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
294
Embed
The Role of Organisational Culture, Trust and Mechanisms ... · The Role of Organisational Culture, Trust and Mechanisms in Inter-Project Knowledge Sharing Submitted in fulfilment
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Role of Organisational Culture, Trust and Mechanisms in Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Anna Wiewiora
MA (Public Administration) University of Wroclaw
School of Urban Development
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
Australia
2011
iii
First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my lovely
parents Monika Wiewióra and Leszek Wiewióra
who have always believed in me, encouraged me and never let me
fall. Through the years you have instilled in me a desire to expand
my skills, build confidence and encouraged me to reach my dreams.
I would never achieve what I did, and would never be the
person I am without your love, encouragement, goodness,
sincerity and support. Thank you for this.
Tą pracę chciałabym zadedykować moim kochanym rodzicom
Monice i Leszkowi Wiewióra, ktorzy zawsze wierzyli we
mnie i w moje możliwości, motywowali mnie i dodawali mi sił
do dalszej drogi nie pozwalając się poddać.
Kochani rodzice, dziękuję Wam za to że zaszczepiliście we
mnie chęć poznania świata, budowaliscie poczucie mojej
wartości i dopingowaliscie mnie abym zawsze dążyła do
zdobycia wytyczonych celow i marzeń.
Nigdy nie osiągnełabym tego wszystkiego i nie byłabym tą
osobą ktorą jestem teraz bez Waszej miłości, wsparcia,
dobroci i szczerości jaka mnie obdarzaliście przez całe życie.
Za to wszystko dziękuję Wam z całego serca.
iv
v
Acknowledgements
This journey would not be possible without the support of several wonderful people.
My sincere gratitude to my three supervisors: As.Prof. Bambang Trigunarsyah, Prof.
Guy Gable, and Dr Glen Murphy. Bambang, thank you for believing in me, for your
encouragement, patience and understanding. You always provided me guidance and
practical solutions throughout the whole process. It was you who first encouraged me
to start the PhD and believed in me, in my passion and ability to undertake the
journey. I thank you for that. Guy I truly enjoyed our chats on methodology and
philosophical stance. They made me aware what PhD really is about. Glen, thank
you so much for your help and the opportunities that you have placed in front of me.
You always pushed me beyond my comfort zone and uncovered abilities I never
knew I have. It is because of you I learned how to think critically and analytically; I
believe this has helped me tremendously to become a better researcher. A warm
thank you to Dr Vaughan Coffey who provided me with great suggestions and has
been like a fatherly figure for me.
Thank you to supportive team from the Research Office, it was always pleasant to
deal with you guys. This study is funded by both the School of Urban Development
and the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Integrated Engineering Asset
Management (CIEAM). I gratefully acknowledge both for their financial assistance. I
wish to make a special note of appreciation for the industry participants who
contributed their time and effort to the case studies. Dennis, Eleonora, Nerida and
Peter — thank you, without you this research would not be possible. A warm thanks
to ISS team and in particular the amazing Karyn Gonano who helped a great deal in
improving my writing skills. You truly were a big part of my PhD journey! I would
also like to thank all those who have provided feedback for this work. I much
appreciate your time, support and interest in this study.
To my close friends from within and outside QUT with whom I have shared ups and
downs of this journey and who were always there for me. Special thanks to Melissa
Chan, Asrul Masrom and Kai Chen Goh. I learned so much about Malaysian culture
during our lunches and coffee breaks, you definitely made this journey enjoyable. I
also want to express my appreciation and thanks to Dr Liang Chen and Sofia Pemsel
— doing collaborative research with you has been such a pleasure. Our stimulating
discussions and brainstorming sessions on our common interest have broaden my
understanding about the field. Finally, I am greatly indebted to my parents who
always believed in me, for your unconditional love, goodness and encouragement,
and to my lovely David, who was there for me through the tough times and
difficulties I faced. Your love, understanding and perspective of life have been a
great help to the completion of my study.
I am grateful to have you all in my life.
vii
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Christenson, 2005). Therefore, among a range of processes and techniques used to
capture and share project knowledge, this research focuses on two techniques — LL
and PMO — both of which are recognised by leading project management
methodologies, PMBoK and PRINCE2 and acknowledged in the existing literature.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
30
2.6.2.1 Project Management Tools and Techniques for
Inter-project Knowledge Sharing
One way to master this learning cycle is to capture and transfer LL beyond the
project. LL are defined as key project experiences, which have certain general
business relevance for future projects. Validated and reviewed by a project team, LL
represent a consensus on key issues that should be considered in future projects
(Project Management Institute, 2004). The aim for LL is to capture the positive and
negative aspects of projects in order to learn from the experiences (Kotnour, 1999).
As a result, LL constitute an essential part of project knowledge that can be utilised
by other projects during their planning phases (Kotnour, 1999). Leading project
management methodologies like PMBoK and PRINCE2 have already acknowledged
the importance of the transfer of LL by identifying project management processes
during which the transfer of LL should occur (Office of Government Commerce UK,
2005; Project Management Institute, 2004).
Ideally, the past lessons should provide practical learnings that assist in the planning
of new projects, preventing PMs from repeating mistakes, and ultimately assisting
business areas associated with the project to improve their operations (Purdon, 2008).
Unfortunately, this process only partly occurs or does not occur at all, as pointed out
by Purdon. The LL are not documented until the project is in the closure phase,
where each lesson is only documented as a simple statement, and the process stops
when the project closes. Furthermore, Newell, et al. (2006) found that end-of-project
reviews, which were supposed to reflect and capture lessons for the future, were not
performing effectively. Constant time pressures caused project team members to
focus primarily on deliverables rather than concentrate on storing LL.
Some empirical studies have been conducted stressing the importance of the transfer
of lessons beyond the project. Kotnour (1999) proposed a plan-do-study-act (PDSA)
cycle from quality management that can be used to define the learning process that
occurs within and between projects, while Schindler and Eppler (2003) focused
mainly on the importance of the review of LL documents. However, neither studies
focused on the access to LL beyond the project as a form of knowledge repository.
Purdon (2008) proposed a more comprehensive approach to the transfer of LL, yet
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
31
his study shows best practices from only one organisation. Therefore, more empirical
evidence needs to be gathered in that area. It has to be clear who is responsible for
transferring LL, as well as how and to whom LL have to be transferred.
2.6.2.2 Project Management Office
As previously noted, PBOs are inherently weak in coordinating processes, resources
and capabilities across the organisation (Hobday, 2000). Advanced (matured) PBOs
embody PMOs, known also as Centres of Excellence, designed to coordinate project
work and provide a formal link between top management and project management.
However, not many PBOs have established such a mechanism and those that have,
have done so only recently.
PMOs can vary widely in terms of size, structure and accountability. The most
effective are those that continuously drive project teams to improve on their
performance. One role of the PMO is to manage a project‘s knowledge by leveraging
the project‘s best practices and managing LL. This knowledge is further fed to other
projects or areas of the organisation, including engineering, research and
development, and product development to improve the products and services of the
organisation (Desouza & Evaristo, 2006). PMOs play the role of knowledge broker
in the organisation, establishing connections between communities. According to
Julian (2008) PMOs span at least three or more communities of practice: upper
management, project teams and the PMO personnel. In this role, PMOs develop and
maintain a set of standards and methods (Dai & Wells, 2004) by providing
centralised archives of systematically collected and stored project knowledge in the
form of LL and project templates. In addition, PMOs also provide project
administrative support, project management consulting and mentoring, as well as
arranging project management training.
Desouza and Evaristo (2006) categorised PMOs along two dimensions:
administrative and knowledge-intensive. Administrative PMOs provide PMs with
administrative support. Knowledge-intensive PMOs, on the other hand, take an
active role in managing the best practices of project management, learning from
projects (both failures and successes), and improving the maturity of project
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
32
management in the organisation. According to Desouza and Evaristo (2006),
choosing the right PMO is not a straightforward task. The choice of PMO archetype
depends on the maturity level of the organisation‘s project management practices.
Administrative PMOs are often found in organisations where project management is
comparatively immature and where the organisation has difficulty integrating multi-
functional projects with its management hierarchy; the perceived solution is to limit
the powers of the PMO to avoid internal conflict. Knowledge-intensive PMOs are
suitable for organisations that have developed mature project management practices.
This allows PMs enough flexibility for innovation, while the PMO continues to
coordinate and drive focused improvement in project management. Knowledge-
intensive PMOs (‗corporate project management office‘ as per Walker and
Christenson‘s (2005) classification), provide services to the entire company and
focus on strategic and corporate activities to coordinate and improve project
management within the organisation. They move towards the concept of a centre of
excellence in project management by creating an environment to deliver a continuous
stream of successfully managed projects (Kerzner, 2003; Walker & Christenson,
2005).
Although a great deal of research has been conducted on PMOs, there is still a lack
of empirical evidence on how PMOs facilitate I-PKS and what are the best practices
in KS in PBOs from the perspective of different PMO archetypes. Accordingly, this
research aims to empirically examine how these project management exclusive
endeavours support I-PKS practices.
2.6.3. Barriers in Inter-project Knowledge
Sharing
The main problem in unsuccessful KT within PBOs is that the knowledge acquired
during one project is not effectively transferred and utilised by other projects. As
each new project starts, there is a tendency to reinvent the process rather than learn
from the experiences of previous projects (Prusak, 1997), resulting in unnecessary
rework, errors and time wastage.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
33
Two studies investigated I-PKS practices (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Newell, et al.,
2006). Newell, et al. (2006) investigated inter-project KT practices of 13 unrelated
projects across six organisations in the United Kingdom (UK). While Eskerod and
Skriver (2007) conducted a single experimental case study to find out the problems
and challenges related to KS between five full-time PMs within a project-based
company. The results of the two studies showed that KS between projects and from
project teams to the rest of their respective organisations was generally poor. There
was limited evidence of knowledge creation and learning at the project-level.
Findings of these and similar studies revealed a range of barriers that prevented
successful KS within and between projects. These are summarised in Table 2.4
presented below.
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
34
Table 2-4: Barriers to effecting KS within and between projects
BARRIERS
RELATED TO THE
CAPTURE AND
TRANSFER OF
DOCUMENTED
LESSONS
LEARNED
Transfer of LL is fragmented (Purdon, 2008):
o Lessons are focused on what was achieved by a project team (product knowledge) rather than how this had been achieved or why it worked or did not work (process knowledge) (Newell, et al., 2006).
LL are not included in the project scope and/or budget (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008).
End-of-project reviews do not effectively capture lessons for the future:
o Team members are focused on deliverables or start working on new projects rather than reflecting on LL (Newell, et al., 2006).
Lack of LL repositories (Newell, et al., 2006).
Lack of time to produce and review LL (Brady & Davies, 2004; Davenport, et al., 1998; Kotnour, 1999; Parker & Craig, 2008).
BARRIERS
RELATED TO
ORGANISATIONAL
FACTORS
Integration of KM strategies into the company goals is missing or unclear (Riege, 2005)
Existing OC does not provide sufficient support for sharing practices (Riege, 2005).
Lack of awareness of the importance of KT (Walker, 2004).
Lack of time for meetings and communication (Riege, 2005).
Time pressure in general (Lundin & Söderholm, 1995; Riege, 2005).
Closed office design does not encourage KS (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).
Weak communication links between geographically dispersed projects hinders KS (Hobday, 2000).
Project plans do not explicitly assign sufficient time and resources to KM activities (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Brady & Davies, 2004).
RELATIONAL
BARRIERS
Lack of trust (Foos, et al., 2006; Levin & Cross, 2004).
Lack of honesty and open analysis of failures and mistakes (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008).
Lack of social networks (Newell, et al., 2006).
Lack of individual motivation to document LL (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Brady & Davies, 2004).
BARRIERS
RELATED TO
KNOWLEDGE
SHARING
MECHANISMS
Shortage of appropriate infrastructure supporting sharing practices (Riege, 2005).
Lack of integration of IT systems (Newell, et al., 2006).
Lack of knowledge on how to use IT applications, lack of training to familiarise with systems, and lack of communication and demonstration of all advantages of the new or existing systems (Newell, et al., 2006).
BARRIERS
RELATED TO
PROJECT
MANAGERS
PMs‘ values do not encourage KS:
o PMs are highly independent individuals, and do not rely heavily on colleagues (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).
o PMs expose masculine cultural values, they are focused on accomplishing tasks, dealing with challenges, meeting personal deadlines; while the feminine values, such as teamwork, collaboration, openness and discussion, are those that support KT (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007).
Chapter 2 | Literature Review
35
2.7. SUMMARY
This chapter reviewed two broad fields of KM and project management, focusing on
KS practices in organisations engaging in project management. This review showed
that PBOs cannot entirely leverage KS practices from functional organisations.
Apparent dissimilarities between PBOs and functional organisations have been
identified, including organisational structure, duration of processes, viewpoint of
time, complexity and uniqueness of tasks and activities, as well as the mobility of
people. Furthermore, the literature review showed that some existing project
management processes, applicable solely in a project management context, have
been developed to facilitate I-PKS, including the process of LL, end-of-project
reviews, tools and techniques for KS, and deployment of PMOs. Nevertheless, these
distinct project processes are insufficiently utilised. A range of barriers have been
identified, which hinder I-PKS and these can be grouped into barriers related to: the
capture and transfer of documented LL, organisational factors, mechanisms to share
knowledge, PMs, and relational barriers.
This chapter demonstrated that there is still limited research in the area of KS
between projects. Existing literature on project management primarily focuses on
post project reviews and LL as the source of knowledge for future projects.
Preliminary research on the role of PMOs in I-PKS is minimal, and only recent
studies emphasise the importance of soft, human-related factors including OC.
The following chapter investigates the three factors that influence KS activities,
including trust, knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM) and OC from a range of
literature within and outside the project management discipline.
investigated knowledge flow at project and organisational levels and found that both
strategies personal interactions and technology means were equally utilised by
practitioners in the construction industry.
Table 3-1: Summary of the research on trust
Field Author Finding Type of
research Research focus
PR
OJE
CT
MA
NA
GE
ME
NT
Wong, Then & Skitmore (2000)
There are three antecedents of trust: achieving results, acting with integrity and demonstrating concern in construction teams.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined antecedents of trust within construction project management teams.
Koskinen et al. (2003)
Factors of mutual trust and proximity affect the use and level of tacit knowledge in project work.
Conceptual paper
Investigated what kind of social engagements allow for tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing to take place.
Akgün et al. (2005)
Interpersonal trust had a positive impact on the Transactive Memory System, team learning and new product success.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined new product development teams to determine the antecedents and consequences of the Transactive Memory System.
Ding et al. (2007)
Four factors influence interpersonal trust and willingness to share knowledge within a design team: team members‘ ‗attitude towards work‘, ‗ability with regard to work‘, ‗personality‘ and ‗social interaction‘.
Empirical, Interviews
Examined antecedents of trust.
Pinto, et al. (2009)
Integrity and competence trust are important determinants of healthy relationships for owners, but only integrity trust is a predictor of positive working relationships for contractors.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined the impact of integrity and competence trust on satisfaction with working relationships between owner and contractor.
Smyth (2010) Trust provides an important resource for creating greater probability and certainty, hence building operational and dyadic confidence.
Conceptual paper
Investigated the value of trust in the project management context.
Maurer (2010) Trust between project team members working on an inter-organisational project positively impacts on the acquisition of external knowledge.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined both outcomes and antecedents of trust in inter-organisational projects.
Field Author Finding Type of
research Research focus
OT
HE
R D
ISC
IPLIN
ES
Mayer & Davis, (1999)
Ability, benevolence and integrity mediated the relationship between perceptions of the appraisal system and trust.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Measured employee perception of top management trustworthiness and the appraisal system.
Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy (2001)
Appropriate ICT facilitates communication of trustworthiness and trust building in the virtual organisation.
Conceptual paper
Examined trust in virtual communities.
Ridings et al. (2002)
Trust is a significant predictor of a virtual community member‘s desire to exchange information, and especially to obtain information.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Explored the relationship between trust and information exchange in virtual communities.
Becerra & Gupta (2003)
Communication frequency, organisational tenure and decision-making autonomy are important determinants of perceived trustworthiness.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined moderating role of communication frequency on the perceived trustworthiness between top managers. The study was conducted within one organisation only.
Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin (2003)
Proposed a list of managerial behaviours that promote interpersonal trust.
Empirical, Interviews
Conducted interviews to identify how interpersonal trust develops in a KS context.
Levin & Cross (2004)
Benevolence- and competence-based trusts mediate the link between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined the link between strong ties and receipt of useful knowledge and the mediating role of competence- and benevolence-based trust from the knowledge seeker perspective.
Foos, et al. (2006)
Trust was critical in the perceived success of the transfer of tacit knowledge.
Empirical, Interviews and questionnaire
Examined factors that influence the transfer of tacit knowledge between two product development partners. Examined only one trust dimension.
Holste & Fields (2010)
Affect- and cognition-based trusts are positively related to a person‘s willingness to share and use tacit knowledge.
Empirical, Hypothesis testing
Examined the impact of affect- and cognition-based trust of co-workers on the willingness of professionals to share and use tacit knowledge. Surveyed staff in only one organisation.
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
PKS) behaviours. Pursuing the inductive theory building approach allowed
investigation of the factors of the I-PKS Framework in their natural environment.
This helped to better understand the reality under investigation, including the impact
of culture and the role of trust in I-PKS. Furthermore, using this approach enabled
exploration of a range of mechanisms facilitating I-PKS in the complex context of
project management.
Section 4.2 provides explanation on epistemological stand chosen for this research.
In Section 4.3, a snap shot of the research flow is presented together with the
research aim and questions. Subsection 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 discuss the appropriateness of
Chapter 4 | Methodology
62
choosing the inductive theory building approach, its strengths and limitations. The
following section, Section 4.4, outlines a case study method applied in this research,
demonstrating its strengths and limitations, further illustrating the detailed design of
the case study including the development of a protocol and the use of multiple
sources of evidence. Section 4.6 focuses on how data were analysed, addressing both
within- and cross-case analyses, as well as presenting a range of analytical
techniques used in this study. The chapter concludes with a discussion on how
reliability, validity and analytical generalisability were maintained throughout the
study.
4.2. PHILOSOPHICAL POSITION
Prior to the attempt of conducting a research one should be aware of different
philosophical positions that influence the way of how the research will proceed.
Among the main four schools of thoughts positivism, post-positivism, critical theory,
and constructivism outlined by Guba and Lincoln (1994) this research follows a post-
positivist paradigm, labelled as a critical realism, where the reality is viewed as
complex and needs to be investigated by multiple measures, as none of them is
perfect. Post-positivism situates itself between positivism and interpretativism
paradigms, in a sense that there are some overlapping characteristics between these
paradigms. Accordingly, this research displays some degree of positivist and
interpretativist views.
This research aims to uncover the true reality of inter-project knowledge sharing
behaviours; uncovering truth and comparing this to hypotheses or propositions is a
goal of both post-positivist and positivist research (Gephart, 2004). Both paradigms,
positivist and post-positivist need a convincing argument that the findings are valid
(Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This research achieved that
by combining techniques from Eisenhardt‘s inductive theory building approach
(1989) and Yin‘s case study approach (2003, 2009), and applying a range of quality
measures to ensure rigour and thoroughness of the research process, and validity of
the findings; which is discussed in greater details in next sections.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
63
Having said that, there are clear differences between post-positivist and positivist
paradigms. Positivism assumes that reality exists and it is driven by natural laws and
mechanisms that are absolute, where the knowledge is described in the forms of
time-free and context-free generalizations. Post-positivist approach, on the other
hand, states that reality may exist and rejects the idea proclaimed by positivist
researchers that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994). Post-positivism believes that we are all biased and all of our
observations are affected by our cultural experiences and world views. In its
perception of the reality as a complex, post-positivism is similar to interpretativism
(Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekeran, 2001; Guba & Lincoln, 1994), which believes that
people experience physical and social reality in different ways (Cavana, et al., 2001).
This research investigates a complex, contemporary and socially based problem of
inter-project knowledge sharing in a specific, project-based environment. The
examination of the phenomenon in its context allowed gaining a better understanding
of the problem and generating practical solutions to the problem. Propositions put
forward in the later Chapters suggest relationships between factors affecting inter-
project knowledge sharing, but are not absolute.
Despite the research complexity and close interaction with the problem under
investigation, to get closer to the reality and achieve objectivity the researcher
followed post-positivist view emphasising the importance of multiple measures and
observations. According to this view, each of the measures possess different types of
errors, with the need to use triangulation to achieve a better perspective on what
happens in reality (William Trochim, 2006). Therefore, to capture as much of reality
as possible (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000) and to achieve a better and truthful perspective
on what happens in reality (William Trochim, 2006) this research relied on multiple
sources of evidence including interviews with a number of respondents across four
cases, review of documents and questionnaire.
4.3. RESEARCH FLOW
The central research problem was the lack of effective KS across projects resulting in
knowledge being irretrievably lost. Research on KS in the project management field
Chapter 4 | Methodology
64
appeared to be insufficient to solve this problem. In view of the research problem and
rationale, an extensive literature review across a range of fields was conducted in a
search for factors that influence KS and could be relevant for an inter-project
context. As a result, three factors were identified and captured in the I-PKS
Framework (OC, trust and KSM) that shaped the scope of this research. Accordingly,
the aim of this research was to investigate how these factors influence I-PKS
behaviours. In order to achieve the aim, this research sought to answer the following
research questions:
1. How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
2. How does the existence of the three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii)
benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
3. How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project
management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours?
4. How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational
culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve inter-project
knowledge sharing?
a. What are the relationships between the three factors?
b. What is the best fit for given cases to ensure more effective inter-
project knowledge sharing?
