "Is Trust a Calculable Asset in the Firm?," Business Strategy Review, vol. 6, pp. 39-54, 2006.

[15] L. C. Abrams, R. Cross, E. Lesser, and D. Z. Levin, "Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks," Academy of Management Executive, vol. 17, pp. 64-77, 2003.


The Role of Organisational Culture, Trust and Mechanisms ... · The Role of Organisational Culture,...

Documents

Transcript of The Role of Organisational Culture, Trust and Mechanisms ... · The Role of Organisational Culture,...