Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Long Range Planning

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/lrp

Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based

Organizations
derlund
Soa Pemsel, Ralf Mller, Jonas So
Knowledge governance (KG) aims at strategically inuencing knowledge processes by implementing governance mechanisms. Little is
known about whether, how, or why such strategies differ among rms. We utilize a large-scale empirical study of 20 organizations to
develop a typology of KG strategies in project-based organizations; we then explore how these strategies emerge and affect organizational knowledge processes. Six strategies are identied: Protector, Deliverer, Polisher, Explorer, Supporter, and Analyzer. This paper posits
a multi-level categorization model to facilitate comparisons among KG strategies. We uncover three main drivers of organizations' chosen
knowledge governance strategiesdnamely, attitudes about humans, knowledge, and knowledge control.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
Knowledge has been identied as a primary driver of competitiveness during the past two decades. At the same time,
research has documented the crucialness, difculty, and nested processes of managing knowledge. Consultants and managers
have explored and developed a variety of measures to improve knowledge management, to understand the structure of
knowledge processes, and to identify preconditions for the integration of knowledge (Lampel et al., 2008; Berggren et al.,
2011; Zhang and Cheng, 2015). Indeed, knowledge management has been addressed in a number of studies and industry
reports. For instance, Hansen et al. (1999) offer a strong message based on their study of world-leading management consultancies. In the view of these authors, rms can rely on two primary strategies for managing knowledge: personalization
and codication (see also Prencipe and Tell, 2001). Yet this straightforward and convincing statement ignores some of the
problems associated with knowledge governance.
Foss et al. (2010, p. 456) argue that knowledge governance (KG) involves choosing organizational structures and
mechanisms that can inuence the process of using, sharing, integrating, and creating knowledge in preferred directions and
toward preferred levels; they conclude that most organizations must implement a variety of mechanisms to trigger and
shape knowledge processes in the desired ways. The KG literature takes a broad view of knowledge and knowledge processes
in organizational life (Grandori, 2001; Foss, 2007; Foss et al., 2010). Rather than focusing on the effectiveness of knowledge
management strategies and initiatives in general (i.e., at the macro or program level), which is common in research on
knowledge management, or the external stakeholders and regulatory frameworks which is common in work on knowledge
management governance (Schroeder and Pauleen, 2007; Zyngier and Venkitachalam, 2011), knowledge governance focuses on
nding mechanisms that will affect individuals and their interactions (i.e., at the micro level) to achieve both aggregate preset outcomes and collective knowledge-based goals (Foss, 2007).
The challenges associated with KG are especially pertinent in project-based organizations (PBOs), which by denition
build on temporary decentralization, autonomous organizational units, and uid organizational structures (Sydow et al.,
derlund and Tell, 2011a). Knowledge governance plays a critical role in many PBOs, yet there
2004; Lampel et al., 2008; So
seem to be increasing numbers of such organizations that are struggling with it (Whitley, 2006; Lundin et al., 2015). Hence
one could well argue that KG is most needed in contexts where it is most difcult to institute.
Our research is motivated by the advocacy by Foss et al. (2010) and other scholars (e.g. Abell, 2004) for qualitative explorations and multi-level analysis as a means of better grasping the complex phenomena of organizational knowledge
processes and knowledge governance. This paper responds also to calls for improved contextualization of KG and for research
on how and why KG strategies differ across organizational settings. To increase our understanding of the nature and signicance of KG in PBOs, in this paper we develop a typology of KG strategies and compare the results of their application in
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001
0024-6301/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