Presented in Chapter 3, the literature review demonstrated that the existing research
related to these three factors is still inadequate to address the research questions by
applying a theory testing approach. The conflicting answers to some of the major
questions relating to KSM, the limited empirical research on the role of different
trust dimensions and OC in KS, as well as insufficient research on KS in an inter-
project context led to an inductive study. Furthermore, this research investigated this
complex phenomenon of I-PKS, in a specific, project-based environment. For this
reason, this research employed a qualitative investigation applying the inductive
theory building approach proposed by Eisenhardt (1989) to obtain rich data about the
phenomenon within the everyday context. This allowed a better understanding of the
problem and the generation of practical solutions to the problem. Subsequent
Chapter 4 | Methodology
65
sections, Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2, report on the inductive theory building approach
undertaken in this research.
4.3.1. Research Reasoning
There are two major ways of reasoning when conducting research, deductive and
inductive (Cavana, et al., 2001; Sutrisna, 2009). Deduction is the process by which
the researcher begins with theoretical propositions and then moves towards concrete
empirical evidence (Cavana, et al., 2001). Induction, on the other hand, is the process
where the researcher begins with detailed observation of the world and moves
towards more theoretical generalisations and ideas (Cavana, et al., 2001). Induction
is the opposite process to deduction. Deductive research composes hypotheses based
on the current body of knowledge, while inductive research investigates the
phenomena, keeping an ‗open mind‘ to any possible result (Sutrisna, 2009) by asking
the questions ‗how‘ and ‗why‘ to gain richer and deeper information.
A mix of inductive and deductive approaches have been advocated by Eisenhardt
(1989), Miles and Huberman (1994), and Perry (1998). Perry (1998) advises that
starting from a blank theoretical slate is neither practical nor preferred.
Consequently, a pure inductive approach was not applied because it would not be
practical to ignore the past body of knowledge already generated in the area. Pure
induction could prevent the researcher from benefiting from existing theory, just as
pure deduction could prevent the development of new and useful theory (Perry,
1998). In this research, prior theory had a pivotal function in the development of the
I-PKS Framework, data collection process and design of the case study.
Nevertheless, evidence from the literature presented in Chapters 2 and 3 revealed that
current research is not capable of addressing the research problem by using a theory
testing approach. As a result, this study includes some deduction based on prior
theory, although inductive theory building is more prominent.
Another reason for using primarily inductive reasoning is the contemporary and pre-
pragmatic nature of this research, in which the factors outlined in the I-PKS
Framework are still too complex to be fully understood and well defined. Perry
(1998) recommends the use of an inductive approach for research in which accepted
Chapter 4 | Methodology
66
principles and constructs have not yet been established or are inadequate. Therefore,
in this complex and not fully understood environment a purely deductive approach
would not be suitable.
4.3.2. Research Approach — Inductive Theory
Building
Section 4.2.1 discussed two ways of research reasoning, inductive and deductive.
Accordingly, there are two major approaches to theory development, deductive
theory testing and inductive theory building (Cavana, et al., 2001; Perry, 1998). The
approach used in this research is inductive theory building, using a multiple case
study method proposed by Eisenhardt (1989). This approach involves using one or
more cases to create theoretical constructs, propositions or midrange theory and is
appropriate to apply when little is known about a phenomenon or when current
perspectives conflict with each other (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548).
In theory building, cases are used to develop theory inductively. The theory is
emergent in the sense that it is situated in, and developed by, recognising patterns of
relationships among constructs within and across cases and their underlying logical
arguments (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). A theory building approach increases the
likelihood of generating a novel theory and improves testability and empirical
validity.
There were several reasons for using an inductive theory building approach. Firstly,
there has been limited empirical research in the area of KS in the inter-project
context. Literature reviewed in Chapter 2 revealed that current studies focus
primarily on LL and post project reviews (Kotnour, 1999; Office of Government
Commerce UK, 2005; Project Management Institute, 2008; Purdon, 2008; Schindler
& Eppler, 2003; Sharif et al., 2005; Turner et al., 2000), and only some research has
been conducted on the aspect of culture in I-PKS (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007; Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008). However, the existing literature outside the project management
area focuses on other elements that influence KS, including trust and strong ties. It is
therefore unlikely that effective inter-project KS is simply a matter of better post
Chapter 4 | Methodology
67
project reviews and LL. Therefore, the inductive theory building approach that seeks
to uncover the complexity of the phenomenon appeared to be more suitable for this
research. Furthermore, there is a plethora of real life evidence reporting project
failures or even disasters caused by a lack of or ineffective KS (for example the
Challenger Disaster outlined in Chapter 1), suggesting that I-PKS is crucial for
project-based organisations (PBOs). This means that the answers to the research
questions are relevant for both organisations and theory.
Secondly, the current body of knowledge was still not sufficient to apply a deductive
theory testing approach to investigate the complex and socially constructed factors of
the I-PKS Framework. For example, Sackmann (1991) recommends examining
culture in its organisational context using inductive reasoning that provides valuable
insights into the nature of this complex phenomenon. Similarly, in relation to trust,
the project management literature focuses primarily on trust in projects (Kadefors,
2004; Pinto, et al., 2009; Smyth, et al., 2010), examining trust as a one-dimensional
concept (Foos, et al., 2006; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Kadefors, 2004), whereas research
outside the project management field (Bhattacherjee, 2002; Mayer et al., 1995;
McAllister, 1995; Sako, 1992) found that there are in fact many trust dimensions.
Accordingly, there is only limited research available on the impact of different trust
dimensions on KS in a project environment. Thus, it is clear that trust needs further
exploration, which can be achieved by applying an inductive approach.
Thirdly, theory building is appropriate to use when current perspectives conflict with
each other (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 548). The literature review found that there is still
disagreement on the choice of mechanisms used for effective KS. Thus a theory
building approach appeared the most suitable to use in resolving this disagreement.
Nevertheless, there are limitations to the theory building approach. According to
Dyer and Wilkins (1991) one limitation of building theory from cases is the use of
multiple case studies, which are able to provide fairly ‗thin‘ descriptions focusing on
surface data rather than deeper social dynamics, which can be achieved only in single
case studies that are able to produce better stories. In fact, one step in the theory
building approach is to conduct within-case analysis, which indeed provides rich and
deep contexts, and which, as stated by Eisenhardt (1991), is often not reported in
Chapter 4 | Methodology
68
journal articles. Furthermore, the theoretical insights of case studies arise from
methodological rigor and multiple-case comparative logic, which allow
strengthening the findings.
Another risk of applying theory building approach from multiple case studies is that
the richness of data to deal with, which is often in a form of words, rather than
numbers can introduce additional complexity and confusion. However, as advised by
Fernández (2004) it is a normal state and researcher should trust in emerging
findings; if principles of the method are rigorously followed, the data itself will
provide justification.
As stated by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) some researchers who work on large-
scale, hypothesis testing research may misunderstand the method or regard their own
methods as superior. However, deductive theory testing and inductive theory
building complement each other. Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) stated that
―inductive and deductive logics are mirrors of one another, with inductive theory
building from cases producing new theory from data and deductive theory testing
completing the cycle by using data to test theory‖. Accordingly, this research
complements the mainstream deductive theory testing approach by generating
propositions based on empirical evidence that can be tested by future deductive
research.
4.4. RESEARCH METHOD
The case study research method was used to investigate the problem of a lack of I-
PKS. A case study is an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group or event
within their real-life context (Yin, 2009), where the phenomenon is not isolated from
its context, but the investigation focuses on how the phenomenon is influenced by
the context or influences the context (Hartley, 2004, p. 323).
Chapter 4 | Methodology
69
4.4.1. The Rationale for Using a Case Study
Method
According to Evans (1995), researchers often fail when they focus only on describing
the chosen research methods without providing the rationale behind the choice.
Therefore, the reasons for choosing a case study as a research method are described
as follows.
The case study method offers a range of advantages including the opportunity to ask
penetrating questions and to capture the richness of organisational behaviour (Gable,
1994). The case study method helps explain complex causal links in real-life
interventions while retaining the holistic and meaningful characteristics of the reality
under investigation (Yin, 2009), hence providing a richness and depth of explorations
and descriptions. Furthermore, Perry (1998) and Yin (2009) suggest that a case study
method is appropriate when researching complex and contemporary events over
which the investigator has little or no control. Furthermore, Proverbs and Gameson
(2008) stated that case study research appears to be highly relevant to an industry
that is project driven and made up of many different types of organisations and
businesses. In this research, the adoption of a case study allowed the researcher to
investigate the existing and multifaceted problem of I-PKS in its natural setting. The
complexity of processes involved during KS practices in the industries driven by
projects and the contemporary type of problem under investigation implied that the
case study method was the most appropriate for this research.
A case study was also chosen because of the type of research questions. These were
mainly the ‗how‘ questions, which involved a deeper probing of issues. According to
Yin (2009), these types of research questions suggest that a case study approach is
preferable, as opposed to ‗what‘, ‗where‘ or ‗how many‘ questions, which favour
survey methods. Figure 4.1 outlines what methods and sources of evidence were
used to answer the research questions.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
70
Figure 4-1: Research questions and methods used to approach them
For instance, research question two (RQ2) investigated the sensitive issue of trust.
Previous studies conducted by Borgatti and Cross (2003) showed survey respondents
were uncomfortable answering questions related to trust. Therefore, using qualitative
face-to-face interviews during the case study seemed more suitable. A questionnaire
was used only to measure the existence of the three forms of trust in the organisation,
while face-to-face interviews helped in establishing a closer relationship between the
interviewer and respondent, and allowed the respondent to feel more comfortable in
answering questions relating to trust. In addition, most of the existing research on
trust focuses on confirming stated hypothesis on the importance of trust in a range of
different situations (Foos, et al., 2006; Holste & Fields, 2010; Issa & Haddad, 2008;
Levin & Cross, 2004; Pinto, et al., 2009) using surveys with only closed-type
questions. However, in this research the use of semi-structured interviews allowed a
potentially richer insight into the complex issue of trust. The investigator initially
asked each respondent to indicate how important ability, benevolence and integrity
trusts were for I-PKS (confirmatory stage). Respondents then were asked to further
elaborate on their choice (exploratory stage), thus providing valuable comments and
insight. The trust indicators were adopted from Mayer and Davis (1999) and also
1) How does organisational culture influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
2) How does the existence of the three types of trust — (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence inter-project knowledge sharing?
3) How can different knowledge sharing mechanisms (relational, project management tools and process, and technology) improve inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours?
4) How do the relationships between these three factors of organisational culture, trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms improve the inter-project knowledge sharing?
a) What are the relationships between the factors? b) What is the best fit for given cases to ensure more
effective inter-project knowledge sharing?
CASE STUDIES Interviews Questionnaire Review of
Documents
CASE STUDIES Interviews Questionnaire
CASE STUDIES Interviews Review of
Documents
Within and cross-case analyses
Chapter 4 | Methodology
71
used in (Akgün, et al., 2005; Becerra & Gupta, 2003; Kanawattanachai & Yoo, 2002;
Levin & Cross, 2004; Pinto, et al., 2009). A case study also appeared the most
suitable method to answer the research question related to OC (RQ1). Using a case
study method allowed in-depth investigation of underlying basic assumptions and
values that impact I-PKS. A survey itself would not have been able to provide such
an insight into cultural dimensions. In fact, Sackmann (1991) recommends
examining culture in its organisational context and many authors in the field of social
science use the case study method to do so (Alavi, et al., 2006; Eskerod & Skriver,
2007; Sackmann, 1991).
4.4.2. The Use of Multiple Case Studies
This research used multiple case studies to develop the theory, which gave the
possibility to compare data from a number of related cases and generate more
compelling results, offering greater potential for explanation. Single-case studies
provide a rich description of the phenomenon and its context (Dyer & Wilkins,
1991), while multiple-case studies provide a stronger base for theory building (Yin,
2009, pp. 54-60), allowing a broader exploration of research questions and
theoretical elaboration (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Therefore, the theory that
emerges from multiple case studies is better grounded, more accurate and more
generalisable than single-case research (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007). Furthermore, Gable (1994) and Proverbs, and Gameson (2008)
recommended using multiple case studies to improve the consistency of the results.
The case study method applied in this research was both exploratory (exploring and
examining the relationships between the elements of the Framework) and
explanatory (explaining the relationships between the elements). The exploratory
stage of the case studies helped to assess the specification of the I-PKS Framework
and gain a deeper understanding of the investigated problem. The explanatory stage
assisted in demonstrating how the individual factors contribute to I-PKS as well as
the determined relationships between them. Ultimately, the goals of case studies
were to:
examine elements of the I-PKS Framework
Chapter 4 | Methodology
72
identify relationships between these elements
develop testable propositions for future research
aid in developing a practical application for PBOs to better manage their
knowledge.
Although the case study method has many advantages, there are also some
limitations in using this approach. There is a danger of subjectivity during data
collection that can compromise the validity of findings (Amaratunga & Baldry,
2001). The most often cited limitation of the case study method is the difficulty to
generalise findings to different settings (Amaratunga & Baldry, 2001; Gable, 1994;
Yin, 2009). However, the aim of this research is not to obtain global findings or
claims, but propositions that can be further tested on a broader population. Section
4.6 (Research Quality) reports how this research dealt with these limitations.
4.5. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESEARCH
METHOD
This section discusses the implementation process of the case study method, focusing
on unit of analysis and case selection, design of case study protocol, and the use of
multiple sources of evidence.
4.5.1. Unit of Analysis and Case Selection
An important step in research design is to define a unit of analysis. The unit of
analysis is the level of aggregation of the data collected. It can be individuals, dyads,
groups, divisions, industries or even countries (Cavana, et al., 2001). The unit of
investigation in this research was a Project Management Department. This study
examined KS practices that occurred between projects as well as relationships
between PMs of Project Management Departments in participating cases.
Identifying and selecting the cases is also important. The selection of cases was
purposeful, and as advised by Eisenhardt (1989), Perry (1998) and Yin (2009), it
Chapter 4 | Methodology
73
followed a replication logic. Replication logic ―refers to two or more cases in the
same study where the investigator is looking for congruence that indicates increased
confidence in the overall findings‖ (Aita & Mcllvain, 1999, p. 258). Replication
logic is different to sampling logic commonly used in surveys, but similar to that
used in multiple experiments; each case must be carefully selected and treated as an
experiment (Yin, 2009, pp. 54-55). To ensure a replication logic, Eisenhardt (1989)
recommends choosing a specific population for the case study. This helps to
constrain irrelevant variation and sharpen external validity (Yin, 2003). Furthermore,
the purpose of the research was to develop theory, not to test it, and so theoretical
(not random) sampling was chosen. Theoretical sampling means that cases are
selected because they are particularly suitable for illuminating and extending
relationships and logic among constructs (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
The selected cases were large PBOs, which according to PMBoK (2004) are the
organisations that have adopted management by projects and have management
systems structured to facilitate project management. Four large PBOs from a range of
industries were chosen for this research, three were government owned, and one was
initially government owned and privatised in the 1980s. All cases had either a strong
or balanced matrix structure, which means that in all cases the PMs‘ authority, role,
resource availability and the responsibility of project management administrative
staff were similar. Furthermore, the selection of specific sectors — Heavy
Engineering, Telecommunication, Communication Services and Research — allowed
to control environmental variations. The focus on large PBOs constrained variation
due to size differences among the companies as well as allowed the capturing of
complexity of the investigated phenomenon. In addition, taking into account a range
of project types, such as geographically dispersed projects versus co-located projects,
helped to establish how these project characteristics change I-PKS behaviours.
Figure 4.2 illustrates dimensions based on which cases were selected.
The number of cases for this research is four. Eisenhardt (1989) recommends that
cases should be added until ‗theoretical saturation‘ is reached, which means
incremental learning is minimal because the researcher is observing phenomena seen
before (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Furthermore, the number of cases for this research
is adequate for the time given to conduct the research. Pettigrew (1990) recommends
Chapter 4 | Methodology
74
that a full time researcher should conduct no more than 4–6 cases over a three-year
period. Although there is no ideal number of cases, Eisenhardt (1989) states that 4–
10 cases usually works well. The purposeful choice of cases made the research more
manageable and theoretical saturation was reached as the forth case did not introduce
much novelty into the research findings and similar responses were obtained to those
in previous cases.
4.5.2. Case Study Protocol
Another issue to be reflected in the implementation of the case study method is the
protocol. The case study protocol was developed to increase the consistency of the
research (Yin, 2009). The elements of the I-PKS Framework informed the interview
protocol that was used for data collection in all four cases. The protocol contained
the instruments and procedures to be followed during the conduct of the case studies.
It guided the data collection process, keeping the researcher focused on the topic. A
copy of the protocol which included an introduction to the case study, case study
questions and data collection procedures is attached in Appendix B.
Pure PBO
Matrix
Functional
Large
Beta Alpha Delta Gamma
Co-located Co-located
and Distributed
Distributed
ORGANISATION SIZE
PROJECT MANAGERS LOCATION
PB
O S
TR
UC
TU
RE
Figure 4-2: Cases selection
Chapter 4 | Methodology
75
4.5.3. Entering the Field
Entering the field includes preparation work such as negotiating and obtaining access
to the case, contacting participants and gaining their consent (Fernández, 2004). Prior
to interviews, a key contact person from each organisation was approached and asked
to identify the potential respondents and inform them about the interview. After that,
an e-mail was sent by the investigator to state the purpose of the study, and to
arrange the date, time and place for the interview. Appendix C provides templates of
e-mails sent to key contact persons and respondents.
Interviews occurred mainly with PMs as centres of project knowledge directly
involved in the KS process, as well as with other parties including program
managers, senior management, project officers and project management office
(PMO) personnel who provided a broader perspective on project-based KS and
practices. In addition, prior to conducting the interviews, each respondent was
reassured about the confidentiality of the interview — that in no way would it be
apparent that responses came from them. Finally, each respondent was asked their
permission to use a recorder to record the interview. Everyone agreed to do so.
Furthermore, prior to conducting the interviews, respondents were asked to sign the
Consent Form and indicate that they agreed to participate in the project and had read
and understood the information regarding this project. The Consent Form was
prepared as a part of Ethical Clearance granted prior to data collection (Ethics No:
0900000432). The Consent Form included a short description of the study, expected
benefits of the participation, the promise that organisations‘ and participants‘ names
would not be included in any reports or publications unless approval is obtained from
the relevant participants. The information that participation in this project was
voluntary and the respondent could withdraw from the research at any time during
the project without comment or penalty was also included in the form. A copy of the
Consent Form is provided in Appendix D.
The interview commenced with an explanation of the key concepts used in the study
including KS, I-PKS and KSM. Interview questions were focused on the elements
identified in the I-PKS Framework and were prepared earlier. The interviews
Chapter 4 | Methodology
76
investigated matters related to KSM, types of knowledge, the role of trust and OC in
an I-PKS context, as well as best practices in the transfer of LL beyond the project.
Often additional questions were asked during interviews, for example when the
interviewee revealed some extra information or extended the conversation relating to
the study focus. Also, the questions directed to PMO personnel, who did not directly
work on projects but assisted in project processes, were related more to the functions
and roles of the PMO in I-PKS, as well as to the organisational processes that
facilitate this I-PKS. Each interview lasted for about one hour. The interview was
guided by the protocol and the pre-prepared questions. All interviews were recorded
and later transcribed.
4.5.4. Sources of Evidence
The major strength of a case study data collection is the opportunity to use many
different sources of evidence (Yin, 2009). Consequently, this research used multiple
sources of evidence to collect empirical data including a review of documents,
focused interviews and the questionnaire, all presented below. Using this approach
allowed attention to a broader range of cues.
4.5.4.1. Review of Documents
According to Yin (2009) documents are helpful in verifying correct spelling, titles or
names and can provide specific details to support evidence from other sources, such
as interviews. In this research, the data collection process in each company started
with the review of documents, including the review of organisational charts, project
management methodology, company objectives and its core purpose. After reviewing
the documents and gaining a better understanding of each company‘s profile and
structure, the interviews commenced. In addition, review of the companies‘
collaborative tools such as intranet sites and corporate wikis helped gain better
understanding of each company‘s technological solutions facilitating interaction and
KS practices. Three main reasons for choosing the review of documents as case
study evidence were to:
Chapter 4 | Methodology
77
i. better understand the companies‘ objectives and core purpose
ii. identify the organisational structure
iii. examine project management methodologies followed by the
participating organisations and other organisational processes that
regulated I-PKS.
4.5.4.2. Focused Interviews
A number of face-to-face focused interviews were conducted in each case (the
number of interviewees in each case is presented in Chapter 5). Interviews explored
how the factors identified in Chapter 3 and illustrated in the I-PKS Framework
influence KS. The use of interviews provided a richer insight into the complex issues
of trust and OC. Furthermore, interviews revealed respondents‘ preferences for
mechanisms used to exchange knowledge as well as assisted in uncovering some
significant relationships between the factors of the I-PKS Framework.
The reason for choosing focused interviews over open-ended interviews, was that
some prior knowledge on the factors influencing I-PKS already existed and had been
outlined in the I-PKS Framework. This framework informed the case study protocol
helping to define the study focus. Nevertheless, focused interviews can still remain
somehow open-ended, but they are more likely to follow a certain set of questions
derived from a case study protocol allowing for focused, conversational, two-way
communication (Yin, 2003). Moreover, conducting face-to-face focused interviews
helped clarify the responses as well as facilitated respondents in providing valuable
comments and feedback. In addition, using face-to-face interviews, as advised by
Cavana et al. (2001, p. 150), allowed the investigator to pick up non-verbal cues
from the respondents, aiding understanding of the problem and providing useful
insights into the progress of the interview.
4.5.4.3. Questionnaire
A short questionnaire conducted after the interviews assisted in obtaining
quantitative data on OC and the three forms of trust. Questions were adopted from
existing measures. The trust indicators were borrowed from Mayer and Davis (1999)
Chapter 4 | Methodology
78
and were also used in Becerra and Gupta (2003). The questionnaire investigated the
presence of three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. Respondents were asked
to focus on the person from whom they sought knowledge the most and indicate how
much they agreed or disagreed with following statements in relation to that person.
The scale used ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5
strong agreement. The average scores for items measuring each form of trust were
calculated to examine the presence of ability, benevolence and integrity trusts during
I-PKS. Small cases that resulted in a lower sample size for the questionnaire were the
reason why questionnaire results were mainly descriptive.
OC was examined by applying the Competing Values Framework (CVF) proposed
by Cameron and Quinn (2005) to assess each company‘s dominant culture across six
key characteristics of a corporate culture: Dominant Characteristics, Organisational
Leadership, Management of Employees, Organisational Glue, Strategic Emphasis
and Criteria of Success. From a range of culture models, including those proposed by
Cameron and Quinn (2005), Denison and Spreitzer (1991), Hofstede (1984), and
Schein (1990), the CVF (Cameron & Quinn, 2005) appeared the most suitable for
this research. CVF provides a holistic view of OC, it was validated in the Australian
context (Lamond, 2003) and investigated from the KM perspective (Gray & Densten,
2005; Keskin, et al., 2005).
The CVF explains the complex nature of OC according to two dimensions:
internal/external focus, and stability/flexibility structure. These two dimensions
create four quadrants, which represent four OC types; Clan, Adhocracy, Hierarchy,
and Marketing. Organisations are seldom characterised by a single cultural type; they
tend to develop a dominant OC over time as the organisation adapts and responds to
the challenges and changes in the environment (Cameron & Quinn, 2005). The CVF
was used to assess culture in participating organisations. The questionnaire regarding
OC and trust can be found in Appendix E – The Data Collection Process.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
79
4.6. DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH
The analysis of case study evidence is one of the least developed and most difficult
aspects of doing case studies (Yin, 2009, p. 127). Data analysis consists of
examining, categorising, tabulating, testing, or recombining quantitative and
qualitative evidence to address the initial inquiries of a study (Yin, 2003, p. 109).
According to Proverbs and Gameson (2008) and Yin (2009) the best way to start the
analysis is to focus on objectives or research questions that determine and guide the
case study analysis; well defined research questions help focus attention on certain
data and ignore other data. In this study, the research questions, reflected in the I-
PKS Framework, guided data collection and analysis.
As advised by Yin (2009), the use of both qualitative and quantitative data helped to
strengthen the findings and to illustrate them in a clearer manner. In addition, to
achieve a better quality of analysis every element of the Framework was analysed in
a way to demonstrate all evidence, including the rival interpretations. For instance,
when analysing benevolence trust, in some cases the number of advocates and
opponents, stating the relevance of benevolence trust, was almost the same. Analyses
were performed in a way to identify, examine and exemplify both perspectives.
4.6.1. The Use of NVivo in Data Coding and
Analysis
Data analysis consists of three activities: (1) data reduction, (2) data display, and (3)
conclusion drawing and verification (Miles & Huberman, 1994). These first two
activities, data reduction and display, were performed with the help of NVivo
package, which assisted in categorising, recombining and examining the data.
Firstly, transcribed interviews were uploaded into NVivo, and then were followed by
coding process. Coding in NVivo is based on storing passages of data in nodes and
tree nodes, which are much like designating files for each topic (Bazeley, 2007), with
this difference that nodes store reference to the segments of data without interrupting
the original data, thus source always remains intact. Furthermore, NVivo allows the
Chapter 4 | Methodology
80
same passages to be coded at multiple nodes. Accordingly, data from interviews
were arranged into nodes and tree nodes starting the coding process. There were
three phases of the coding process: open coding, building the tree nodes structure,
and review of nodes.
4.6.1.1. First Phase – Open Coding
Typically, coding process in theory building research starts with open coding, which
involves analysing the data to extract a set of categories (Fernández, 2004).
However, in this research some predetermined general nodes were created around the
Framework elements and the research questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994); in result
three parent nodes and six tree (child) nodes were created representing the elements
of the I-PKS Framework, as seen in Figure 4.3. Additional nodes were created when
new concepts emerged from the data.
A ‗case node‘ is created to gather all sources about a given case in one space
(Richards, 2006). Accordingly, during this phase every source was also coded into a
case node. In result, four case nodes were created, each representing participating
organisation. This was done primarily to gather data related to one case in a separate
node folder and be able to narrow down queries to that specific case.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
81
4.6.1.2. Second Phase – Building More Comprehensive
Tree Nodes Structure with Parent and Child Nodes
The aim of this phase was to investigate each node separately, finding patterns
between nodes and categorising general nodes into a more meaningful smaller
subcategories, resulting with a comprehensive tree node structure with parent and
child nodes. Child nodes allowed for better understanding of the phenomenon.
During this phase annotations, memos, and relationships were also created, which
were later used for within and cross case analysis. Figure 4.4 illustrates a fragment of
the tree node structure with parent and child nodes.
Parent Nodes Tree Nodes
D A T A
TRUST
ORGANISATIONAL
CULTURE
KNOWLEDGE SHARING
MECHANISMS
ABILITY TRUST
BENEVOLENCE TRUST
INTEGRITY TRUST
RELATIONAL MECHANISMS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RELATED MECHANISMS
TECHNOLOGY
“they’ve got to be good, they’ve
got to know what the job is...”
“I don’t want someone who’s got good intentions but is going to give me the wrong information....”
“it invalidates the whole point of
seeking knowledge if people are not going to be honest in the information that they provide you. It makes it impossible to do the job that you
do....”
“people are pretty vocal and most people you know, like to share their pain as much as their pleasures....”
“I mean there’s lots of issues with people not wanting to share information because for them that’s power...”
Passage from data
Passage from data
Passage from data
Figure 4-3: Example of first phase coding process
Chapter 4 | Methodology
82
4.6.1.3. Third Phase – Review of Nodes
This phase focused primarily on reviewing nodes, their content, hierarchical position,
and name. For instance, in this phase some nodes needed to be merged with other
nodes (because the content described the same phenomenon or idea), or to be further
split into child nodes. This process helped to create a tree node structure that was
easier to work with and analyse. Some of the child nodes were merged together as
the content was similar, describing the same matter. After the data was arranged into
the nodes and reviewed, and the coding structure was tightly established, within-case
analysis began.
4.6.2. Within-case Analysis
Within-case analysis helped the investigator to cope with the complexity and
richness of the data (Eisenhardt, 1989). As suggested by Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin
(2009), the aim of within case analysis is to become intimately familiar with each
case as a stand-alone entity before the cross-case analysis begins. Consequently, in
this research, within-case analysis involved detailed case study write-ups for each
site. This stage allowed unique patterns and relationships, related to the elements of
I-PKS Framework to emerge, exclusive only to a specific case. Results from within-
case analysis are presented in Chapter 5, in which pattern matching analysis, along
with a range of NVivo queries were used to assist in data analysis (see also Section
4.5.4).
Chapter 4 | Methodology
83
Figure 4-4: A fragment of tree nodes structure with parent nodes and child nodes
CHILD NODES
Ability trust
Benevolence trust
Integrity trust
Relational Mechanisms
Technology
Project Management Related Mechanisms
Important
Moderate
Not Important
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
Chapter 4 | Methodology
84
4.6.3. Cross-case Analysis
Applying cross-case analysis is likely to bring more robust outcomes, and help to
strengthen the findings (Yin, 2003). In this research, cross-case analysis aimed to
look for similarities and differences between cases by comparing several categories
at once, and looking for within-group similarities and intergroup differences.
According to Yin (2009), one way of performing cross-case synthesis is to create
tables that display the data from the individual cases according to a uniform
framework. Eisenhardt (1989) warns that the danger of doing cross-case analysis is
that the investigator reaches premature or even false conclusions. One way to avoid
this is to look at the data in many divergent ways. The use of NVivo queries enabled
data from all four cases to be categorised in a range of different ways. For example
matrix queries allowed comparing several categories of data at once. A range of
other analytical techniques and queries were used in this phase, which are further
discussed in the next section.
4.6.4. Analytical Techniques
A range of analytical techniques and queries were used during the within- and cross-
case analyses, including pattern-matching logic, numerical counts analyses and
explanation building. These are presented in Figure 4.5.
Figure 4-5: The use of analytical techniques and queries for within and cross-case
analyses
•Pattern-matching logic
•Numerical counts analysis
•NVivo Queries
•Outcome Detail case study write-ups for each site
WITHIN-CASE ANALYSIS
•Pattern-matching logic
•Explanation building technique
•NVivo Queries
CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS
PROPOSITIONS
Chapter 4 | Methodology
85
4.6.4.1. Pattern-matching Logic
According to Yin (2009) one of the most desirable techniques for case study analysis
is pattern-matching logic, where an empirically based pattern is compared with a
predicted one. If the patterns match, the results can help a case study to strengthen its
internal validity (W. Trochim, 1989). Pattern-matching logic was used in both
within-case and cross-case analyses. To perform pattern-matching analysis, the
predictions illustrated in the I-PKS Framework were compared with the empirical
findings. For example, the framework suggested that ability trust impacts I-PKS.
Empirical data from all four cases confirmed that prediction, suggesting that all
indicators of ability trust improve I-PKS, and the empirical data did not show any
alternative explanations. This means that there is a strong relationship between
ability trust and I-PKS.
Using this technique of pattern-matching also allowed the researcher to compare
cases and to determine similarities and differences between them for the purpose of
building and strengthening the theory from cases (Eisenhardt, 1989). The following
steps were undertaken to perform pattern-matching between cases: looking for
similarities and differences between cases, comparing several categories at one using
a matrix query, looking for within-group similarities and intergroup differences, and
looking what cause the differences.
4.6.4.2. Numerical Counts Analysis
Numerical counts analysis was used as a proxy indicator to estimate the importance
and frequency of elements. The numerical counts analysis counts the number of
times an issue was raised as important or not important, or having strengths or
weaknesses or simply counting the number of people raising it (Bazeley, 2007, p.
200). It is also sometimes referred to as quasi-statistics, as it counts the number of
times something is mentioned in field notes as a very rough estimate of frequency.
This technique was broadly used in this study to assess the importance of the three
trust dimensions, to examine the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face versus
technological tools, and to perform SWOT analysis on wikis, presented in detail in
Chapter 6 (Cross-Case Analysis).
Chapter 4 | Methodology
86
4.6.4.3. Explanation Building
Explanation-building analysis is considered a form of pattern-matching, in which the
analysis of the case study is carried out by building an explanation of the case. This
technique is particularly useful in explanatory case studies (Tellis, 1997; Yin, 2003).
This type of analysis is highly iterative and requires referring to the literature. It
involves five steps: examine case study evidence, revise theoretical positions,
examine cases from a new perspective, develop plausible explanations, and repeat
the process as many times as is needed (Yin, 2003). Figure 4.6 shows the process of
the explanation building technique. This technique was primarily used in the cross-
case analysis and assisted in the explanatory stage of the study outlined in Chapter 8
(Discussions and Practical Implications). Using this technique helped in recognising
relationships between OC, trust, and KSM as well as assisted in understanding ‗how‘
and ‗why‘ certain events occurred; thus, providing a rich understanding and
explanation of events that emerged during cross-case analysis process.
Figure 4-6: The explanation building technique process
4.6.4.4. The Use of Nvivo Queries in Data Analysis
The use of queries in NVivo assisted in asking questions about the project and
enabled seeing data in a more apparent manner. Three types of queries were
frequently used during the case study analysis: matrix query, text search query,
annotations and memos.
Matrix coding queries create tables - matrices to compare multiple pairs of nodes.
Matrix queries can be used to assist in numerical count analysis, and to compare
Chapter 4 | Methodology
87
multiple pairs of items restricted to a specific scope (Richards, 2006). The result of
the matrix coding query is ‗qualitative cross-tabulation‘ whereby new nodes,
resulting from the combination of pairs, are created for each cell (Bazeley, 2007;
Richards, 2006). These new nodes can be opened and explored to add to analysis.
Using this query allowed data to be displayed in a coherent manner. For example
Using a matrix query allowed to see all three dimensions of trust separately, and their
level of importance across the four respective organisations. Matrix queries were was
also used to uncover issues with LL repositories, the impact of different cultural
dimensions in I-PKS, across four cases, as well as to assist in conducting a SWOT
analysis on wikis.
The investigator also used text search queries to search for specific words within the
text. The search query assisted in the coding process. The Boolean search, a method
of searching using terms such as 'and', 'not' and 'or' was used to achieve better results
(Richards, 2006). For example, text search queries were used to identify a range of
trust indicators within the text.
The use of annotations and memos assisted the researcher during the coding process.
Annotations are used to add comments to data without interrupting it (Richards,
2006). Memos are used to write up ideas and casual relationships between nodes
(Miles & Huberman, 1994; Bazeley, 2007). Memos work in a similar way to
annotations, although they can store a ‗bigger‘ idea or interpretation whose content
can be coded like that of any other source (Richards, 2006). The use of annotations
and memos was helpful in the early stage of the analysis as they allowed the
researcher to capture premature ideas or casual relationships during coding.
4.7. RESEARCH QUALITY
The quality tests are perceived differently in qualitative than in the quantitative
research (Sutrisna, 2009; Yin, 2009). Some qualitative researchers argue that the
concepts used for the evaluation of quantitative research, including validity,
reliability, and generalisability, are not generally applicable for qualitative research
(Stenbacka, 2001). As a result, many researchers have developed their own concepts
Chapter 4 | Methodology
88
to assess the quality of qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Whittemore,
Chase, & Mandle, 2001). For example Lincoln and Guba (1985) used truth value,
applicability, consistency, neutrality as validity criteria, whereas Yin (2009) refers
construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability. Based on the
notion that this research has been grounded in the work of Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin
(2003, 2009), the quality measures used in this research look into validity,
consistency and trustworthiness, and analytical generalisability.
4.7.1. Validity
According to Sutrisna (2009) validity in qualitative research refers to whether the
findings actually produce the expected output, as well as the extent to which any
research findings can be generalised beyond the immediate research sample. Based
on that, a rage of actions were undertaken in this research to ensure its validity.
Firstly, this research used multiple sources of evidence in order achieve a better
perspective on what happens in reality and increase the validity of research (Yin,
2009). Triangulation is the rationale for using multiple sources of evidence (Yin,
2009, p. 116) . According to Tellis (1997) the need for triangulation arises from the
ethical need to confirm the validity of the processes. The use of triangulation ensures
greater rigour and integration of the study (Yin, 2003). This research applied two
forms of triangulation, data and methodological triangulation (Yin, 2003). Data
triangulation was achieved by collecting information from multiple sources, with the
aim to corroborate the same fact or phenomenon. Methodological triangulation was
achieved by applying a multi-method approach, including interviews, the
questionnaire and review of documents to examine I-PKS practices. For example the
use of interviews and the questionnaire in the cross examination of trust and OC
allowed the researcher to achieve a better perspective on what happens in reality,
improving the validity of the findings.
To reduce the likelihood of false reporting and increase validity, Yin (2009)
recommends to have the draft report reviewed not only by peers, but also by the case
study participants. Accordingly, report was sent to the case study participants to seek
Chapter 4 | Methodology
89
their feedback on the findings. Consideration and reflection on their feedback
improved the quality of the findings.
Internal validity is a concern for the explanatory stage when the investigator is trying
to explain how and why event x led to event y (Yin, 2009, p. 42). Attention was paid
to validity of this stage through the careful use of analytical tactics including pattern
matching, explanation building and addressing rival explanations to explain how the
elements relate to each other.
Furthermore, in using replication logic for cross-case analysis, cases which confirm
emergent relationships enhance confidence in the validity of the relationships
(Eisenhardt, 1989). The use of replication logic, executed by replicating the findings
to a second, third, and forth case assisted in ensuring the validity of emerging
relationships between Framework elements.
4.7.2. Reliability versus Consistency and
Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, reliability refers to the consistency of results obtained in the
research (Sutrisna, 2009; Yin, 2009, p. 45) and demonstrates that the operations of a
study can be repeated with the same results if the same instruments, and data
collection procedures are used (Yin, 2009, p. 40). However, the use of reliability in
qualitative research seems problematic, and according to Stenbacka (2001) it is
misleading. She states that the basic distinction that makes reliability irrelevant is the
notion of measurement, which is not relevant in qualitative research (Stenbacka,
2001, p. 552). Sutrisna (2009) noted that in qualitative research, the reliability of the
findings is demonstrated through rigour and thoroughness of the research design and
method adopted to answer the research questions. Aware of this debate, this research
refers to Yin‘s (2009) and Eisenhardt‘s (1989) recommendations for improving the
consistency of the findings and ensuring rigour and thoroughness of the research
process and results.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
90
According to Yin (2009) case study protocol enhances the reliability of the research.
In this study the development of a comprehensive case study protocol provided clear
guidance for the data collection process ensuring the consistency of the study. Other
effort undertaken to ensure greater rigour and thoroughness was to maintain a case
study database, recommended by Yin (2009, p. 120). In this study, the data was
organised and stored to allow for later retrieval. All transcriptions were kept in one
folder making it possible to inspect the raw data at any time. Several copies were
made for protection. Furthermore, each case had a separate folder to store hard copy
documents including organisational charts and copies of other supporting documents
used as evidence in this study.
Also, the use of existing questions, as advised by (Yin, 2003), ensured the
consistency of the findings. For example the trust indicators were adopted from
Mayer and Davis (1999) and also used in Becerra & Gupta (2003). OC was
examined by focusing on the behaviours of the company that drive effective KS,
proposed by Gamble and Blackwell (2001) and De Long and Fahey (2000). As
suggested by Eisenhardt (1989), to ensure greater consistency of the findings, this
research followed the purposeful choice of informants, including PMs, program
managers, project officers, and PMO personnel that had experience in managing
projects and were directly involved in KS activities. Furthermore, to ensure greater
reliability of this research, two rounds of analysis were conducted in a span of a few
months. No significant changes were found between the first and the second analysis.
This procedure of reanalysing interviews, suggested by Sackmann (1991) and
Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988), ensured the objectivity of the findings.
4.7.3. Analytical Generalisability
Generalisability refers to the applicability of the research findings in one
organisational setting to other settings (Cavana, et al., 2001). Quantitative research
relies on statistical generalisation, whereas qualitative case studies rely on analytical
generalisation. In analytical generalisation the investigator is striving to generalise a
set of results to a broader theory (Yin, 2009, p. 43). Stenbacka (2001) concludes that
analytical generalisation in qualitative research is obtained by the strategic choice of
Chapter 4 | Methodology
91
informants. Furthermore, according to Cavana et al. (2001) most applied research is
conducted within a particular area in which the problem arises, and at best the results
are generalisable only to other identical situations and settings. Such limited
applicability does not decrease its scientific value.
Analytical generalisability was achieved through the careful comparison of the
emergent theory to existing literature. According to Eisenhardt (1989) tying the
emergent theory to existing literature enhances generalisability and theoretical level
of theory building. The comparison of findings with the literature discussing similar
findings ties together underlying similarities in phenomena, increasing the level of
generalisability. As recommended by Eisenhardt (1989), this research reviewed both
views, conflicting literature and literature that confirms research findings, by
following that approach it ensured analytical generalisability (Eisenhardt, 1989) and
increased external validity (Yin, 2009).
4.8. SUMMARY
The primary goal of this chapter was to outline the research approach and method
used. This chapter firstly introduced the research strategy and reasoning. Next, it
discussed the rationale of the choice of the inductive theory building approach as
well as common weaknesses of this approach. A detailed discussion on the case
study method, including the argument of the choice of case study for this research
and the strengths and limitations of this method were presented. Section 4.4
discussed the implementation of the case study method, addressing the purposeful
choice of cases, the protocol and providing a detailed description of the sources of
evidence used. After that, the analytical approach, including within- and cross-case
analysis was presented as well as the range of analytical techniques such as pattern-
matching logic, numerical counts analysis, explanation building, causal analysis and
the use of NVivo queries. This chapter concluded with the discussion on the research
quality and outlined steps that were undertaken to ensure greater validity,
consistency, trustworthiness and analytical generalisability of this research. The next
chapter (Chapter 5) presents the within-case analysis of the four participating
organisations.
Chapter 4 | Methodology
92
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
93
5.
Within-case Analysis
5.1. INTRODUCTION
Two types of case study analyses were undertaken in this research, within- and cross-
case; this chapter reports on the findings from the within-case analysis. Accordingly,
the aim of this chapter is to analyse the data of the four cases and answer the related
research questions, previewed in Chapter 1 and posed in Chapter 4. In analysing the
data, the main interest is in the factors that influence inter-project knowledge sharing
(I-PKS) behaviours, illustrated in the I-PKS Framework. The I-PKS Framework
contains seven elements grouped into three main factors: organisational culture
(OC), trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM). The relationships between
these elements and I-PKS behaviours are the central focus of the within-case
analysis. Definitions of the Framework elements can be found on pages xiv–xv.
This chapter consists of four sections in the same format, each representing the
analysis of one case. Each section starts with a case description, followed by an
analysis of OC, trust and KSM. At the end of each section a summary is presented.
This within-case investigation aimed to look for associations, relationships and
logical reasoning processes between the elements of the study and I-PKS behaviours.