different PBOs; we also analyze how the various strategies affect organizational knowledge processes operating in those
PBOs. We use a large-scale, international multiple-case study to address three questions: (1) what KG strategies are applied in
project-based organizations, (2) what variables explain the use of those governance strategies, and (3) how do the applied KG
strategies affect knowledge processes in project-based organizations?
The rest of our paper is organized as follows. After reviewing the literature on PBOs from a knowledge-based perspective,
we examine the notion of knowledge governance in further depth. Subsequent sections describe how our empirical research
addresses the three research questions and describes our data collection methods. We then present an analysis that categorizes the ndings into different KG strategies, after which we discuss why organizations develop different KG strategies as
well as the consequences of those choices. Finally, we summarize our conclusions and highlight the managerial implications
that emerge from this empirical study.
A knowledge-based view on project-based organizations
A PBO performs most of its activitiesdincluding product development, customer deliveries, and change effortsdas
derlund, 2005; So
derlund and Tell, 2011a). Hobday (2000) argues that the PBO operates mainly at two distinct
projects (So
levels of activity: the project level (project management, project control, learning in projects) and the organizational level
(strategy, top management, cross-project coordination, learning across projects). As shown in prior research, these two levels
should interact to ensure that knowledge processes at the project level contribute to the accumulation of knowledge also at
the organizational level, and vice versa (Keegan and Turner, 2001; Brady and Davies, 2004; Lampel et al., 2008; Pemsel et al.,
derlund and Tell, 2009). However, PBOs face several obstacles to achieving a long-term and successful interaction
2014; So
between these organizational levels.
First, maximizing the strategic potential of projects requires that PBOs coherently link multiple levels with different
knowledge activities (Grant, 1996; Hedlund, 1994). This is not an easy task: there are built-in conicts between project
learning processes and project autonomy (Lindkvist et al., 1998), on the one hand, and cross-project learning and systemwide efciencies, on the other hand (Sydow et al., 2004; Whitley, 2006). In most PBOs, a sustainable competitive advantage requires resources that are knowledge-based and intangible (Whitehill, 1997; Nonaka et al., 2000; Jugdev and Mathur,
2012). The implication is that PBOs must allow knowledge to remain tacit even as they seek to leverage and transform
knowledge so that it can be applied to other contexts (Prencipe and Tell, 2001). Knowledge processes in PBOs are also affected
by employees representing different areas of knowledge and being located in different thought worlds owing to their
diverse professional and disciplinary backgrounds (Dougherty, 1992). This identity tension might be detrimental to performance if it caused problems in transferring and integrating knowledge among the organizations and personnel involved
(Lindkvist, 2005). Arvidsson (2009) reports that managers seldom have a clear picture of how best to manage this tensiondor, we argue, of how best to govern knowledge processes.
Furthermore, the salient features of PBOs are such that the organization tends to be loosely coupled and characterized by
poor cooperation across units and suboptimal resource usage (Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Lindkvist, 2004; Whitley, 2006).
These misfeatures will likely lead to difculties in developing, embedding, and integrating new management practices and
organization-wide knowledge bases (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998; Gann and Salter, 2000; Bresnen et al., 2004). At the same
time, a PBO is advantaged over other organizational forms in terms of its capacity to integrate and leverage differentiated and
derlund and Tell, 2011b). We therefore argue that managers seeking to stimulate
distributed knowledge and skills (So
knowledge-creating processes should capitalize ondrather than disavowingdthe inherent characteristics of PBOs. Our
ndings indicate that such an approach requires well-articulated and overarching governance strategies, which has been
highlighted in recent research on knowledge management governance (Schroeder et al., 2012; Zyngier and Burstein, 2012), as
well as the capacity to foster a sustainable competitive advantage by transforming difculties into opportunities.
The second main challenge faced by PBOs is that project-based work is highly connected to broader epistemic communities and project ecologies of varying complexities (Grabher, 2002). That being said, one advantage of the PBO as an
organizational form is its ability to quickly establish new networks and relations in dynamic and highly uncertain environments (Castells, 1995; Lampel, 2001; Barley and Kunda, 2004). In such settings, it is more important to know who knows
what than it is to know what everyone else knows (Lindkvist, 2004). Thus, as Grabher (2004) demonstrates, many project
settings are characterized by intense interdependencies among projects. These interdependencies are shaped by such factors
as time, space, and the number of organizations involved as well as reputation, professional ethos, and trust (Grabher, 2004).
Previous research has shown that knowledge integration in PBOs is affected by power dynamics (e.g., resource dependency
and how various actions are legitimized) and also by knowledge regimes (e.g., the market for knowledge in a particular
sector); a frequent consequence is black box strategies despite the high levels of project interactivity needed for productive
outcomes (Newell et al., 2008). Research has shown that strong knowledge regimes both facilitate and obstruct knowledge
integration. For instance, Whyte et al. (2008) discuss the benets of using boundary objects in the design phase of projects to
achieve a common understanding necessary to integrate knowledge. Ivory and Vaughan (2008) similarly demonstrate that
prevailing knowledge regimes create pre-determined working procedures under which heuristics, habits, and embedded
learning hamper the reframing of structures and procedures as well as the creation or adoption of new ideas. Project-based
organizations must therefore develop strategies to overcome these challenges; otherwise, they run the risk of suffering from
an organizational amnesia whereby individuals' defensiveness screens out unwelcome events (Ordanini et al., 2008). In short,
the rm's knowledge creation depends not only on suitable capabilities but also on the willingness of actors to integrate
Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