The relationship patterns occurring across all four cases are presented in the
subsequent Chapter 7 — Cross-Case Analysis.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
94
5.2. WITHIN-CASE PROCEDURES
The within-case analysis procedures are presented in this section. Firstly, the
investigation began with the analysis of organisational culture. Data on OC was
obtained during interviews focusing on the companies‘ behaviours that drive
effective knowledge exchange, proposed by De Long and Fahey (2000) and Gamble
and Blackwell (2001), they include the volume of interaction, level of collaboration,
orientation to seek out knowledge, presence of silos, and willingness to share
knowledge. In addition to the interviews, the Competing Values Framework (CVF)
proposed by Cameron and Quinn (2005) was used in the questionnaire to assess each
company‘s dominant culture across six dimensions: Dominant Characteristics,
Organisational Leadership, Management of Employees, Organisational Glue,
Strategic Emphasis and Criteria of Success. Interview questions regarding OC can be
found in Appendix B — The Case Study Protocol. In two cases, Alpha and Delta,
PMs were both co-located and geographically dispersed. Therefore, the qualitative
investigation of cultural differences between dispersed PMs was also undertaken.
The qualitative analysis of the three forms of trust — ability, benevolence and
integrity — examined the importance of each form in cross-project KS. The
questionnaire investigated the presence of three forms of trust during I-PKS
endeavours. Respondents were asked to focus on the person from whom they sought
knowledge the most and indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with the
statements provided in relation to that person. The items measuring the three trust
dimensions were adopted from Mayer and Davis (1999) and were also used in
Becerra and Gupta (2003). The scale used ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated
strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement. The average scores for items measuring
each form of trust were calculated to examine the presence of ability, benevolence
and integrity during I-PKS.
The analysis of knowledge sharing mechanisms determined which mechanisms are
the most appropriate for I-PKS considering the geographical location of PMs. Figure
5.1 outlines the remainder of the I-PKS Framework, on which the data analysed in
this chapter was based.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
95
Figure 5-1: I-PKS Framework (repeated from Chapter 3, Figure 3.1)
5.3. ALPHA
5.3.1. Alpha’s Profile
Alpha is a large, strong matrix-type company in the heavy engineering and building
industry. Alpha has signed a multi-billion dollar contract with the federal
government to deliver a number of projects. The company was established in 1985
and employs over 1,500 personnel, including over 300 engineering and technical
specialists. Its vision is focused on high quality performance. Alpha prioritises
safety, and other company values include performance through excellence,
commitment to customers‘ outcomes, and relentless improvement and learning. Two
of these values — performance through excellence and relentless improvement and
ABILITY TRUST
BEEVOLENCE TRUST
ITEGRITY TRUST
ABILITY TRUST
BENEVOLENCE TRUST
INTEGRITY TRUST
RELATIONALMECHANISMS
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
RELATED MECHANISMS
TECHNOLOGY
I-PKS
CLAN ADHOCRACY
HIERARCHY MARKET
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
96
learning — are strongly aligned with team collaboration and KS. The organisation
emphasises working with integrity and collaboration achieved through commitment
to improving processes, skills and knowledge: ‗we are never too old or too good to
learn and try new ideas‘. Alpha undertakes three types of projects: development,
maintenance and process improvement projects. Projects at Alpha are large, with
AUD$3–$15m budgets, up to 180 people working on a project, and durations from
approximately two months to three years.
This study investigated I-PKS practices of the Project Management Department
(PMD), whose personnel were located at two sites, South Australia (SA) and a
smaller team in Western Australia (WA). There were 34 personnel working in the
SA PMD and five working in the WA PMD.
The team from SA delivers two types of projects: development and maintenance.
PMs from development projects, referred to as SA Development Projects, were co-
located in an open plan office. Those from maintenance projects (SA Maintenance
Projects) were normally located on different construction sites and office buildings.
The team from the WA site, referred to as WA Maintenance Projects, was smaller
and delivered maintenance projects. Alpha employs seven schedulers who are now
centralised under the new project management office (PMO). All together there were
eight case study informants from company Alpha and their IDs are coded from A1–
A8 respectively. The demographics of Alpha and the case study informants are
shown in Table 5.1. Table 5.2 provides a snapshot of the company‘s profile.
Table 5-1: Demographics of Project Management Department in SA and WA site
Site SA Maintenance
Projects SA Development
Projects PMO
WA Maintenance
Projects Number of personnel
11 12 4 + 7
schedulers 5
Number of informants
Interviews – 8
Questionnaire – 7
A5 - Project Engineer
A3 - PMD manager
A8 - Project Manager
A2 - PMO Manager A4 - PMO
Officer
A1 - Project Manager
A6 - Project Manager
A7 - Senior Project Manager
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
97
Table 5-2: Summary of Alpha’s profile
ALPHA
INDUSTRY Heavy Engineering and Building
SECTOR Government Owned Corporation (GOC)
DESCRIPTION Contract with government to deliver heavy engineering projects
CASE Project Management Department
INVESTIGATED SITES SA Development Projects SA Maintenance Projects WA Maintenance Projects
PROJECT SIZE Budget: AUD$3–$15m No of people: up to 180 Duration: 2 months to 3 years
PROJECT MANAGERS’ GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION Co-located and Distributed
5.3.2. Organisational Culture
This section reports on findings on how OC contributes to I-PKS and discusses the
cultural differences between dispersed PMs. Firstly, this section discusses findings
from the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) proposed by
Cameron and Quinn (2005). Out of 39 personnel working in the PMD at Alpha,
seven participated in the questionnaire assessing the dominant culture type. Evidence
from the questionnaire revealed that two types of culture are dominant — Hierarchy
and Market — suggesting that the culture is focused on stability and control. Data
from the interviews provided support for these findings. Figure 5.2 illustrates the
PMD‘s profile at Alpha.
Data indicated that Hierarchy culture was prevalent in two categories: Dominant
Characteristic and Criteria of Success. These results, together with the interview
responses, indicate that respondents perceive the organisation as a very controlled
and structured environment in which formal procedures govern what people do, and
smooth scheduling is essential. There were also remarks suggesting that some PMs at
Alpha trust processes and follow them without questioning their relevance for
projects. A PMO officer commented, you hear lots of stories about that there are
some activities that people are doing, and you ask them why you doing that, and you
got respond – we have always done it [this way] (A4).
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
98
Figure 5-2: Culture profile of Alpha
It was reported that some personnel at Alpha are conservative and reluctant to
change. People follow old processes without questioning their relevance to projects,
and one project officer added, ―we suffer a lot from culture here because we‘ve got a
lot of people who have been here a long time and don‘t like change, don‘t like
improvement, they‘re comfortable [with] the way things are and they become
roadblocks‖ (A5). It was also reported that those staff who are motivated and try to
change the culture often experience resistance: ―all we find is we try, we try, we try
and all we get is can‘t do this for some stupid reason and that motivation goes and
people leave or they become like the rest of them‖ (A5).
Market culture dominated in three categories, Organisational Leadership,
Management of Employees, and Organisational Glue. Based on that, it would appear
that the leadership in Alpha is results-oriented and the management style exemplifies
competitiveness, high demands and achievement. In fact Alpha‘s values —
performance through excellence and commitment to customers‘ outcomes — suggest
a Market focus.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
Clan
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
99
Existence of silos and collaboration
Data from interviews revealed that status differences existed between employees,
signifying the dominance of a Hierarchy culture. During the interviews people often
used a term ‗us and them‘ referring to colleagues from other departments or
locations. One respondent stated: ―They think they‘re just better than us, and then we
think we‘re better than them‖. This statement seems to be repeated in this, or a
similar, way by a number of respondents. There was a clear distinction between
white collar and blue collar workers as well as between geographical locations. Some
respondents reported that there are also differences and conflicting views between
new employees and personnel who have been in the company for a long time.
According to one project officer, those who have been in the organisation for a long
time do not want changes or innovations. Newer employees do not have enough
power to break the silos.
Interview data provided evidence that top management did not discourage, but it also
did not actively support, collaboration and KS endeavours and analysis revealed that
there was less collaboration and KS between dispersed PMs. ―They [top
management] encourage it [knowledge sharing between projects] because they say
it‘s a good thing. There‘s no real initiative that‘s taking place that encourages
project managers to talk to each other‖ (A5). Nevertheless, it was reported that the
change of a leader who has recognised the need for collaboration and better KS
between projects, has helped shift the organisation‘s routines towards better KS
practices. Due to those recent changes in management, four respondents sensed that
the silo is starting to break down. One of them stated that before the leadership
change there was a ―very stove piped approach‖ for I-PKS. ―But with having [new
PMD manager] sitting at the top, he‘s actually drawn them all together and we‘re
actually getting some really good communication between all the departments so it‘s
broken down a lot of barriers‖ (A8). The recent initiatives to establish a PMO and
wiki, supported by the new leader, are aimed at improving KS between projects and
making projects more visible and processes more integrated. When asked if the
organisation encourages collaboration and communication across projects,
respondents answered, ―I would say four months ago no, now definitely, but now
we‘re actually getting some really good communication‖ (A8). Another stated:
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
100
―there‘s not too many examples where we have that close collaboration to achieve
project goals. It‘s something I don‘t think we do too well, I think we‘re getting better
but there‘s a long way to go‖ (A5).
Willingness to share knowledge
Analysis showed that at Alpha, some PMs are willing to share knowledge with their
colleagues, but some are very protective and believe that knowledge is power. They
are more reluctant to share and believe that keeping knowledge to themselves
sustains their position of importance. Some leaders are unwilling to share their
project‘s pitfalls because ―they like to be portrayed as [a] kind of perfect project
manager‖ (A7). Another respondent criticised that ―there‘s lots of issues with people
not wanting to share information because for them that‘s power or whatever and it‘s
those roles that make a difference to my job where I can‘t get the information or
they‘re trying to stop for whatever reason‖ (A5). It was reported that some people
view project shortcomings as signs of weakness or even failure; therefore, admitting
they did something wrong in their projects could potentially threaten their strong
position in the company.
Differences between co-located and dispersed PMs
The frequency of KS between co-located and dispersed PMs differed tremendously.
PMs commented that it is easier to communicate when people are co-located. Co-
located PMs from SA Development Projects reported that they exchange knowledge
often; similarly, the small co-located team of PMs from WA Maintenance Projects
worked closely together. Data provided evidence that PMs from these two locations
shared expertise frequently among their closely located colleagues, knew about their
projects‘ shortcomings and followed the same project processes. However, it was
reported that there is not much knowledge exchange between staff from SA
Maintenance Projects, where people‘s offices are spread across different buildings,
and PMs often work on a project site.
Data from interviews provided evidence that geographical dispersion affects
transparency in conducting projects, interaction frequency, as well as the strength of
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
101
relationships between PMs. Furthermore, data revealed that dispersed PMs followed
different project management processes, there is inconsistency in conducting
projects, and PMs from different locations manage projects in their own way.
According to a PMO manager (A2), project management in co-located SA
Development Projects is more mature than that of SA Maintenance Projects. Also,
the respondent from SA Maintenance Projects reported that PMs encounter the same
issues in their ongoing projects as in their past projects.
The volume of interaction
Data provided strong evidence that those PMs who were co-located maintained close
working relationships; however, the relationships between geographically dispersed
teams were rather distant. PMs from WA Maintenance projects (A6 and A7)
commented that interactions between the team from WA is very frequent, ―daily‖,
but not as frequent with the SA site; ―rarely, monthly, monthly maybe‖. One of them
further commented on the relationships between WA and SA, saying ―not a good
relationship. No that‘s the wrong choice of words. Not an established [relationship]‖
(A7). There was a clear distinction between ‗us and them‘ in relation to the WA and
SA sites. It was also reported that PMs from the WA site felt excluded from the
information flow, and as a smaller team they felt belittled. This appeared to be the
reason silos emerged. For example, PMs from the WA site were not aware that a
PMO had been established, even though it had already been in operation for four
months and was supposed to play an important role in improving KS and
collaboration between different sites.
The importance of KS between WA and SA
At least three (A1, A6, A7) PMs from both locations (SA and WA) acknowledged
that better communication and knowledge exchange between sites would surely help
them with conducting projects, and that this collaboration could be fruitful for both
sides. A PM (A6) and a senior PM from WA (A7) reported that the project
management approach should be common for both sites. The senior PM from WA
commented:
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
102
―We [WA and SA sites] essentially all work for the same process. There
are some individual characteristics of work in WA which means we do
have to work differently. But in the main, the project management
approach should be a common approach and one of the benefits of
having a common approach is that the other stakeholders, the other
functional groups that support you, you know there‘s no surprises‖ (A7).
Although the importance of sharing knowledge between WA and SA projects was
apparent, the lack of common approaches and practices, not well established
relationships, and status differences appeared to constrain the occurrence of KS.
5.3.3. Trust
Data from the questionnaire and interviews were used to analyse the influence of
trust during I-PKS endeavours. Seven respondents participated in the questionnaire
and provided answers relating to the presence of the three forms of trust during I-
PKS. The findings indicate that all three forms of trust were present, all showing
mean values above the midpoint (3.00). However, it was the ability and integrity
trusts that were related the most, reporting similar mean values (ability trust mean =
4.21, integrity trust = 4.25), and benevolence contributed the least. Table 5.3 reports
on mean and standard deviation values, measured in a scale from 1 to 5, where 1
indicated strong disagreement and 5 strong agreement, and 3 is a scale midpoint.
Table 5-3: The presence of three forms of trust during knowledge sharing endeavours
ALPHA N=7
Trust Dimensions Mean SD
ABILITY TRUST 4.21 0.59
BENEVOLENCE TRUST 3.57 0.71
INTEGRITY TRUST 4.25 0.61
As discussed in Chapter 4 — Methodology, small cases that resulted in a lower
sample size for the questionnaire were the reason why questionnaire results were
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
103
mainly descriptive. Nevertheless, the small standard deviations presented in Table
5.3 imply reasonable consensus.
In relation to the qualitative data from the interviews, the pattern-matching analysis
also confirmed that all three trust dimensions — ability, benevolence and integrity —
play an important role in KS activities for employees in Alpha. No respondent
reported that trust was needless. Qualitative evidence in relation to each of these is
reported below.
Ability trust
According to at least five Alpha respondents (A1, A3, A4, A5, A6), ability, which
refers to the trustor‘s perception of the trustee‘s competence, skills and experience
increases knowledge exchange. The majority of respondents hold the knowledge
source‘s ability in high regard. Most respondents agreed that trust in the knowledge
source‘s competence is a major factor in turning to that person for advice. One
respondent concluded, ―what I would look for you know, is that this person‘s done
this ten times before and they‘ve got so much experience‖ (A5). This idea was
reinforced by another respondent who stated:
―I hold competence in high regard and if I‘m going to ask for advice or
guidance from another project manager or indeed senior manager, I
would ensure at least in my own mind that it was within their field of
competence and they could give you that level of guidance you are
looking for‖ (A6).
No Alpha respondent reported ability trust unnecessary, signifying its
important value during KS endeavours.
Integrity trust
Five respondents (A1, A4, A5, A7, A8) reported that integrity is important when
they seek expertise from a person in another project. It was also reported by three
respondents (A2, A5, A8) that when ability exists it is the integrity that reinforces KS
behaviours, because the person‘s competence and skills are expected regardless of
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
104
the position he or she is holding, but it is the integrity that drives the KS. It was
reported that:
―[Competence and professionalism] are beneficial and it‘s nice to have
those things but I think it‘s more critical that when I‘m asking someone a
question or asking for some information that I know that they‘re telling
me the truth [are honest with me]. I would expect that if someone is
working in the organisation, they are competent, the company has
deemed them [to be]...they wouldn‘t have been in that position if they
were not competent in their job‖ (A8).
―if someone‘s not trustworthy then they‘re probably not being very
professional. So if you‘re trying to glean knowledge off them you‘d
probably question the reliability of that knowledge and whether it‘s any
good or not. You know I think it really does go hand in hand and
certainly people need to be trustworthy if you‘re going to value their
knowledge‖ (A2).
Similar to ability trust, no respondents reported on integrity trust as being trivial,
with the majority perceiving knowledge source honesty and credibility in high
regard. This would suggest that in this instance integrity trust was highly regarded by
participants as key to I-PKS outcomes.
Benevolence trust
Benevolence trust was also perceived to be valuable; at least four respondents (A1,
A2, A3, A4) stated its importance for I-PKS, and no one stated that benevolence is
unnecessary. One PM (A3) reported that it is important to approach the person who
will be helpful and willing to reveal their knowledge. Furthermore, at Alpha there is
an awareness that people need to be willing to share and be helpful, although it was
recognised that there are some people who have a wealth of experience but protect
their expertise as an asset of importance, and would not go out of their way to help
others or to share their experience.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
105
The relationship between trust and OC
Analysis provided evidence of a relationship between culture and trusting
behaviours. Interviews revealed that all three trust dimensions were important for
respondents, as was the case with benevolence trust, there was an awareness that
people need to be helpful and willing to share. One respondent stated, ―there are
things that I would expect in our organisation, I would expect that if someone is
working in the organisation, they are competent‖ (A8). He added, ―and positive
intention again that probably links up with professionalism, it‘s just an expectation
that I would have, I would expect people to have those qualities. But I‘ve met people
with those qualities that aren‘t honest and from previous experience aren‘t
necessarily credible‖ (A8). This means that respondents from Alpha were aware that
some PMs are reluctant to share their knowledge. Therefore, they sought knowledge
only from those they trust, and it was reported, ―if I go to a project manager for
advice and that particular person tells me something I base how much I believe of
that based on past credibility, whether I trust that person and if they‘re competent in
their job‖ (A5). Earlier analysis revealed that the culture at Alpha is based on
stability and control and there are some individuals unwilling to share knowledge.
Data presented above suggests that PMs would seek knowledge mainly from those
whom they trust and know are willing to share knowledge.
5.3.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
There was a range of KSM available for Alpha employees including face-to-face
formal and informal interactions, wikis, lessons learned (LL) repositories, the newly
established PMO, and other tools (such as e-mails, intranet and shared-drive). Table
5.4 summarises findings on the use of KSM among Alpha employees. It indicates the
number of respondents stating which of the available means are important and/or
primarily used for inter-project knowledge exchange. Seven people reported that
face-to-face informal meetings are important and/or primarily used to transfer
knowledge between projects. One respondent commented: ―I think a lot of it
[knowledge sharing] happens, you know, just project manager to project manager,
informal communications and talking and sharing experiences. I don‘t think often
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
106
they will go back and look through the lessons learned or the document that was
written‖ (A3).
Table 5-4: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Alpha respondents
G15) - 3 program managers (G4, G5, G12) - 2 PPO officers (G1, G11) - 1 team member from the IT department (G9) - 1 managing director of the branch (G10)
Questionnaire: 16
Table 5-9: Summary of Gamma’s profile
GAMMA
INDUSTRY Communication Services
SECTOR Government Owned Corporation
DESCRIPTION Provide communication services to government agencies
CASE Project Management Branch
INVESTIGATED SITES Project Management Branch
NR OF INFORMANTS Interviews: 16 Questionnaire: 16
PROJECT SIZE Budget: Few thousand–$1.5mil No of people: up to 4–10 Duration: few hours to 2 years
PROJECT MANAGERS’ GEOGRAPHICAL
LOCATION Co-located
PMs at Gamma at follow the PRINCE2 project management methodology. The
Branch is structured around four types of projects: (1) internet, (2) phone, (3)
counters, and (4) disaster services and campaign projects. Gamma also delivers
internal process improvement projects. Tasks within the projects are highly
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
125
repeatable and all projects follow similar processes. Project budgets range from a
few thousand dollars to 1.5 million dollars. Projects last from a few hours to two
years. During the data collection process all PMs were co-located in one open plan
office. Other departments, including Finance, Marketing and IT were located in the
same or adjacent building.
5.5.2. Organisational Culture
This section reports on findings on how OC influences I-PKS at Gamma. Out of 39
personnel working in the Branch at Gamma, 16 participated in the questionnaire
assessing cultural dominant type. Evidence from the questionnaire, presented in
Figure 5.4, revealed that the culture profile at Gamma was balanced, with a slight
shift towards the Hierarchy type. However, the findings from interviews suggested
that Gamma‘s culture comprises principles of a Clan type, and are detailed below.
Figure 5-4: Culture profile of Gamma
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Adhocracy
Market
Hierarchy
Clan
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
126
Data from the interviews at Gamma strongly suggest that culture is focused on
teamwork, employee involvement and employee recognition. The organisation
provides mentoring sessions and job rotation is frequently practiced. Respondents
constantly reported that employees at Gamma work together, they are honest and
willing to help their colleagues, and Gamma‘s culture was described ―as a
supportive environment [where people] want to grow and get better in the project
management [field]‖ (G13). Two follow-up interviews conducted with a PM and a
PMO representative helped to identify the reasons why results from OCAI indicated
the Hierarchy type as being prevalent and not, as interviews suggested, the Clan type.
These interviews brought to light that the change of director, which happened around
the time the initial interviews were conducted, was the reason for the culture shift
from Clan to Hierarchy. Data from follow-up interviews indicated that the previous
director was more in the Clan quadrant. ―She was like, oh let‘s have some fun, you
are all my friends, we all go out socialising together‖ (G11). The culture shifted
more towards Hierarchy when the new director came, whose prime focus was more
around the processes and making sure PMs follow the correct procedures. ―[Previous
director] wasn‘t like that at all. If you skipped all of this processes, and unless you
have reached the outcome that was fine‖ (G11). When the new director came, the
organisation‘s focus shifted towards structure and control. PMs were not able to
make decisions and everything had to go through the director who wanted to ensure
that work was being done correctly. Another interviewee confirmed, ―now everything
is control by the top manager, procedures, formal rules, structure‖ (G15).
Nevertheless, both interviewees agreed that on the lower level, between PMs, there is
still a lot of informality and an open, Clan-like culture. The following section reports
on findings from the interviews, which took place before the leadership change.
Willingness to share knowledge
Analysis provided a strong indication that PMs are open and willing to share
knowledge. The culture in the organisation is not to create blame, but rather to
encourage learning from mistakes and recognise opportunities for improvement.
Many respondents commented that shortcomings in projects ―are not failures,
they‘re just opportunities to improve things‖. The attitude of sharing was endorsed
by the branch manager who declared, ―we certainly don‘t capture it [lessons learned]
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
127
in language like failure, so we always capture it in language of learnt and how could
we improve‖ (G10). PMs agreed, and one stated, ―people are pretty vocal and most
people you know, like to share their pain as much as their pleasures‖ (G3). Another
added, ―I‘m quite happy to identify my shortcomings because [if not] you‘re not
going to make it better next time‖ (G6). Analysis revealed that this culture of not
blaming and rewarding for sharing encouraged people to freely exchange their
knowledge, even if it was related to their project pitfalls.
Interaction and knowledge sharing between PMs
At Gamma all PMs and PPO staff were co-located in an open plan office. According
to the majority of respondents, the open plan enables frequent communication and
knowledge exchange between co-workers, as well as helps to establish trusting
relationships. Most respondents indicated that this open environment encourages
people to ―bounce ideas off each other‖. No one stated KS is rare. The advantages of
the open plan arrangement are reflected in the comments provided by PMs:
―we just walk up to the other program manager and have a bit of a chat
or see when they‘re free or you know, it‘s all very informal with our
managers, and we‘re all on the same level, on the same floor of the
building so it‘s easy‖ (G5).
Not only PMs but also PPO personnel commented on the benefits of a shared
location. The PPO officer reported:
―Some project teams aren‘t located on level three and you do forget
about them as well and I think they‘re probably missing out on that
interaction. So I think keeping the team all together is a good idea.
Because even just simple things like morning teas and things like that‖
(G1).
This idea was expanded by the PPO manager who added:
―Many conversations [sic] I can be drawn into is because I was walking
close [to] one of the pods and project manager[s] would be discussing
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
128
something and I might hear it or they will ask me to join the
conversation. And they talk about how each handled the similar problem
so… Our project managers are very good in bouncing ides off each
other‖ (G11).
Furthermore, there is a strong indication that this close proximity facilitates the
establishment of close relationships. At least five respondents (G1, G3, G5, G9, G10)
commented that they are very close to their colleagues and most agreed they
frequently interact with their peers. The following remarks provide evidence
supporting this:
―I am working in the channel with [xxx, xxx, xxx] we all sit in the pod
together so you know you‘ve also got that ability to just chat, work
something out, have a de-stress or something‖ (G3).
―With [xxx] I just stick my head up over the barrier and have a bit of a
chat or if she‘s looking a bit glum I‘ll say oh what‘s going on and that
sort of thing‖ (G5)
5.5.3. Trust
At Gamma, there were 14 valid questionnaire responses that provided answers
relating to the presence of the three forms of trust during I-PKS endeavours. Findings
indicate that the presence of ability trust contributed the most to KS, showing a high
mean value of 4.55. Least contributing was benevolence trust (mean = 3.81).
However, all three forms showed as having a positive effect on KS, reporting mean
values above 3.00. Table 5.10 outlines the presence of the three forms of trust during
KS endeavours and reports on mean and standard deviation values.
Interview data revealed that at Gamma, two trust dimensions, ability and integrity,
were perceived as necessary in KS. However, benevolence trust did not have strong
support.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
129
Table 5-10: The presence of three forms of trust during knowledge sharing endeavours (mean and standard deviation values)
GAMMA n=14
Trust Dimensions Mean SD
ABILITY TRUST 4.55 0.54
BENEVOLENCE TRUST 3.81 0.91
INTEGRITY TRUST 4.27 0.68
Ability trust
Overall, ability trust was perceived to be important in KS by at least 10 respondents.
Most of all, the competence was reported as critical. Respondents commented that if
a person is competent they trust that the information he/she provides is accurate and
they can act upon it and do the correct job. Competent people make the right
decisions and know how to use and work with the tools they have. While
competence has been perceived as critical by the majority of respondents, many
commented that experience plays a moderate role in I-PKS. It was reported,
―sometimes people who haven‘t got experience can see the wood, you know can see
the wood for the trees and can come up with some great ideas and suggestions
because they‘re not clouded by projects and have never seen it before and come up
with some good ideas‖ (G8). The PPO officer explained that ―experience is
beneficial, but you can get away without a lot of experience because sometimes it‘s
those fresh eyes that actually see things‖ (G11). Professionalism was perceived not
to be important. Four people commented that professionalism does not play any role
in effective KS and summarised that, just because someone is not professional, does
not mean that they do not have valuable points to make:
―If they have told me say, about the way something was done and was
achieved and it was an unprofessional way of doing it, I might think oh
okay so they did it that way. It wasn‘t the most professional way of doing
it but it was successful, then I might take some things from that and then
convert that into a more professional way of doing it but still achieve the
same outcome through a similar approach‖ (G5).
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
130
Overall, data suggested that although some perceived professionalism as needless,
the majority of Gamma personnel held other peoples‘ competence and skills in high
regard providing evidence to state that ability does matter for I-PKS.
Benevolence trust
Benevolence trust did not have many advocates and four respondents perceived
benevolence as unimportant in KS. One of them declared, ―I don‘t want someone
who‘s got good intentions but is going to give me the wrong information‖ (G10)
Another added, ―sometimes people get so passionate and want to do things and
basically they become more emotional than logical and I think that is risky‖ (G9).
During the interviews only one PM perceived benevolence trust as being important
in I-PKS, he commented, ―I have issues when people say I don‘t want to do that, it‘s
not my job or something like that because I know I spend a lot of time doing things
that technically maybe aren‘t my job... Because sometimes I go out of my way to do
something for another team so hopefully they can do something like that in return‖
(G14). Overall, at Gamma, data provided evidence suggesting that respondents did
not perceive the value of benevolence as contributing to KS.
Integrity trust
Evidence supports that integrity was highly regarded at Gamma‘s PM Branch and 10
respondents perceived integrity as important. At Gamma, one PM reported that even
if a PM has not been working on a particular project it does not mean that they do not
have a valid point to make or a credible opinion on it, he commented, ―if they have
credibility [it] would make me more comfortable in taking their advice or
knowledge‖ (G3). Another respondent admitted:
―I think sometimes you‘re looking for that frank and honest advice.
That‘s what I value from someone, being honest and frank with me. If I‘m
going down the wrong track I‘d rather that, than being nice and not
wanting to offend me and giving me wrong information‖ (G8).
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
131
The evidence suggests that employees in the Branch at Gamma are generally honest
with each other. It was reported that honesty and credibility ―is something I guess we
assume at our company‖ (G14).
Furthermore, four respondents (G1, G3, G5, G6) provided evidence that there is a
relationship between ability and integrity trust, stating that even though ability trust
exists, it is the integrity that reinforces KS behaviours. This can be seen in these two
remarks:
―Somebody would have to be competent for me to go and seek them out
to get information from them...and I would want to ensure that if they are
competent well they‘d need to be competent, that they‘d need to be
honest [and don‘t have] any hidden agendas or anything like that‖ (G2).
At Gamma the value of integrity trust in KS was apparent. No respondent
reported integrity trust to be needless, and the majority held knowledge source
credibility and honesty in high regard.
OC and trust
At Gamma it appears that there is a relationship between OC and trusting behaviours.
The majority of respondents reported that people are encouraged to talk amongst
themselves and that new ideas are welcomed. The organisation builds a culture that
supports newcomers and rewards those who have gone the extra mile to help another
team member. Moreover, employees of Gamma are supportive, and willing to help
each other. This type of environment appears to create trusting relationships,
suggesting that both benevolence and integrity are already expected in the
organisation, ―I guess maybe we take those things [honesty and credibility] for
granted if we have a good organisational culture...We assume that because someone
works here, generally get very reliable and very honest and it‘s more like when
there‘s an exception to that, it‘s only then that we actually think about that aspect‖
(G14). Data from Gamma respondents suggested that the friendly, supporting and
non-blaming culture means that willingness to help and caring is something that is
assumed in organisation, thus, not perceived as missing.
Chapter 5 | Within-case Analysis
132
5.5.4. Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
Respondents listed the following KSM available to them at Gamma: face-to-face
formal and informal interactions, telephone, e-mails, an enterprise project
management system (a project management reporting tool), and a shared drive. Table
5.11 summarises findings on the use of KSM between PMs. Interview respondents
indicated that the most often used means were face-to-face formal and informal
interactions, but they rarely used the LL database.
All respondents rated face-to-face interactions as essential for I-PKS, consistently
stating face-to-face, both formal and informal, as the most critical factor in KS. Not
one participant perceived face-to-face interaction as unimportant.
Table 5-11: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing according to Gamma respondents
Change of managing director shifted the culture focus from
Clan to Hierarchy
MIN division — Clan IT division — Hierarchy
Culture focus Control,
Structure, Unwillingness to change
Process control, Customer focus,
Achievement, Result orientation, Accomplishment,
Measurement, Use of quality tools
Teamwork, Employee involvement,
Recognition
Overall Delta‘s focus: Innovation,
Development, Creativity, Informality,
Commitment
Collaboration
Top management does not discourage, but it also does not actively support, collaboration and KS endeavours. The organisation does not provide many opportunities for collaboration between PMs from different geographical locations. Nevertheless, there was evidence that recent structural changes are shifting the way projects are managed from solitary to more joint efforts.
The organisation encourages, but does not actively contribute to facilitating, I-PKS.
Collaboration is encouraged, new ideas are welcomed. The organisation provides support to newcomers and rewards those who go the extra mile to help another team member.
Collaboration is encouraged, but the organisation does not actively participate in facilitating collaborative work and KS between divisions. Workshops and cross-division conferences are rare. Only recently, top management recognised the need and now tries to facilitate collaboration by organising reading sessions. However, these endeavours do not occur frequently and, according to respondents, have not yet been successful.
COMPANY ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
Willingness to share knowledge
Some PMs are open and willing to share knowledge. However, some are reluctant, to do so. Those PMs who like to be portrayed as a kind of perfect project manager are unwilling to reveal their project‘s pitfalls.
Some PMs are open and willing to share knowledge. However, those focussed on career progression are reluctant. Some are reluctant to share their project‘s pitfalls; instead they try to blame others for the failure.
Strong evidence providing that PMs are open and willing to share knowledge, even related to project shortcomings. Projects‘ shortcomings are seen as opportunities rather than failures.
PMs are generally open with each other and willing to reuse their knowledge.
Evidence of hesitancy to share
knowledge Interviews Interviews No evidence No evidence
Important Remarks
I‟m very open about where I‟ve done well and where I‟ve done wrong. I have a number of individuals working for me who feel that failure is a weakness and therefore wouldn‟t be as open. So about fifty-fifty I think (A7).
We have some people that have been in the organisation for ten years and believe that they should be a general manager, so I think there‟s a little bit of well if I share too much with you you‟ll get the heads up on me (B3).
I‟m quite happy to identify my shortcomings because [if not] you‟re not going to make it better next time (G6).
MIN Projects — That‟s great about [Delta] the way that everyone can be totally up front about their likes and dislikes and successes and failures (D2).
Reasons for not sharing knowledge
To maintain position of importance
Hoarding knowledge increases power and a way to promotion
No evidence No evidence
Reasons for not sharing knowledge related to project
shortcomings
Revealing project pitfalls… - is a sign of failure - puts the position of perfect PM at risk
Revealing project pitfalls… puts the strong position in the organisation at risk
No evidence No evidence
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
161
According to DeLong and Fahey (2000) cultures which emphasise willingness to
share knowledge, collaboration and frequency of interactions will have greater KS
outcomes. This pattern was found at Gamma and Delta, whose focus on employee
involvement and teamwork was perceived to improve KS outcomes. Within-case
analysis revealed that PMs from Gamma and Delta were normally open and willing
to share any kind of knowledge, and no one indicated that people are hesitant to
share. At Gamma, project pitfalls were viewed as areas for improvement rather than
failures, and collaboration and KS were endorsed by the unit manager. Similarly, at
Delta, no one indicated that people are hesitant to share.
The pattern was different in Alpha and Beta cases who reported evidence of
hesitancy to share knowledge. At least two respondents of each of company (A5, A7,
B2, B3) reported that some PMs are very protective and unwilling to share
knowledge. Data from interviews outlined in Chapter 5 also provided evidence that
in these two companies there are PMs who are reluctant to share their project pitfalls
because they want to retain their reputation and position of importance in the
company; others, focused on career, recognised knowledge as power and a way to
career advancement.
Also, at Alpha and Beta the indicator of Market culture was high while Clan culture
was relatively low, demonstrating competitive and goal-oriented cultures, where
there is no place for failure and the focus is on winning and success. This can explain
why project leaders of Alpha and Beta were sometimes reluctant to share knowledge,
especially that which related to their projects‘ shortcomings. Furthermore, the
performance measures in Market-type cultures are normally based on numbers and
tangible achievements, thus some employees are reluctant to share because they do
not want to give their secrets away to others as this could jeopardise their career
advancement.
Analysis of Alpha and Beta provided some evidence to suggest that cultures, which
focus on competition, achievement and demanding leaders are the reason that some
PMs are reluctant to share knowledge related to their projects with other colleagues
outside their project boundaries. Those that focus on collaboration, teamwork,
commitment and employee involvement (Gamma and Delta cases) are more willing
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
162
to share their knowledge. Indeed, the above analysis and discussion provided
evidence that the type of culture influences KS behaviours. Therefore, it is proposed
that:
Proposition 1a: Project managers from cultures that emphasise
competition, achievement, demanding leaders and winning (displaying
characteristics of Market type), are less likely to report knowledge
sharing between projects.
Proposition 1b: Project managers from cultures that create a
collaborative environment encourage people to communicate, and create
a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work (displaying
characteristics of Clan type), are more likely to improve inter-project
knowledge sharing behaviours.
6.3.2. Project Manager’s Geographical Location
PMs‘ geographical location differed across cases. Table 6.2 illustrates the location of
PMs from each case. There were two cases (Alpha and Delta) where PMs were both
co-located and geographically dispersed. At Alpha, PMs from SA Development
Projects shared office space; likewise PMs from WA Maintenance Projects also
shared a location. Those PMs from SA Maintenance Projects were dispersed,
working on project sites. At Delta, PMs from MIN Projects worked together on the
same floor, also PMs from IT Projects shared working space, but PMs from MIN and
IT worked in different buildings. PMs from Beta and Gamma all worked together in
an open plan office.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
163
Table 6-2: PMs geographical distribution across-cases
Case Location A Location B
Alpha
Beta
Gamma
Delta
Legend:
Co-located PMs Dispersed PMs
Analysis of Alpha evidence suggested that those PMs who were co-located (SA
Development Projects and WA Maintenance Projects) worked closely with each
other (A6), and developed a more mature approach to project management than those
located on project sites (A2). There were comments from co-located Beta
respondents (B3, B5) who reported they have close working relationships with their
peers. Similarly, at Gamma, where all PMs shared the same space, data provided
strong evidence that this open plan office arrangement facilitates building close
relationships. At least five respondents (G1, G3, G5, G9, G10) commented they are
PMS FROM SA
MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS
PMS FROM SA
DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
PMS FROM
WA
MAINTENANCE
PROJECTS
PMS FROM
MIN
PROJECTS
PMS FROM IT
PROJECTS
PMS FROM TC
PROJECTS &
BI PROJECTS
PMS FROM
INTERNET,
PHONE,
COUNTERS, AND
DISASTER
CAMPAIGNS
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
164
very close with their colleagues and most agreed they frequently interact with their
peers. Similarly at Delta, at least four respondents (D9, D3, D4, D5) expressed that
physical proximity helped to establish and maintain close relationships, which as a
result facilitated KS between project leaders. PMs reported they seek knowledge
normally from those who they know well. At Delta, it was further reported that the
willingness and openness to share information about a project‘s shortcomings
depends on the people and how well they know them, ―if you know someone well and
you spend a bit of time with them you‘ll become more aware of their frustrations and
things‖ (D4).
In each case, Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta, data from the interviews provided
evidence of the importance of collocation for KS, yet further analysis brought to light
that although physical proximity contributes to KS, it does not have a direct effect,
but rather it influences other factors that are more closely related to KS. Evidence
from the cases signified that those PMs who were co-located maintained close
working relationships. Data from the four cases recaptured above and discussed in
the previous chapter, provided support to state that physical proximity helps to build
close relationships and those close relationships appear to have a more direct effect
on KS than does physical proximity.
Nonetheless, there was minimal exchange of knowledge and expertise between PMs
from distant locations. The within-case analysis brought to light that at least four
respondents from Alpha (A2, A5, A7, A8) and four from Delta (D1, D3, D4, D9)
reported that cultural differences and silos also existed between dispersed PMs, and
there was a clear distinction between ‗us and them‘. Furthermore, there were a
number of remarks commenting on the inconsistency in conducting projects between
geographical locations. Although respondents from both cases reported that more
frequent KS and transparency in managing projects between geographically
dispersed sites could be very fruitful, analysis revealed that in both cases Alpha‘s and
Delta‘s dispersed PMs followed different project management processes, developing
their own norms and routines for project management (Alpha and Delta cases), and
used different KSM (Delta case). On top of that, at Alpha and Delta, there was
limited collaboration between geographically dispersed PMs.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
165
The cultural differences between geographically dispersed PMs, manifested by the
presence of silos, distinction between ―us versus them‖, the lack of common
approach in managing projects and poor collaboration between dispersed PMs
appeared to result in limited KS. Based on the analysis of Alpha and Delta it would
appear that there are a range of problems that arise from geographical dispersion
between PMs; these problems cause barriers to effective KS. Figure 6.2 illustrates
this argument.
The analysis presented above leads to two conclusions; (1) that close proximity does
not directly add to KS behaviours, but it is likely to create opportunities for building
close and bonded relationships and these close relationships appears to have a more
direct effect on KS than physical proximity, (2) geographically dispersed PMs are
more likely to display evidence of cultural differences, which in result can lead to
limited I-PKS. Results from this analysis are stated formally:
Proposition 2: Physical proximity is likely to facilitate the establishment
of bonded relationships between peers, which in turn improves I-PKS.
It is also is proposed:
Figure 6-2: Consequences of PMs geographical dispersion
Limited knowledge
sharing between
geographically dispersed PMs
PMs geographical
dispersion
Creation of silos — ―us versus them‖
Poor collaboration between dispersed
PMs
The lack of a common approach in
managing projects:
o development of own norms and
routines for project
management
o the use of different knowledge
sharing mechanisms.
ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM
GEOGRAPHICAL DISPERSION
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
166
Proposition 3: Geographically dispersed PMs are likely to display
evidence of cultural differences. These cultural differences may in
consequence lead to limited I-PKS behaviours.
6.4. TRUST
The effect of trust on KS was examined to answer RQ2: How does the existence of
the three forms of trust — (i) ability, (ii) benevolence and (iii) integrity — influence
I-PKS behaviours? Ability trust refers to the trustor's perception that another party is
knowledgeable or possesses a certain level of competence or skills; benevolence trust
suggests that the trustee has a specific attachment to the trustor and would keep the
best interests of the trustor at heart; and integrity trust refers to the trustor's
perception that the trustee will adhere to a set of principles such as honesty and
credibility during and after the knowledge exchange. Trust was examined from the
knowledge seeking perspective.
Data on trust was obtained from interviews and the questionnaire. The questionnaire
provided answers related to the presence of the three forms of trust during inter-
project KS endeavours. Interviews further revealed how important each trust form is
in KS. Appendix E provides a copy of the questionnaire related to trust, distributed to
the respondents from the four cases, and describes the process to collect quantitative
data. Across all cases, ability and integrity were the most influential in seeking
knowledge from other projects, followed by benevolence. A scale to measure the
presence of trust ranged from 1 to 5, where 1 indicated strong disagreement and 5
strong agreement, and 3 is the scale midpoint. In all cases, ability trust received mean
values above 4.0, with the highest mean of 4.57 (Beta case) and the lowest mean of
4.21 (Alpha case). Integrity trust also reported high mean values. Across the Alpha,
Beta and Gamma cases, integrity trust received mean values above 4.0. Only in Delta
case did integrity trust report a mean value below 4.00 (mean = 3.79). Across all
cases, benevolence trust received the lowest mean value. Nevertheless, it still showed
a positive effect on KS, reporting mean values above the midpoint (3.00). Analysis
of the questionnaire data revealed that the presence of the three forms of trust existed
during knowledge exchange behaviours, which means that all forms of trust
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
167
positively contribute to I-PKS, with ability trust reporting the highest contribution
and benevolence trust the lowest contribution.
Qualitative data from interviews was examined by using numerical counts in
combination with matrix queries as a proxy indicator of the importance of the three
trust dimensions across the four cases. This process was explained in Chapter 4
Methodology, Section 4.5.4.2. This analysis of the interviews revealed that overall,
25 remarks suggested that ability trust is important, and 23 suggested that integrity
trust is important in KS. There were seven comments consistent with the notion that
benevolence trust positively influenced I-PKS, and six indicated that benevolence
trust was irrelevant.
Although data from the interviews presented in Chapter 5 revealed there were
distinct views on the level of importance of trust between cases, overall, there was
strong evidence supporting the notion that ability and integrity trust have a positive
impact, and moderate evidence that benevolence trust has a positive effect on KS
behaviour. Table 6.3 reports remarks raised by respondents on trust. In brackets
under the ‗Respondents‘ heading, specific codes characterising respondents are
listed. In some cases the same respondent provided two views related to the same
form of trust, i.e. G8 feels experience (attribute of ability trust) is moderate for
knowledge sharing, but he also commented that professionalism (attribute of ability
trust) is not necessary in inter-project knowledge sharing. In analysing trust all
remarks related trust attributes were included.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
168
Table 6-3: Major remarks on the importance of trust from respondents
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.