received knowledge into something new (Okhuysen and Eisenhardt, 2002). It is on this score, we argue, that KG strategies
play a critical role.

Knowledge governance strategies

To explain the complexity of various knowledge-related phenomena, knowledge governance has been developed across
the elds of economics, knowledge management, organization theory, and strategic management (Foss, 2007). Most research
so far has addressed the interplay between macro-level constructs (e.g., capabilities, absorptive capacity, communities of
practice) and micro-level constructs (e.g., individuals' motivations, beliefs, and behavior) toward the end of understanding
how KG helps organizations reach their knowledge-based goals (Foss et al., 2010). These goals can be achieved by selecting,
combining, and deploying various formal and informal mechanisms and structures with the aim of inuencing individuals'
behavior and their contribution to knowledge processes. Accordingly, researchers have proposed various KG mechanisms to
inuence and manipulate individual behavior and knowledge-sharing activities. Such proposals include formal mechanisms
(e.g., organization structure, job design, reward systems, information system, boundary strategies; see Grandori, 2001),
relational mechanisms (e.g., steering committees, project groups, expert committees, networks; see Hoetker and Mellewigt,
2009), and informal mechanisms (e.g., trust, professional ethos, reputation; see Grabher, 2004, Wang et al., 2009; Wiewiora et
al., 2014). These KG mechanisms bridge knowledge differences and yield the integration and institutionalization of knowledge both within and across organizations.
Prior research indicates that organizations must balance institutionalizing and integrating mechanisms in order to achieve
their knowledge-based goals. Institutionalizing mechanisms help organizations routinize behavior and decision making
(Heimeriks, 2010); integrating mechanisms support knowledge sharing and integration by encouraging interactions and
experimental learning. An organization that relies too heavily on institutionalizing mechanisms may become overcondent,
which could result in outdated knowledge and incorrect causal inferences (Leonard-Barton, 1992; Heimeriks, 2010). The
literature also suggests that KG mechanisms should be differentiated by knowledge typesdfor example, quasi-hierarchical
command mechanisms for tacit and sticky knowledge (von Hippel, 1994), constructed interaction mechanisms for
knowledge that can be articulated, and coordinated mechanisms for codied knowledge (Antonelli, 2006). Roughly speaking,
the rst two of these types correspond to integrating mechanisms and the third type to institutionalizing mechanisms. Yet the
question then becomes: How do organizations develop appropriate strategies for identifying their optimal mix of KG
mechanisms?
In response to the need for more research on the various kinds of (and differences among) KG strategies in specic
empirical contexts, we study what such strategies consist of, the reasoning behind the selection of a particular KG strategy,
and the consequences of that selection for knowledge processes and for the organization's achievement of knowledge-based
goals.