RA7 Honesty is very important. The information received from other project manager influence the decision that I‟m making and I‟d be pretty unhappy if I made a wrong decision based on data and the individual who I was talking to knew that. Essentially rug pulling RG8: That‟s what I value from someone being honest and frank with me. If I‟m going down the wrong track or yeah. I‟d rather that, rather than being nice and not wanting to offend me and giving me wrong information
Mod
erat
e
A7, B2, B6, D5
RA7 Credibility I guess is a measure of a person‟s confidence in another person‟s eyes. I can make my own assessment as to the whether I should apply the information that‟s been provided to me.
Not
Impo
rtan
t
B4, D9
RB4 Honesty doesn‟t really matter too much. Nobody within our team would be dishonest in the information sharing because it‟s black and white, the type of information. It‟s not as if you‟re talking about soliciting new customers.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
169
In summary, across the four cases, three forms of trust — ability, benevolence and
integrity — were found to be related to I-PKS. The analysis from interviews and
questionnaire confirmed that trust has a strong impact on the transfer of knowledge
in the inter-project context. It was found that when trust exists, PMs are more willing
to seek and more confident to apply knowledge received from others to a project.
According to the analysis provided above, it is proposed that:
Proposition 4: Ability and integrity trust, and in a more limited fashion
benevolence trust, increase the likelihood of I-PKS.
6.4.1. The Contingent Effect of Integrity Trust
Analysis of the interview data revealed that there is a relationship between the ability
and integrity dimensions. Within-case analysis of Alpha, Gamma and Delta provided
evidence suggesting that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability
trust and KS. Integrity trust is a perception that the trustee adheres to a set of
principles that the trustor finds acceptable (i.e., honesty and credibility). Ability
refers to a perception that another party is knowledgeable and possesses a certain
level of competence and skills (Mayer, et al., 1995).
Across all cases, it was apparent that ability trust highly contributes to KS between
PMs, which means that PMs will seek knowledge from those who possess a certain
level of skills and competencies. At least three respondents from Alpha (A2, A5,
A8), four from Gamma (G1, G3, G5, G6), and three from Delta (D1, D5, D8)
provided evidence signifying that although ability contributes, it is the integrity that
reinforces KS behaviours, which means that PMs will be reluctant to seek knowledge
from a person who they perceive has not been honest with them in the past, even
though it is believed this person is knowledgeable and possesses information they
look for. Below there are some remarks from respondents on the contingency role of
integrity trust:
―[Competence and professionalism] are beneficial and it‘s nice to have
those things but I think it‘s more critical that when I‘m asking someone a
question or asking for some information that I know that they‘re telling
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
170
me the truth [are honest with me]. I would expect that if someone is
working in the organisation, they are competent, the company has
deemed them [to be] ... they wouldn‘t have been in that position if they
were not competent in their job‖ (A8).
―Somebody would have to be competent for me to go and seek them out
to get information from them...and I would want to ensure that if they are
competent well they‘d need to be competent, that they‘d need to be
honest [and don‘t have] any hidden agenda‘s or anything like that‖ (G2).
―skills and competency... I mean none of that is really useful if they‘re
not honest‖ (D8).
At Beta there was no evidence that integrity reinforces the relationship between
ability and KS. Explanation building analysis helped to clarify why this is the case.
At Beta, knowledge that was shared required evidence, ―because it‘s black and
white, the type of information [we share]‖ (B4) indicating that the information had to
be credible because it was largely available for others to use. The person who put the
knowledge in would make sure the knowledge is credible because he or she would
not like to be perceived as not experienced and lose their position of importance.
Nonetheless, cross-case data provided evidence suggesting that PMs will seek
knowledge from a person whose ability they believe in, but it would be the presence
of integrity trust that powers that KS behaviour. Evidence from Beta indicates that
this can be the case especially when knowledge shared is tacit, not stored for others
to use. This leads to the following proposition:
Proposition 5a: An essential pre-requisite for positive I-PKS outcomes
is the presence of ability trust between project members.
Proposition 5b: The presence of integrity trust further enhances the
efficacy of ability trust in relation to its role in I-KPS.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
171
6.4.2. The Effect of Organisational Culture on
Trusting Relationships
Overall, the questionnaire results provided evidence suggesting that all three forms
of trust positively contribute to I-PKS. However, data from the interviews revealed
there were distinct views on the level of importance of trust between cases.
Explanation building analysis provided clarification as to why perceptions of trust
differed across the four organisations.
Questionnaire results provided evidence that PMs seek knowledge from those
individuals whom they believe possess a high level of the three forms of trust, and
data from interviews revealed the existence of the three forms of trust as being
essential for KS to occur. At Alpha there was an awareness that people need to be
helpful and willing to share. Nevertheless, it was recognised that the competitive and
achievement-focused culture at Alpha means that there are some people in the
company who have a wealth of experience, but they would choose to protect their
knowledge and expertise rather than help others. This means that respondents from
Alpha were aware that some PMs are reluctant to share their knowledge. Therefore,
they sought knowledge only from those whom they trusted.
The circumstances are different at Beta, whose personnel valued codified knowledge
over tacit. People were happy to talk, but information was valuable when hard coded
and documented: ―when we later discuss things with [the] director, there is a need
for data, for supporting evidence‖ (B1). One project leader commented, ―nobody
within our team would be dishonest in the information sharing because it‘s black and
white, the type of information [we share]‖ (B4). Also, with regard to ability trust,
respondents referred to its importance primarily in relation to the transfer of codified
knowledge. Analysis revealed that Beta‘s culture is evidence-based, characterised by
measurement, process control and the use of quality tools. Knowledge is mainly
acquired from databases where everything is ‗black and white‘ and formal meetings
are valued more than informal interaction. Trust essentially involves the assumption
of risk (a probability of loss) since confidence eliminates risk by ignoring possible
alternatives; the absence of risk removes the need for investing in trust-building
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
172
initiatives. In Beta, there is not much risk involved in KS because people do not rely
on each other while searching for knowledge; instead they use databases in which
input is reviewed and controlled. Thus, the knowledge seeker is confident that the
information he/she acquired comes from reliable sources. Trust is a willingness to
take a risk and it is critical in uncertain and risky situations. Therefore, this
environment does not create risky condition and trust is not perceived as important,
which is why integrity and benevolence are perceived to be low priorities.
An alternative explanation can be that achievement oriented, focused on winning and
competition culture at Beta means that PMs rely on non-organic mechanisms and do
not want to take a risk in trusting others for knowledge.
On the other hand, at Gamma, project shortcomings were seen as opportunities rather
than failures, the organisation provided support to newcomers and rewarded those
who made an extra effort to help another team member, and people were encouraged
to learn from their mistakes. Gamma creates opportunities for building strong and
friendly relationships, as well as opportunities to share knowledge. In this
environment, people can rely on each other and positive intentions are simply
assumed and therefore not considered to be critical. At Gamma, the majority of
respondents reported that people are encouraged to talk amongst themselves and new
ideas are welcomed. Gamma reportedly built a KS-focused culture. It was also
reported in Gamma that honesty and credibility ―it‘s something I guess we assume at
our company‖. It was reported:
―Maybe we take those things [honesty and credibility] for granted if we
have a good organisational culture. So like I said here, most people are
honest and um, some people are reliable, not all. But I think it‘s
something I guess we assume at [Gamma]. We assume that because
someone works here, generally get very reliable and very honest and it‘s
more like when there‘s an exception to that‖ (G14).
At Delta the role of benevolence trust in KS was perceived to be moderate. There are
two potential reasons related to OC that can explain this perception. First, it might be
that at Delta MIN, similarly at Gamma, culture is focused on teamwork and
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
173
employee involvement, and people are happy to help each other, largely ―just about
everybody will go out of their way in this group so it‘s kind of not a situation that we
have that I have to deal with too often‖ (D3). Therefore, this willingness to share
knowledge is assumed, thus not perceived as critical.
An alternative explanation is related to the overall Delta culture, which was focused
on innovation and development (characteristics of Adhocracy). It might be that
project leaders from Delta who know that their colleagues are preoccupied with their
projects are not expecting them to go out of their way and offer help. It was reported
that everybody had different agendas, different day-to-day concerns, and different
things they wanted to receive and achieve. ―They don‘t always have to align
completely with what you‘re doing and what you want to get out of it‖ (D7). Another
added, ―I don‘t expect people to go out of their way, they‘ve got their own work to
do‖ (D5). This can explain why in such an environment benevolence was not
expected, thus perceived moderate.
The above discussion revealed that OC appears to determine the perception of trust
and its value as a key facilitating driver of knowledge sharing behaviours. It also
explains why the perception of trust differed across the cases and showed that these
differences appear to be related to OC. Accordingly, it is proposed:
Proposition 6: Organisational culture is likely to determine the
perception of the value of trust as a key facilitating driver of I-PKS
behaviours.
6.5. KNOWLEDGE SHARING MECHANISMS
This section presents findings from the cross-case analysis of KSM and answers the
third research question: How can different KSMs (relational, project management
tools and process, and technology) improve I-PKS behaviours? There was a range of
different KSM available for PMs across all cases, including relational mechanisms
(face-to-face formal and informal meetings), project management tools and processes
(LL repositories, PMO), and a range of technology mechanisms (such as e-mails,
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
174
wikis, intranet, teleconferencing, software registry and shared-drives). These
technology mechanisms are further divided according to the typology proposed by
Alavi et al. (2006), into IntellectWeb Tools which support collaboration and content
management providing capabilities for messaging, calendaring, online chat,
application sharing and discussion forums (i.e., wikis, Google wave and other Web
2.0 applications), and Enterprise Repositories that consist of soft or hard copy
documents and databases of codified knowledge from internal and external sources.
The analysis of technology mechanisms focused primarily on IntellectWeb Tools
having great potential for collaborative KS between geographically dispersed PMs
and the avenue for LL.
In each case, it was apparent that PMs primarily transferred knowledge through face-
to-face interaction. Table 6.4 illustrates the important and/or primarily used
mechanisms for inter-project knowledge exchange. A numerical count analysis in
combination with a matrix query was used as a proxy indicator of the number of
respondents stating their preferable and/or most often used mechanisms for cross-
project KS. It often occurred that one respondent reported on more than one
mechanism.
Table 6-4: Important and/or primarily used mechanisms for I-PKS
The analysis of cases found several reasons explaining why PMs preferred face-to-
face interaction over other mechanisms. Firstly, there was strong support that PMs
are verbal and prefer to talk to each other instead of searching through databases.
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
175
Secondly, data provided evidence that PMs are people-oriented and have well-
developed soft skills. PMs reported that they prefer face-to-face interaction because
they can read body language or see when people are lying to them. Thirdly, project
knowledge often requires context, otherwise it cannot be easily understood and
applied. Non-verbal interaction lacks the ability to put knowledge into context, and
face-to-face mechanisms work better in this case. Fourthly, verbal knowledge
exchange was preferable in the project environment because it provides instant
feedback, while documenting and searching for knowledge in databases was reported
to be time consuming. Table 6.5 provides major remarks from respondents about
why they prefer face-to-face interactions over other KSMs.
Table 6-5: Major remarks from respondents about why they prefer face-to-face over other KSMs
ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
I like to talk to people face to face and I can work out really if what they‟re telling me is the truth…You get the odd one that you can‟t pick but generally...., I had one guy that if he‟s telling the truth, not telling the truth, if he knows his subject matter and is confident with it he will just bam, fantastic, really good presentations telling me what....if he doesn‟t every second word is, instead of ummmmm he says „basically‟… And again you don‟t get that via email (A8).
From my personal experience, you can‟t beat face-to-face communication because you know, if you send an email it can be misconstrued, you can‟t have a tone in an email, you don‟t get the facial expression, you don‟t get if somebody‟s smiling at you as there talking (B6). I sit at my desk and I‟m on the phone and emails are falling in and I just don‟t have time, there‟s too many [things to do]. So pick up the phone and talk to me, get an answer to your question and move on (B6).
I‟m a verbal communicator, I like being able to talk it through so I love it. You know, I like to turn around and say hey, yes... (G6) I find face-to-face
communications so
much better
because electronic
communications do
not necessarily have
the same speed. So
you might send
someone an email
but they might not
read it for a day, two
days or whatever
(G12).
If you‟re working in a project area and quite often it‟s personal talk and communication... particularly when you‟re explaining why you want to do things, you‟ve got to put it into a context that they understand. Which means sometimes you have to explain the context which means that on a personal level it‟s quite often better to do that because you get a lot more back about what they think or understand about what you mean (D6). If you‟re trying to get good ideas flowing and running then you suggest something you get queried about it, you suggest something else, you modify it (D6).
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
176
Nonetheless, face-to-face interaction is not always possible, especially when
expertise needs to be transferred across geographical locations. The analysis found
that there is a range of alternative tools and mechanisms that support KS when face-
to-face is not possible or recommended. Also, project management methodologies
have already established some of the techniques that facilitate I-PKS, including the
capturing and storing of LL and post project reviews. However, analysis across the
four cases revealed that PMs tend to be resistant to formal processes and most of the
respondents reported they are reluctant to use these mechanisms. Subsection 6.5.1
investigates the reasons why PMs do not use LL and provides some solutions. The
proposition related to the use of KSM to improve I-PKS is presented at the end of
section 6.5.4.
6.5.1. Issues with Lessons Learned Across the
Cases
In three cases (Alpha, Beta and Gamma), LL documents were required at the end of
each project. Delta did not produce LL at all. At Beta and Alpha, LL captured the
‗know-what‘ and ‗know-how‘ knowledge; at Gamma, LL were mainly created to
improve project processes (‗know-how‘). However, analysis showed that PMs
seldom search through LL documents. ―We produce lessons learned, but we use them
poorly‖ — this summarises the overall state of LL in the cases that used LL
databases.
The within-case analysis found a range of reasons why PMs were reluctant to use LL
databases. For example, it was found that the process of capturing, storing and
reusing LL was partial and ineffective. At Alpha it was reported that every LL
document has a different format, different questions, no set structure and a lack of
common theme. PMs from Beta and Gamma complained that ―lessons learned are
usually done at a high level‖ focusing primarily on process improvement, and the
results and actions taken were not reported back to the managers, leading to a
breakdown in the double loop learning process. In this circumstance, PMs did not see
much value in LL, producing them only because it was formally required ‗to tick the
box‘. As noted previously, one PM commented, ―you can put all the stuff [LL] in
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
177
document, file your document in the folder and file away, so you can ticked that you
have done your lessons learned, but you never see it again‖ (B2). Also, a PM at
Gamma admitted that she produces LL rarely because ―we‘ve got much more
pressing things to do... they can be shared in a verbal way‖ (G5). These issues
identified in the within-case analysis are captured and summarised in Table 6.6. The
within-case analysis identified problems with quality, visibility and lack of
appropriate LL processes. LL quality represents the clarity of their content and
scope. Visibility corresponds to the degree to which LL can be accessed in the
organisation. Processes refer to the development and implementation of LL.
Table 6-6: LL issues
ISSUES ALPHA BETA GAMMA
QUALITY Poor format — Lack of consistent set of structure to produce LL
Only some project managers update LL documents
VISIBILITY
Captured and stored in a way that is not conducive to sharing
LL are not stored in a concise location
LL spreadsheet contains a large amount of
historical that is hard to deal with
Lack of visibility to see how LL are
progressing
PROCESSES
Lack of LL ownership — a person or group responsible for implementing changes, and following up
Lack of process to ensure LL are captured throughout the project
Lack of process that would require searching through LL documents, only individual‘s
initiative
Some solutions on how to improve LL databases have been proposed by companies.
For example, to improve the LL quality and process, Alpha introduced LL
ownership, a person from the PMO responsible for quality and input. Gamma
introduced an updated work packages request with a section on LL, so project
members can systematically provide feedback when they hand over work packages
after the completion of tasks. Alpha introduced a wiki (still on a trial stage) to
improve visibility and capture LL more informally throughout the project. More
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
178
suggestions on how to improve LL processes can be found in Chapter 6 under the
practical implications section.
The next section focuses on the potential of IntellectWeb Tools, namely wikis, for
inter-project knowledge exchange because respondents extensively commented on
the use of these collaborative tools to improve I-PKS, concluding that it allows for
explicit and tacit knowledge sharing. It was also suggested that wikis can become an
avenue for LL.
6.5.2. Wiki — the Avenue for Lessons Learned
and Tacit Knowledge Sharing
Some respondents saw a great potential for wikis to overcome current problems in
KS. All four organisations were in different stages of implementing wikis. Beta
implemented a wiki a couple of years ago, Alpha recently introduced a wiki (on a
trial period) and Gamma did not have a wiki (only one software design team used
wikis) although there was an initiative to introduce a wiki in 2006; the person who
developed this internet channel strategy went on long service leave, and his
successor made the decision to not proceed with the initiative. At Delta, a wiki was
established in 2005 and all current project documentation has since been stored there;
it has become the most frequently used internal tool for a knowledge base.
Overall, the attitude towards wikis as tools for knowledge exchange was very
positive across all four cases. This stance was also present among respondents whose
organisation did not employ a wiki (Gamma), who commented that the decision to
discontinue using the wiki is ―one of their major fails‖ (G4). Nonetheless, some
people were reluctant to use the wiki; they were mostly concerned with the quality of
information and lack of time for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. A
SWOT analysis has been conducted to determine the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats associated with wikis (see Figure 6.3).
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
179
STRENGTHS
• Shared location that everyone can view and update
• Interactive tool • Allows discoverability • Allows visibility/transparency • User friendly • Provides useful source of information for
PMs • Provides useful source of information for
customers • Provides useful source of information for
new employees • Allows sharing of tacit knowledge • It is useful for business intelligence
information • Provides alternative communication type for
distributed projects
WEAKNESSES
• Too little information • Poor quality of entries
OPPORTUNITIES, REASONS TO
APPLY WIKIS
• To share knowledge (also tacit) quicker and more informal
• To improve visibility • To keep knowledge and information on all
the projects in one space • To better systematise LL • To capture LL in the earlier project stages • To capture LL more informally
POTENTIAL THREAT, RISKS,
DANGER
• Can easily become outdated while not used • Poor quality of entries • Lack of time to maintain • It is just another IT tool to maintain (people
who use alternative tools will not update wikis)
• Relatively new tool, people are resistant to use it and/or do not know how to use it
Figure 6-3: SWOT analysis on wikis across the four cases
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
180
Even though it was found that wikis have more strengths than weaknesses, and most
people saw the advantages of applying wikis, there were also potential dangers
associated with them. The main concerns with wikis were that, if not used, they can
easily become outdated; sometimes they have poor quality entries; there is a lack of
time to maintain them; or they are simply another IT tool to maintain (people who
use alternative tools will not update wikis). On PM commented, ―once you start
getting really busy that‘s kind of at the bottom of the list, you don‘t maintain it and it
becomes useless‖ (A5). A PM from Gamma agreed, saying, ―I have found that if it
does not get updated with the frequency and the depth that you want that could be a
bit dangerous‖ (G9).
According to respondents, most of the potential risks associated with wikis could be
overcome by employing someone responsible for the update and maintenance of the
software: ―you‘re still going to need people to maintain it; that‘s my main bug-bear.
You‘ve got to have the maintenance to put data in there because as soon as it comes
bad, people don‘t trust it and they don‘t go back to there to use it‖ (A2). The
problem with the lack of ownership has been successfully resolved at Beta, where
such a role was assigned to the PPO representative. She maintained the wiki entries
associated with static information and LL. At Alpha, the risk of poor quality entries
was resolved by project management quality control where wiki entries related to
project lessons firstly go to PMs for quality assessment before they are entered into
the system.
Analysis from the case studies showed that the case organisations do not fully utilise
their wikis. For example, Beta uses wikis mainly to store static information, while
Alpha is primarily focused on capturing LL. Furthermore, according to the
respondents, some information and knowledge entered into wikis requires
maintenance and quality control, and other entries should be freely managed and
built up by every employee. An overall analysis showed that wikis could become a
new avenue for LL, and the best way to share both tacit and explicit knowledge
across geographical locations. Herein, an appropriately implemented wiki can assist
in breaking silos across dispersed groups. Figure 6.4 displays areas that need to be
considered to ensure an updated and dynamic wiki. Chapter 7 presents practical
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
181
implications on how wikis should be implemented and maintained to enable them to
be a dynamic and comprehensive tool for I-PKS.
6.5.3. Project Management Office — the
Facilitator for Inter-project Knowledge Sharing
This section discusses the analysis on the PMO, examining PMOs‘ I-PKS
capabilities. A PMO is an organisational entity established to manage a specific
project or related series of projects, usually headed by a project or program manager
(Dai & Wells, 2004; Ward, 2000). According to the I-PKS Framework, it is one of
the project management related KS mechanisms. A cross-case analysis was
conducted to answer the question: how does the PMO facilitate I-PKS? In each case,
the PMO was in a different maturity level. At the time of data collection, Alpha was
in the process of setting up a PMO, which started in 2009. Ultimately, they aimed for
the middle range or slightly towards the mature end of PMO. In both cases, Beta and
Gamma PMOs had recently transitioned into more mature PPOs with additional
functions and more control over the projects. Delta did not have a dedicated PMO to
help in managing projects. There was one administrative employee working part time
who was helping with accessing project records, and a full time employee providing
commercial and legal support. In every case, the PMOs mostly provided
administrative support to the projects, facilitating procedural knowledge. Table 6.7
UPDATED AND DYNAMIC
WIKI
• Comprehensive
• Intelligible
• User Friendly
PROCESSES
• Ownership
• Active Leadership Engagement
• Organisational Culture
ENVIRONMENT
Figure 6-4: Factors which ensure improved wikis
Chapter 6 | Cross-case Analysis
182
shows PMO functions and PMs‘ expectations of their respective PMO. Alpha‘s
responses relating to PMO functions were obtained primarily from the PMO
personnel, who reported that those functions are planned to be implemented in the
near future.
Table 6-7: PMO functions versus PMs’ expectations about the PMO
FUNCTIONS ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA
1 : Provide administrative support 1 1 1 1
2 : Provide training, workshops, seminars, courses
1 0 1 0
3 : Provide informal and formal social interaction
Some practical implications to improve LL quality, visibility and processes have
been drawn from the cross-case analysis and practices used by participating
organisations, they include:
introducing an easily accessible, intelligible and user-friendly LL database
introducing LL ownership — a person accountable for LL implementation
cataloguing LL according to themes
keeping LL in one place
developing a clear action plan for capturing, documenting and sharing LL
throughout the project.
Within- and cross-case analyses found that the use of IntellectWeb Tools such as a
wiki can improve the visibility and capture of LL more informally throughout the
project. Normally, LL are captured and stored in a project folder, LL spreadsheet or
shared drive. The use of more interactive tools to capture and share LL could visibly
improve their use.
These IntellectWeb Tools have recently become an alternative to more static
knowledge repositories; they serve to not only store any explicit knowledge, but are
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
199
also used for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. Cross-case analysis
revealed that one of these tools, a wiki, can become both the avenue for LL as well
as the facilitator for tacit KS between geographically dispersed projects.
The implications for how to ensure updated and dynamic wikis for I-PKS were
drawn from the comments raised by respondents across four cases and are presented
in Figure 7.1. According to the respondents a wiki‘s design should be user friendly
and intelligible, have search capability with indexing for a more intuitive way of
finding knowledge, and be integrated with project management processes and quality
systems to manage projects from end–to-end. Feedback from respondents provided
types of information and project knowledge available and stored in wikis:
static information
links to processes
LL
valuable links
technical information
space for collaboration and knowledge exchange.
Consequently wiki entries should be categorised by the level of control and
maintenance required:
require ownership to maintain and quality control
require moderate ownership control and maintenance
free entries.
According to respondents wikis must have an owner — a person responsible for
updating and maintaining some of the entries, especially those related to static info
and LL. The other entries associated with collaboration and sharing of tacit
knowledge should be maintained by employees, encouraged to use wikis by their
leaders and an open OC. A comprehensive, intelligible and user-friendly tool
supported by leadership engagement, a collaborative culture and ownership will
ensure an effective and vibrant tool for I-PKS. Figure 7.1 provides some suggestions
on how to ensure wikis are an updated and dynamic collaborative tool for I-PKS.
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
200
Despite PMs‘ lack of time to maintain wikis and update LL databases, there does
exist the PMO, which can provide a great advantage for PMs in managing project
knowledge and facilitating access to all kinds of knowledge. Two PMO roles,
administrative and knowledge intensive, can help to facilitate KS by providing
expertise and organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation,
and explicit KS by ensuring transparent project management processes and by
managing repositories for LL including collaborative tools.
Figure 7-1: Suggestions how to ensure updated and dynamic collaborative tool for I-PKS
Updated and Dynamic WIKI
User friendly (for example have search capability with indexing for more intuitive way of finding knowledge)
Intelligible
Comprehensive (have end to end processes)
DESIGN
REQUIRE OWNERSHIP TO MAINTAIN AND QUALITY
CONTROL
REQUIRE MODERATE OWNERSHIP, CONTROL
AND MAINTENANCE FREE ENTRIES
Explicit knowledge Tacit and explicit
knowledge Tacit knowledge
Static info
Links to processes
LL
Valuable links
Technical info
Space for collaboration and knowledge exchange
CONTENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ENTRIES
Active support and engagement to use wiki
Once you show them how to do things and they find it at least remotely useful then they‘re more than happy enough to go along with it (D3).
LEADERSHIP ENGAGEMENT
Cultural norms and practices supporting the use of wiki
Whilst the wiki is probably the way to do things and I don‟t think in itself it‟s the solution, it can‟t be seen purely as being a magic bullet. It comes down to actually having the organisational culture…. Because without creating that appropriate culture and encouraging that culture, it‟s just spending lots of money on a technical project which then nobody uses (G4)
ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE
A person responsible for updating and maintaining entries.
Someone‟s got to drive it! You‟re still going to need people to maintain it, that‟s my main bug-bear. You‟ve got to have, it‟s the maintenance to put data in there because as soon as it comes bad, people don‟t trust it and they don‟t go back to there as a rule. (A2)
OWNERSHIP
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
202
7.5. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ORGANISATIONAL
CULTURE, TRUST AND MECHANISMS
The analysis of culture and trust across all four cases provided evidence, formalised
as Proposition 6, that the perception towards trusting behaviours and value of trust
as facilitator of KS were influenced by the culture. For example at Beta, benevolence
and integrity trusts were perceived low priority because the OC was based on control
and measures, and knowledge was normally hard coded, therefore there was no risk
associated with KS. This is consistent with the observation made by Hosmer (1995)
and Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner (1998) who concluded that the use of
these mechanisms (control and measures) minimises the need to trust employees to
act in organisationally desirable ways. This is because trust involves the assumption
of risk, a probability of loss, thus the use of monitoring and control mechanisms
reduce the risk and the need to trust. On the other hand at Gamma, where the culture
was focused on open communication and shortcomings were seen as opportunities
rather than failures, benevolence trust was simply assumed in the organisation, thus
not perceived as important for KS. The cross-case examination of data concluded
that an OC that fosters a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, and
facilitates a collaborative environment in which people are encouraged to share
knowledge is more likely to improve trusting relationships. Accordingly, this
research extends the theoretical proposition of Whitener et al. (1998) by providing
empirical evidence that OC is likely to affect trusting behaviours and the perception
towards trust as a facilitator of KS. Moreover, this research also extends the study
conducted by Issa and Haddad (2008) who found that the ‗proper organisational
culture‘ is significantly related to mutual trust between employees, but considered
interrelations between OC, trust and knowledge sharing only to a limited extent, and
did not focus on cultural nor trust dimensions.
Moreover, analysis of cases Beta, Gamma and Delta showed that culture appears to
also affect the use of KSM. Chapter 6, Section 6.6, showed that at Beta, the culture is
evidence-based relying on explicit sources for knowledge, whereas Gamma and MIN
Delta who display characteristics of a Clan type culture promoting informality and
collaboration, rely primarily on colleagues. This is consistent with other research (De
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
203
Long & Fahey, 2000) which argues that some firms rely heavily on formal meetings,
while others promote frequent, unplanned and unstructured interactions among
employees. Depending on the culture, these formal and informal interactions are
valued differently, which results in different patterns of KS.
Combining these two findings together, it can be observed that different culture types
appear to affect the utility of different mechanisms to share knowledge, and as a
result influence trusting behaviours. Accordingly, cross-case analysis formally
proposed that: an OC that facilitates the characteristics of a Clan type culture is more
likely to result in people valuing organic sources of knowledge, therefore enabling
trust as a key facilitating driver. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven and
based on control, efficiency and measures (characteristics of Hierarchy and Market
types) are more likely to value non-organic sources of knowledge and therefore
display a tendency to develop trust primarily in the ability of these sources
(Propositions 7a and 7b).
7.6. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRATED
RESEARCH FINDINGS
This thesis has examined the way that OC, trust, and mechanisms influence I-PKS
behaviours. Existing research implies that effective I-PKS is a part of successful
Walker, et al., 2004). This research demonstrates that I-PKS is a complex matter,
influenced by a range of factors, which some are interrelated.
The following points, outlined in Table 7.1 present practical implications of this
research, which are set for PBOs to bring the awareness of I-PKS patterns and to
ensure more effective knowledge sharing between projects. These implications —
Emphasise on need for awareness and evaluation of dominant OC type as
determinant of different I-PKS patterns
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
204
Provide insight into the active role of leadership in fostering KS (1) between
PMs from Hierarchy and Market type cultures, and (2) between
geographically dispersed PMs
Give managers guidelines on how to build trust to improve I-PKS behaviours
Offer directions on how to ensure more frequent face-to-face interactions and
greater useability of LL documents for more effective I-PKS
Outline a list of responsibilities held by PMO personnel to facilitate I-PKS.
Table 7-1: Research findings and implications for practice
RESEARCH FINDINGS PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Based on the findings from this research, different cultural values may lead to different I-PKS patterns.
It is recommended for a PBO to be aware of, and evaluate its dominant culture characteristics. This will uncover knowledge sharing patterns specific for a given culture type.
Application of Cameron and Quinn (2005) Competing Value Framework may be useful in determining the dominant culture.
This research suggests that PMs from cultures focused on evidence, control, measurement and result orientation (displaying values of Hierarchy and Market type) appear to heavily value non-organic mechanisms to share knowledge, and rely primarily on explicit rather than tacit knowledge, thus do not utilise their knowledge capabilities to its fullest extent.
It is recommended that leadership in Hierarchy and Market driven cultures should be supportive and participative.
Support from leaders can endorse feelings of belongingness, enhance the collaborative climate and help PMs recognise they are not competing amongst themselves, but are part of a team who, by sharing knowledge, will build its knowledge capabilities and gain a competitive position in the market.
This research observed that different knowledge sharing patterns will occur between co-located versus dispersed PMs, who are more likely to display evidence of cultural differences, which may lead to limited KS behaviours.
It is recommended that active leadership engagement could potentially improve KS between dispersed PMs by encouraging the use of collaborative tools for KS and ensuring transparency of project management norms and practices.
This research suggests that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability trust and knowledge sharing. This finding shows tremendous value of integrity trust during I-PKS behaviours, and implies that organisations should consider investing in trust building endeavours to improve their knowledge sharing outcomes.
In order to enhance conditions for trust building, managers may consider to:
review organisational norms and practices that encourage or discourage the high frequency of interaction and collaboration
support and recognise KS initiatives
endorse and maintain a friendly and non-competitive atmosphere at work
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
205
create an atmosphere for learning not blaming
To enhance ability trust managers may consider to:
Ensure the visibility of other people‘s skills and competencies; this will bring the awareness of ‗who knows what‘
Ensure confidence in the measures evaluating people skills and expertise
This research confirmed that PMs are verbally inclined and people-oriented. They primarily value face-to-face interactions over e-mails or technology based tools, when sharing knowledge between projects.
Where possible, it may be useful to facilitate face-to-face interactions by designing open plan offices or creating designated areas where PMs can meet and exchange valuable tips and experience.
Based on the findings from this research documented lessons learned are not utilised to their fullest extent. This is due to the problems related to poor quality, visibility, and lack of comprehensive processes to capture, store, and reuse this documented knowledge.
To ensure greater useability of past projects lesson, it is recommended to:
Introduce an easily accessible, intelligible and user-friendly LL database in a form of a collaborative tool such as wiki (discussed in detailed in Section 7.4.1 and outlined in Figure 7.1)
Introduce LL ownership — a person or an entity accountable for LL implementation and maintenance
Catalogue LL according to themes
Keep LL in one place
Develop a clear action plan for capturing, documenting and reusing LL throughout the project
Findings from this research suggest that a well implemented PMO is likely to provide a significant advantage for PMs in managing project knowledge and facilitating access to not only explicit, but also a tacit knowledge
If possible, PBO may consider to assign PMO personnel with responsibilities that will ensure more effective I-PKS, they include:
- providing expertise, mentoring and advice for projects
- organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation
- having an ownership and maintaining knowledge input LL and collaborative mechanisms
7.7. SUMMARY
The aim of this research was to examine the role of OC, trust and KSM in I-PKS by
investigating behaviours related to KS from a PM perspective. This chapter
discussed findings from the analysis related to these factors and outlined some
Chapter 7 | Discussion and Implications
206
practical implications. The next chapter concludes the research by providing a
summary of overall findings, research contributions, limitations and directions for
future studies.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
207
8. Conclusions
8.1. INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1 recognised the need to investigate KS behaviours in an inter-project
context and highlighted the limited research in this area, which has focused primarily
on a range of mechanisms to share knowledge including transfer of LL and post
project reviews. Accordingly, Chapter 3 (I-PKS Framework) detailed the literature
review conducted outside the project management field, in order to identify factors
that can potentially influence inter-project knowledge sharing (I-PKS). This critique
resulted in the I-PKS Framework which comprises three main factors: organisational
culture (OC), trust and knowledge sharing mechanisms (KSM), all of which defined
the scope of this research. This research then examined how OC, trust and KSM
influence I-PKS from the PMs‘ perspective and so an inductive theory building
approach was conducted. This methodology is presented in Chapter 4, where four
research questions informed by the I-PKS Framework were posed. These questions
guided the empirical investigation and analysis presented in Chapter 5 (Within-case
Analysis) and Chapter 6 (Cross-Case Analysis), and based on this analysis, seven
propositions were formalised. These propositions captured the role of OC, trust and
KSM in I-PKS and were discussed in Chapter 7, which also proposed practical
applications to improve I-PKS.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
208
The overall findings from this thesis, as discussed in Chapter 7, demonstrate that I-
PKS depends on multiple factors, some of which are interrelated. The sharing of
knowledge requires both environment (trusting relationships and a culture that
promotes teamwork and a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work), as well as
mechanisms that facilitate KS to occur. Accordingly, this research offers a number of
contributions to the body of knowledge and the practice of KS.
This concluding chapter summarises the study findings, providing answers to the
research questions, acknowledging the study contributions and limitations, and
providing directions for future research.
8.2. THE ROLE OF ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE,
TRUST AND MECHANISMS IN INTER-PROJECT
KNOWLEDGE SHARING
To fulfil the research aim, that was to investigate how OC, trust and KSM influence
I-PKS behaviours, this section reports on overall findings from the thesis, illustrated
in Figure 8.1, which are related to the factors from the I-PKS Framework and
captured in the research questions.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
209
Figure 8-1: Integrated research findings
8.2.1. Cultural Influences on Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing
Results from this research showed that OC affects I-PKS in at least two ways.
Firstly, cultures which display Market type values, such as competitiveness and
achievement, and which focus on performance measures are likely to show evidence
of hesitancy to share knowledge. On the other hand, cultures with Clan type
characteristics, having a collaborative environment in which people are encouraged
to communicate, and which create a friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work,
are likely to openly share knowledge even related to project shortcomings. Secondly,
geographically dispersed PMs are more likely to display evidence of cultural
differences. These cultural differences, manifested by the presence of silos, a
distinction between ‗us versus them‘, a lack of common norms and approaches in
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
210
managing projects, and poor collaboration were observed to result in limited KS
between dispersed PMs.
8.2.2. Influence of Ability, Integrity and
Benevolence Trusts on Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing
This thesis showed that ability and integrity trust, and in a more limited fashion
benevolence trust, increase the likelihood of I-PKS. This means that trust amongst
work peers has a strong impact on KS in the inter-project context, and when trust
exists, PMs are more willing to seek and confidently apply knowledge received from
others to their project. Furthermore, this research revealed that ability and integrity
trusts are related, indicating that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between
ability trust and KS. In other words, PMs will seek knowledge from a person whose
skills and expertise they believe in, but it would be the presence of integrity trust that
reinforces KS to occur. In contrast, the lack of integrity trust is likely to result in
limited KS behaviours, even if ability trust exists. That is to say, even if a person has
a wealth of expertise, others would be reluctant to seek knowledge from him/her if
they do not believe in this person‘s credibility.
8.2.3. Utilisation of Knowledge Sharing
Mechanisms to Improve Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing Behaviours
Four main mechanisms have been identified as the preferred ways to improve I-PKS:
face-to-face, LL, collaborative tools and project management offices (PMOs). PMs
prefer talking to each other instead of searching through databases, and several
reasons were found to support this claim. Nevertheless, face-to-face interaction is not
always possible (due to the geographical dispersion of PMs) or recommended (some
knowledge requires evidence better stored in a documented form). Staff changes and
the finite character of projects often make it hard to identify the person who worked
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
211
on the task of interest. Therefore, it is useful to document knowledge for future
projects. This is often achieved by capturing and storing experiences in the form of a
LL databases.
LL databases, however, are often underutilised. PMs do not see their value,
producing them only as a formality — just ―to tick the box‖. A number of problems
associated with the poor capture and use of LL were categorised into problems with
quality, visibility and processes. They include a lack of consistency and clear
uniform guidelines on how LL should be produced, the lack of a concise location
where LL are stored, or LL and LL spreadsheets being too long which makes it
difficult to find relevant information. Also, the lack of feedback on how LL are
progressing was another reason PMs did not see much value in producing LL and did
so only to meet formal requirements.
Based on practices used by participating organisations, practical applications to
improve LL quality, visibility and processes have been proposed. The use of
collaborative tools such as wiki can potentially replace the static LL databases. Busy
and time-oriented PMs are not interested in searching for information in a pile of
irrelevant documents, which is tiresome and time consuming. Easily accessible,
intelligible, and user friendly collaborative tools can ensure easy access to project
knowledge, and are likely to improve KS between geographical locations.
A well implemented PMO is likely to provide a significant advantage for PMs in
managing project knowledge and facilitating access to not only explicit, but also a
tacit knowledge. A PMO could facilitate tacit KS by:
providing expertise, mentoring and advice for projects
organising workshops and training sessions across the organisation
having an owner and being a central repository for LL.
Overall, this research showed that, despite the importance of face-to-face
mechanisms, well implemented collaborative mechanisms and knowledge-based
PMOs have the capability to share both tacit and explicit knowledge and can improve
I-PKS, especially between geographically dispersed PMs.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
212
8.2.4. The Relationships Between
Organisational Culture, Trust and Knowledge
Sharing Mechanisms in Improving Inter-Project
Knowledge Sharing
Findings from this thesis showed that the perception towards the value of trust as a
key facilitating factor of KS behaviours is likely to be determined by organisational
culture. Results, outlined in Chapter 6 Section 6.4.2, showed that cultures which
display Clan type values are more likely to foster trusting relationships between
peers. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven and based on control,
efficiency and measures (cultures that facilitate Hierarchy and Market type
characteristics) are less likely to value trusting relationships with their peers, and
appear to display trust mainly in mechanisms.
Furthermore, the results presented in Chapter 6 Section 6.6 also showed that cultures
that facilitate Clan type characteristics are more likely to result in people valuing
organic/collaborative sources of knowledge and therefore enable trust as a key
facilitating driver. In contrast, cultures that are empirically driven, based on control,
efficiency and measures are more likely to value non-organic/static sources of
knowledge, which input is controlled and verified, and therefore display a tendency
to develop trust primarily in the ability of these sources.
This means that evidence-based cultures, which focus on measures and store
knowledge in documents for proof and verification, rely mostly on explicit
knowledge. However, it is the tacit knowledge that has a substantial value for
organisations and constitutes a critical component for successful project management
efforts. Therefore, cultures that primarily rely on static or unambiguous information
do not utilise their knowledge capacities to their full extent. On the other hand,
cultures based on trust, collaboration and non-blaming often share their knowledge
informally, relying on both explicit knowledge stored in documents, as well as
knowledge acquired informally from their colleagues, as a result these cultures better
utilise their knowledge potential.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
213
8.3. CONTRIBUTIONS
The findings drawn from this research provide a number of contributions to the body
of knowledge and practice. This section reports on each of the contributions and how
they refer to the findings of existing theories and research.
8.3.1. Contributions to Theory and Methods
Organisational culture influences the willingness to share knowledge between
projects
The current literature established that OC influences KM efforts (Alavi, et al., 2006;
De Long & Fahey, 2000; Gray & Densten, 2005; Issa & Haddad, 2008; Sveiby &
Simons, 2002). However, only recently has research on project management focused
its interest on OC in the context of KS, and some preliminary theoretical (Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008) and empirical (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007) studies have been
conducted. Furthermore, the complexity and context dependency of these two
concepts, OC and KS, mean that there is still limited empirical evidence stating the
relationships between them. In response, this research makes a significant
contribution by providing rich empirical evidence of the relationships between OC
and the willingness to share knowledge, demonstrating which cultural values are
more and which are less likely to improve I-PKS behaviours. The use of interviews
and the Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) in the cross
examination of OC resulted in rich empirical contributions. Furthermore, this thesis
contributes to the project management literature by introducing Cameron and Quinn
(2005) CVF to evaluate knolwedge sharing in the inter-project context.
2008; Turner, et al., 2000) and only to some extent to the role of OC (Ajmal &
Koskinen, 2008; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007). This research conducted an extensive
literature search and identified factors that could potentially influence I-PKS. These
factors were then captured in the I-PKS Framework. Moreover, this research
examined the application of these factors in the inter-project context. As such this
research contributes to the project management literature by providing a more
comprehensive and holistic view of I-PKS from the perspective of PMs, bringing the
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
215
concepts of OC, the three forms of trust, and a range of KSM into the picture.
Furthermore, by suggesting the existence of relationships between these factors, this
research highlights the role of Clan type cultures, which promote social interaction
and the organic mechanisms to share knowledge, which in turn facilitate the
development of trusting relationships, hence create opportunities for sharing both
tacit and explicit knowledge.
Relationship between OC, trust, and KSM
There is a body of knowledge stating that organisational culture influences trust (Issa
& Haddad, 2008; Whitener, et al., 1998), and there is a research done implying that
organisational culture influences the use of knowledge sharing mechanisms (Alavi, et
al., 2006). Issa and Haddad (2008) found that ‗proper organisational culture‘, mutual
trust between employees and the use of collaborative tools will improve knowledge
sharing, but these authors considered interrelations between these factors only to a
limited extend, stating that organisational culture is significantly related to mutual
trust between employees. This thesis contributes to current research by making an
attempt to investigate how the three factors of OC, trust, and KSM interrelate.