Research methodology
This paper reports on ve qualitative, in-depth studies of knowledge governance in PBOs that are interlinked in a longterm research program (see Table 1). Altogether, we conducted more than 100 semi-structured interviews with respondents from 20 project-based organizations. In addition, we arranged workshops with managers and staff from the
participating organizations. We had access to a large number of internal documents that included project management
models, guidelines, and meeting notes.
ldberg,
The aim of our research design was to combine both inductive and deductive approaches (cf. Alvesson and Sko
2009). Our goal consisted of developing theory that was both well positioned and empirically grounded; the research
design should explicitly allow for the identication of emergent empirical insights. Thus our research began with an inductive

Table 1
Overview of the ve research projects and collected data
Project

Research strategy

Location

Companies involved

Data collection

Number of
interviews

Multiple-case study

Sweden

2 real estate companies (Alpha, Eta)

17

II

Multiple-case study

Sweden

2 real estate companies (Lambda, Upsilon)

III

Multiple-case study

Sweden

2 real estate companies (Alpha, Eta)

IV

Multiple-case study

Sweden and
Australia

Sample survey

Australia

3 real estate, 1 mining, 1 engineering, 1 telecom, and

1 support service companies (Alpha, Eta, Lambda,
Zeta, Iota, Kappa, Tau)
12 real estate companies (Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon,
Mu, Nu, Xi, Omicron, Pi, Rho, Sigma, Theta)

Interviews, workshops,
document analysis, observations
Interviews, workshops,
document analysis
Interviews, workshops,
document analysis, observations
Interviews, workshops,
document analysis, observations
Interviews, selected
document analysis

3
19
64

18

Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

analysisdto identify patterns and variation across the casesdand proceeded with a search for explanations under existing
theory.
Our multiple case-study design started with case studies in the construction and real estate sector. This sector was chosen
for its project proliferation and maturity as well as for its well-established principles of knowledge governance (Ibbs and
Kwak, 2000). We began with four case studies in Scandinavia, which were selected so as to maximize variation and
thereby identify the broadest spectrum of strategies. This was followed by twelve case studies in Australia; these cases were
selected for the purposes of validating our results internationally and of broadening the study's scope by adding four companies outside of the focal sector. Our intention was to choose cases that were likely to replicate or extend the emerging
theory (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Following the convention of multiple case-study designs, we sampled a large number of companies not only to enable
more comparisons but also to facilitate the analysis of variation. Thus, the sample companies were similar in terms of
organizational design, size, and solutions delivered yet differed on a number of counts. We continued adding cases until the
point of empirical saturation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), which was reached after 20 cases and 101 interviews. Because some
of the data may be sensitive to the companies and the interviewees, we anonymized the former by naming them with letters
from the Greek alphabet. Table 1 presents the research strategies, characteristics (e.g., country, industry), and other details
about the data collected.
Interview questions were developed from existing literature while taking a bottom-up approach incorporating four PBO
management levels: rm, top, middle, and project. Interview guides were tailored for these different levels but covered
similar itemsdin particular, (i) how knowledge is created and integrated and (ii) how knowledge is steered and governed at
the interviewee's level and also between levels. On the rst theme we asked such questions as What challenges are you
facing when developing knowledge of the end-users needs? How do you govern these challenges?; on the second we asked
What methods, techniques, and processes are used for integrating knowledge in the company? and What are the major
challenges with knowledge integration in the company?.
All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Detailed eld notes were taken, and documents of various types
(e.g., project management procedures, process descriptions, project documents) were scrutinized to gain a thorough understanding of the studied rms. Furthermore, 18 workshops were held with about ten attendees each. Ten workshops were
with the case companies' project- and director-level staff for data collection. One workshop was held solely with researchers;
the goal of that workshop was to analyze our empirical data from a variety of theoretical perspectives, to nd several different
plausible explanations, and to improve the researchers' holistic perspective of that data. Finally, seven workshops were held
with project managers and senior managers in order to validate our study's results. These workshops conrmed the ndings
reported in this paper.
Our data analysis follows the procedure of Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2009): an initial and comprehensive within-case
analysis of each PBO followed by a cross-case analysis to identify commonalities and differences. At this stage of our
research we were mainly interested in discovering some variety across the studied cases. Those from Scandinavia were
analyzed rst, and their results were compared with those of cases from the Australian sample. The rst two steps in this
process amounted to searching for variables at multiple organizational levels within the cases and then comparing those
variables across the cases. A key assumption underlying these steps is that governance trickles downdeither explicitly or
implicitlydto lower organizational layers (Mller, 2011); hence a multi-level approach is required if we are to gain an
adequate understanding of how KG strategies are applied and how they affect the knowledge processes and capability
building of PBOs.
The next step consists of identifying variations and similarities among the cases, variables, and emerging patterns by
exposing them until empirical saturation is reached; the last step is grouping the companies into a typology according to
their identied codes and patterns. The KG strategies are broken down by level in Table 2, and each strategy's underlying logic
is discussed later in the paper. This allowed us to expose the variation among cases, thereby developing a typology of KG