Relationship between ability and integrity
A significant contribution to the theory is the finding on relationships between
integrity and ability trust. According to the literature reviewed in Chapter 3, there is
limited research investigating the relationships between trust dimensions. Results
from this study suggest that integrity trust reinforces the relationship between ability
trust and KS. Cross-case analysis revealed that PMs will be reluctant to seek
knowledge from a person whom they perceive has not been honest with them in the
past, even though it is believed this person is knowledgeable and possesses
information they seek. This finding draws attention to the value of integrity trust in I-
PKS endeavours.
Multi-method approach in examining organisational culture
Authors advocate that examining culture in its organisational context using
qualitative data provides more valuable insights into the nature of this complex
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
216
phenomenon (e.g. Bellot, 2011; Sackmann, 1991). This research demonstrated that a
qualitative investigation of OC yields a more insightful understanding of corporate
values and shared beliefs. The Gamma case showed discrepancies between the
results obtained from interviews and the questionnaire. Interview findings suggested
that Gamma displays principles of a Clan culture; however, findings from the OCAI
showed that the dominant culture was that of a Hierarchy type. Coffey (2010, pp.
190, 198) has also encountered similar difficulties where two of his mini-case studies
demonstrated conflicting responses with the priory conducted survey. Conducting
four mini cases helped to further explain the results obtained from the survey, and
provided the complete picture of OC in participating companies. Similarly in this
research, two follow-up interviews conducted with a PM and a from a PMO
representative helped to identify reasons for the discrepancies between results
obtained from OCAI and the interviews. Consequently, this research demonstrates
that using a mixed method approach in investigating culture provides accurate and
insightful findings.
Strategy to examine trust
In exploring trust, most research uses questionnaires (Becerra & Gupta, 2003; Holste
& Fields, 2010; Levin & Cross, 2004; Maurer, 2010; Pinto, et al., 2009; Ridings, et
al., 2002), despite the fact that previous studies conducted by Borgatti and Cross
(2003) showed survey respondents were uncomfortable to answer questions related
to trust. Therefore this research, along with the questionnaire, conducted face-to-face
interviews to obtain more insightful responses. To allow the respondent to feel more
comfortable in answering questions related to trust, this research firstly asked
questions related to other factors investigated in this study, such as OC and KSM,
leaving questions related to trust to the end. At the end of the interview, when a
closer rapport between the interviewer and respondent had been established, the
investigator asked the respondent to indicate how important ability, benevolence and
integrity trust were for I-PKS and then asked to further elaborate on their choice,
explaining their responses. This approach obtained valuable comments and insight
related to trust, which would not have been possible if only the questionnaire had
been applied.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
217
8.3.2. Practical Contributions
Finally, this thesis offers a range of practical contributions, as detailed in Chapter 7
(Discussion and Practical Implications) Sections 7.2.3.1, 7.3.1, 7.4.1, and Section
7.6. This research (1) emphasises on need for awareness and evaluation of dominant
OC type as determinant of different I-PKS patterns, (2) provides insight into the
active role of leadership in fostering KS, (3) gives managers guidelines on how to
build trust to improve I-PKS behaviours, (4) offers directions on how to ensure more
effective face-to-face interactions and greater useability of LL documents for
positive I-PKS outcomes, (5) outlines a list of responsibilities held by PMO
personnel to facilitate I-PKS, (6) proposes how to ensure the development of an
updated and dynamic collaborative tool such as a wiki, as a substitute for static LL
documents, for both tacit and explicit KS, and KS between geographical locations.
In the short term it is suggested that managers evaluate the dominant characteristics
of organisational culture. This will help to uncover knowledge sharing patterns
specific for a given culture type. In addition, managers should also create
environment for face-to-face interactions, improve useability of lessons learned by
following steps provided in Section 7.6, and assign responsibilities to PMO
personnel, listed in Section 7.6 that will ensure more effective I-PKS. This should
provide some quick solutions to improve I-PKS behaviours.
In the long term it is recommended to promote supportive and participative
leadership style, which could potentially enhance collaborative climate, endorse
feelings of belongingness, ensure transparency of project management norms and
practices, and encourage the use of collaborative tools for KS. It is also
recommended to enhance conditions for trust building. This process, although
lengthy/time-consuming could potentially bring tremendous value for organisation
ensuing positive I-PKS outcomes.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
218
8.4. LIMITATIONS
While the contributions of this study are considerable, there are also a number of
limitations.
Limitations related to the research scope
Although this research claims to provide a more holistic view of I-PKS, it is
acknowledged that there could potentially be other factors that contribute to I-PKS
which are not covered in this study. According to the literature reviewed in Chapter
3, OC, trust and KSM appeared to contribute the most to I-PKS. Limiting the
research scope to these factors allowed the researcher to maintain a realistic, feasible
and manageable focus.
This study was limited to the PMs‘ perspective due to their key role in knowledge
flow. Including other project members, who normally come from different
backgrounds and professions, could potentially introduce unwanted complexity.
Although this study argues that a PM is at the centre of a project network, possessing
a broad knowledge about project issues (Blackburn, 2002; Eskerod & Skriver, 2007;
Loo, 2002), it does acknowledge that other project members play an important role in
I-PKS. Future studies could consider investigating the role of other project members
in I-PKS, taking into account project complexity and the backgrounds of these
individuals.
Finally, by examining KSM, this research focused only on those reported by
respondents, and utilised by participating cases. There are a range of other KSM not
covered in this research which could potentially improve I-PKS.
Limitations related to the research design and conduct
There were a number of limitations related to the case study design and how it was
conducted. This research claims that the choice of cases followed purposeful logic,
this was indeed done, but to an extent. The identification of cases was also based on
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
219
availability and local proximity. As a result, all the case studies conducted were
Australian and came from a range of sectors.
The data was collected and analysed by a single researcher which could have
introduced researcher bias. Nevertheless, (1) the application of NVivo software for
data management, (2) draft report reviewed by participating organisations, and (3)
two rounds of analysis, recommended by Sackmann (1991) and Eisenhardt &
Bourgeois (1988), conducted in a span of few months minimised the potential bias.
8.5. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Although this research offered many interesting insights into the problem of I-PKS,
further investigations are required to fully understand the complexity of the problem.
Given the inductive research approach, the finding from this thesis opened new paths
of inquiry related to I-PKS. Therefore, as advised by Eisenhardt and Graebner
(2007), it is suggested that the specific findings may serve as hypotheses for studies
of I-PKS using deductive research methodologies.
According to the analysis conducted in this study, not each form of trust appeared to
be equally contributing to I-PKS. The most contributing were ability and integrity,
whereas benevolence appeared to contribute only to some extent. Levin and Cross
(2004) found that benevolence trust improves the usefulness of both tacit and explicit
knowledge exchange. Analysis of Delta case showed that benevolence was primarily
valued when knowledge that was shared related to sensitive, people-related issues or
contextual knowledge, but when sharing technical or explicit knowledge,
benevolence trust appeared less important because there was a low emotional impact
involved in the transfer of this more tangible knowledge. Accordingly, evidence from
Delta provided some limited support that the value of benevolence trust is contextual,
and depends on the type of knowledge one seeks from other projects. Future research
may consider further investigating circumstances in which benevolence trust in a KS
context matters the most.
Chapter 8 | Conclusions
220
The role of active leadership engagement was not included in the I-PKS Framework,
but was shown to play a part in I-PKS. Further research could consider a
comprehensive investigation of the role of active leadership engagement in fostering
KS in a project environment.
Finally, this study was focused on a dyadic and organisational level of analysis, not
on the individual level, which includes a person‘s absorptive capacity or status (Shu,
et al., 2009; Szulanski, 1996). Status could potentially contribute to I-PKS
behaviours. For example, a PM who has been in a position for a long time and has a
wealth of experience, and a high status in the organisation will be more likely to be
approached for knowledge than someone who has not yet established such a position
of importance. Absorptive capacity appears more relevant to the knowledge
acquisition process than to KS. Nevertheless, further studies may consider
investigating I-PKS at the individual level.
References
221
REFERENCES
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-sharing networks. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 64-77.
Aita, V., & Mcllvain, H. (1999). An Armchair Adventure in Case Study Research. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 253-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008). Knowledge Transfer in Project-Based Organizations: An Organizational Culture Perspective. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 7-15.
Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105-1120.
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: a transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105-1120.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., & Leidner, D. (2006). An empirical examination of the influence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 191-224.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the AIS, 1(Article 7), 1-37.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
Amaratunga, D., & Baldry, D. (2001). Case study methodology as a means of theory building: performance measurement in facilities management organisations. Work Study, 50(2/3), 95-104.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Impact of cultural differences on knowledge management in global projects. The journal of information and knowledge management systems, 40(3/4), 239-253.
Antoni, M., Nilsson-Witell, L., & Dahlgaard, J. J. (2005). Inter-project improvement in product development. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 22(9), 876-893.
Arenius, M., Artto, K., Lahti, M., & Meklin, J. (2003). Project Companies and the Multi-Project Paradigm—A New Management Approach. In J. Pinto, D. Cleland & D. Slevin (Eds.), The Frontiers of Project Management Research: Project Management Institute.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169.
Argote, L., Ingram, P., Levine, J., & Moreland, R. (2000). Knowledge Transfer in Organizations: Learning from the Experience of Others. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 1-8.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003a). Introduction to the special issue on managing knowledge in organizations: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Management Science, 49(4), V-VIII.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. (2003b). Managing knowledge in organizations: An integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Science, 49(4), 571-582.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2 ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
References
222
Becerra, M., & Gupta, A. K. (2003). Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science, 14(1), 32-44.
Bellot, J. (2011). Defining and Assessing Organizational Culture. Nursing Forum, 46(1), 29-37.
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. The Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221.
Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 5(1), 68-75.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2002). Individual trust in online firms: Scale development and initial test. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(1), 211-241.
Billows, R. (2006). The Project-based organisation. from http://www.4pm.com/ Blackburn, S. (2002). The project manager and the project-network. International Journal of
Project Management, 20(3), 199-204. Blomqvist, K. (1997). The many faces of trust. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(3),
271-286. Blomqvist, K. (2009). Trust In Organizational Knowledge Processes. Paper presented at the
10th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Università Degli Studi Di Padova, Vicenza, Italy.
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A Relational View of Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
Bower, D., & Walker, D. (2007). Planning Knowledge for Phased Rollout Projects. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 45-61.
Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2004). Building Project Capabilities: From Exploratory to Exploitative Learning. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1601 - 1621.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157-166.
Brown, J., & Gray, E. (1995). The people are the company. from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/01/people.html
Burgess, D. (2005). What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit? Journal of Business Communication, 42(4), 324-348.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition: Harvard University Press.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework (Revised ed.). San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568.
Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 87-98.
Carrillo, P. (2005). Lessons learned practices in the engineering, procurement and construction sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 12(3), 236-250.
Carrillo, P., Robinson, H. S., Anumba, C. J., & Bouchlaghem, N. M. (2006). A knowledge transfer framework: the PFI context. Construction Management & Economics, 24(10), 1045-1056.
Cavana, R., Delahaye, B., & Sekeran, U. (2001). Applied Business research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. QLD, Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Dear [Name of the potential interviewee], This is Anna Wiewiora from QUT Faculty of Engineering. (Key contact person] gave me your e-mail and informed that you have agreed to participate in data collection for the research on inter-project knowledge sharing in project-based organisations. [Key contact person] advised me to contact you directly and schedule an interview. The
interview would last approximately 45 minutes, and will focus on your experience in
seeking and sharing knowledge, best practices and lessons learned between projects.
If possible can we please arrange the interview by the end of this week? Please let me know of your availability and suggest a suitable time for you to meet up. Thank you very much for your support and the opportunity to share your experience. Hope to hear from you soon. Kind Regards,
Anna Wiewiora
PhD Candidate | School of Urban Development | Faculty of Built Environment
and Engineering | Queensland University of Technology
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
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
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
RESEARCH AIM ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
RESEARCH APPROACH ........................................................................................................................................................... 3
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BETA ............................................................................................................................ 7
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR BETA .......................................................................................................................... 10
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
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
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.
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.
Mostly open and willing to share knowledge These reluctant to share are where in the role for a long time, or those focussed on career progressing
Presence of silos No silos have been identified
Employees Involvement Teaching and sharing
Organisation encourages, but does not actively contribute in facilitating inter-project knowledge share
Office Landscape Architecture
Open plan office architecture encourages frequent knowledge share Knowledge share between different geographical locations is minimal
Interviewees reported that their colleagues are mostly open and willing to share knowledge.
Three respondents agreed that those reluctant to share are those who were in a role for a long time, “when they have been in a role for so long, and they have lot of IP, and are not necessarily willing to share that with
younger people”, or are focussed on their career and perceive knowledge as a power and a way to promotion.
Those employees who are co-located share knowledge frequently. Open plan office architecture and specially designed “cages” allow for business related informal chats. However, it has been stated that knowledge sharing between different geographical locations is minimal. For example, it was reported that it’s very difficult to do a knowledge transfer in between Sydney and Brisbane. “So even though you can do email, phone calls, sometimes you can lose things in that communication and it’s really hard to transfer knowledge [that way]”.
S U M M A R Y A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R B E T A
Overall the analysis showed that Beta has well defined processes, rigour and discipline. It was reported, “when it cannot be measured it is not worth doing it”, and that information is really valuable when hard coded and documented. “When we later discuss things with [the] director, there is a need for data, for supporting evidence.” Culture in Beta is based on stability and control where employees are more likely to seek codified, explicit knowledge. There was only minor evidence on tacit knowledge sharing activities. Beta need to encourage informal interactions, and invest in development of trust to facilitate transfer of tacit knowledge.
There is a range of knowledge sharing mechanisms available for Beta employees including face-to-face formal and informal meetings, wikis, lessons learned repositories, Project Management Office, and other tools (such as e-mails and intranet). There are three types of knowledge sharing mechanisms: relational, technology, and project management procedures. Relational mechanisms promote mostly face-to-face communication; while technology based mechanisms include electronic or document knowledge exchange. Document exchange is a highly effective and efficient mechanism for sharing codified knowledge. It is often ineffective for transmitting complex and hardly codified tacit knowledge. In contrast, conversations and the transfer of people are relatively inefficient mechanisms for sharing codified knowledge, but for transferring tacit knowledge, they may be the only effective mechanisms [2].
IN BETA FORMAL MEETINGS ARE VALUED HIGHER THAN INFORMAL
INTERACTION. PEOPLE ARE HAPPY TO TALK, BUT INFORMATION IS ESPECIALLY
VALUED WHEN IS HARD CODED. Table 3 summarises findings on use of knowledge sharing mechanisms among Beta employees. Respondents commented on which means they perceived as important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.
Table 3: Use of knowledge sharing mechanisms at Beta
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms
Beta (6) Number of
respondents/percentage
Important and /or primarily used
Face-to-face Formal 5
83.33%
Other Tools (i.e. e-mail, intranet)
3 50.00%
Face-to-face Informal 2
33.33%
Project Management Office 2
33.33%
Wikis 1
16.67%
Lessons Learned Database 0
0.00%
5 people reported formal meetings are important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.
Respondents reported that Beta wikis are too formalised and controlled. For most people in Beta wikis is used as a database to capture static info, not as an interactive tool to exchange knowledge.
However, no Beta respondents stated lessons learned repositories were
important and/or primarily used for inter-project knowledge sharing.
Further data analysis revealed the reasons why lessons learned were unpopular among employees in Beta. Lessons learned issues identified during the interviews are presented in Table 4. Issues with lessons learned quality, visibility, and processes have been identified.
Lessons learned quality represents clarity of lessons learned content and scope.
Visibility corresponds to the degree lessons learned can be accessed in the organisation.
Processes refer to lessons learned development and implementation.
Table 4: Lessons learned issues
LESSONS LEARNED ISSUES
QUALITY Lack of consistency in a way how lessons learned are produced and stored
VISIBILITY
Lessons learned are captured and stored in way that is conductive to sharing
It is hard to find relevant information
Lessons learned are not stored in a concise location
PROCESSES
Lack of lessons learned ownership - someone responsible for implementing changes, and following up
Lack of clear avenue for the projects to share LL. “We have document management system, wikis, blogs, but that‟s about the individual‟s initiative to utilise those tools”
Lessons learned are not captured throughout the project, especially the long duration projects as a result lessons learned are forgotten
S U M M A R Y A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S F O R B E T A
Data from interviews demonstrated that knowledge was primarily shared during formal meetings. Furthermore, employees exchanged knowledge during informal interactions. Beta create opportunities for informal interactions for example providing specially designed ‘cages’. However, it was also found that information is more valued when is hard coded and formalised. Even wiki was used as a database to capture static info, not as a space for informal collaboration. Nevertheless, the use of lessons learned repositories was unpopular among Beta employees. The main concern with lessons learned, according to respondents, was a lack of consistency and clear uniform guidelines through the lessons learned process. One way to improve better capture and transfer of lessons learned is to extend the use of Wiki and create a space for collaboration and tacit knowledge exchange. The section “Recommendations” provides some directions for Beta on how to improve lessons learned quality, visibility, and processes. Recommendations come from cross case analysis and best practices used by participating organisations.
S u m m a r y o f F i n d i n g s Beta employees heavily rely on explicit rather than tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge provides rich context and is hard to articulate with formal language because it is not easily visible and expressible; it refers to personal ideas, experiences, and values. It is highly personal and hard to formalise, but it has a great value for the organisation. The sharing of tacit knowledge is a critical component of successful knowledge management efforts. Beta could benefit from better share of tacit knowledge. Beta create opportunities for interactions between co-located employees. Indeed, frequent and close interactions allow building a common understanding, increase the availability of people, and create knowledge sharing opportunities. In contrary poor relationships can result in hoarding knowledge sharing activities. However, strong ties themselves are not enough for effective sharing of knowledge. Ties between individuals must possess high level of trust for effective knowledge sharing to occur. Trust creates a climate in which people feel more comfortable and secure in sharing ideas as well as searching for information. Furthermore, cross-case analysis of participating in the study organisations revealed that ability, benevolence, and integrity facilitate and improve working relationships between members from different projects, which in turn has a positive effect on project outcomes. Greater level of trust in Beta could improve the sharing of highly complex and hardly codified tacit knowledge.
BETA NEED TO INVEST IN BUILDING TRUST ESPECIALLY TO ENCOURAGE SHARING OF EMBODIED AND
RICH TACIT KNOWLEDGE THAT IS OFTEN MORE VALUABLE THEN SCHEMATIC AND EASILY CODIFIED
EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE.
It has been found that Beta culture is characterised by measurement, process control, and use of quality tools. To acquire knowledge employees rely primarily on codified sources thus knowledge comes mainly from databases where “everything is black and white”. This explains for example why formal meetings are valued higher than informal interaction. People are happy to talk, but information is really valued when is documented “because when we later discuss things with director, there is a need for data, for supporting evidence.” Culture in Beta is based on stability and control where employees are more likely to seek codified, explicit knowledge.
BETA NEED TO INVEST IN RELATIONAL MECHANISMS AND ENCOURAGE INFORMAL INTERACTIONS TO
FACILITATE TRANSFER OF TACIT KNOWLEDGE.
In Beta wiki was used as a database to capture static info, not as a space for informal collaboration. Wiki in fact is a successful emerging tool supporting collaboration and content management. Wiki provides capabilities for messaging (e.g., e-mail), calendaring, online chat, and discussion forums.
BETA COULD EXTEND THE USE OF WIKI AND CREATE A SPACE FOR COLLABORATION AND TACIT
KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE.
Next section provides practical recommendations for Beta employees on how to build trusting relationships that lead to greater knowledge exchange and how to improve transfer of lessons learned and fully utilised wiki capability to become an avenue for lessons learned and interactive knowledge share.
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
This section provides recommendations for Beta managers to ensure better
knowledge share between projects. The recommendations focus on:
1. building trust and maintaining trusting relationships 2. improving transfer of lessons learned
RREECCOOMMMMEENNDDAATTIIOONNSS OONN TTRRUUSSTT
Recommendations on trust have been drawn from the cross case analysis of participating organisations and an extensive literature review. To intentionally create trust or manage another party’s propensity to trust it is a difficult task. However, it is possible to enhance conditions for trust-building. Trust is context and person-specific; hence the appropriate means and methods for building trust should be considered carefully. Literature provides a range of practices to build trust for business environment that can be appropriate for inter-project context.
Positive attitude towards colleagues and own organisation, and support and advice in a workplace help build organisational trust.
Distributed teams with a high rate of communication and interaction develop trust faster than teams with a low rate.
Socialization, personal interaction, and blending cultures are the drivers
for trusting relationships. Sharing sensitive information increases trust.
These statements suggest that the social dialogue among members notably supports the development of trust. Therefore, to effectively develop and maintain trusting relationships in Beta it is recommended for higher level managers to**:
REVIEW ORGANISATIONAL NORMS AND PRACTICES THAT ENCOURAGE OR
DISCOURAGE THE HIGH FREQUENCY OF INTERACTION AND COLLABORATION.
SUPPORT AND RECOGNISE KNOWLEDGE SHARING INITIATIVES. - Keep publicising key values such as trust—highlighting both
rewarded good examples and punished violations—in multiple forums.
ENDORSE AND MAINTAIN FRIENDLY AND NON-COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE AT
WORK. - Don’t divulge personal information shared in confidence. - When appropriate, take risks in sharing your expertise with people.
Be willing to offer others your personal network of contacts when appropriate.
CREATE ATMOSPHERE FOR LEARNING NOT BLAMING.
We recommend to encourage managers and employees to - Make clear both what they do and don’t know. - Admit it when they don’t know something rather than posture to
avoid embarrassment. - Defer to people who know more than they do about a topic.
**Some of the recommendations are aligned with those proposed by Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin (2003) and listed in the section.
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.