Table 2
Categorization scheme for knowledge governance strategies
Organizational level

Category and strategy

Firm

Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category
Category

Top management

Middle management

Project management

A: Organizational design
B: Core competences
C: Capabilities
D: Culture
E: Type of KG mechanisms emphasized (formal/informal/relational)
F: Governance style to generate knowledge processes
G: Informal KG mechanisms of personal networks to generate knowledge processes
H: Emphasis on exploitation versus exploration processes
I: Learning strategy
J: Boundary strategies at the middle level
K: Passive versus active
L: Formal versus informal mechanisms to develop boundary strategies at the project level
M: KG approach to produce user knowledge

Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

strategies (Table 3), and then to explain the forces driving particular KG strategies (Figure 1). In that respect our intention was
not only to identify the spectrum and variation of knowledge governance strategies across rms but also, and more
importantly, to explain why KG strategies differ across the studied cases.
For the data analysis we followed Miles and Huberman's (1994) iterative process of data collection, data reduction, data
display, and conclusion drawing, which we supported by self-memos and interim case summary write-ups. We used iterative
coding to process the collected data. In the data reduction stage, we used context charts, event state networks, and case dynamic
matrices. The dimensions for data analysis and display were developed using the abductive approachdthat is, reexively
ldberg, 2009). The
analyzing the empirical data, the existing literature, and the researchers' pre-knowledge (Alvesson and Sko
reexive methodology is less focused on strict coding processes and incorporates both primary and secondary rounds of
Table 3
Typology of knowledge governance strategies in PBOs
KG strategy:

Protector

Deliverer

Polisher

Explorer

Supporter

Analyzer

Case
organizations:

Alpha, Beta,
Gamma, Delta,
Epsilon, Zeta

Eta, Theta, Iota,

Kappa, Lambda

Mu, Nu, Xi

Omicron, Pi, Rho

Sigma, Tau

Upsilon

Firm
Category A: PBO
design
Category B: Culture
Category C:
Capabilities

Subsidiary

Subsidiary

Subsidiary

Stand-alone

Subsidiary

Stand-alone

Restraining
Protective and
political

Restraining
Operational and
functional

Boosting
Integrative and
strategic

Boosting
Integrative and
operational

Restraining
Functional

Category D: Core
competences

Individuality and
independency

Project
management,
evaluative, and
technical

Boosting
Integrative,
strategic, and
dynamic
Combining,
entrepreneurial,
relational,
evaluative, and
project
management

Relational, project
management,
entrepreneurial,
and combining

Relational

Evaluative and
technical

Formal, informal,
and relational

Formal, informal,
and relational

Mainly formal

Commanding and
enabling

Commanding and
enabling

Mainly informal
and relational,
weak in formal
Commanding and
enabling

Professional ethos

Reputation and
professional ethos

Trust, reputation,
professional ethos

Trust and
reputation

Professional ethos

Uninformed
strategy for
exploitation and
exploration

Strong in
exploration,
moderately strong
in exploitation

Strong in
exploration,
moderately strong
in exploitation

Strong in
exploration, ad hoc
exploitation

Relatively balanced
strategies between
both

Retrospective

Prospective

Prospective

Retrospective

Retrospective

Developed but can

be improved

Well developed

Well developed

Well developed

Mainly using
boundary objects

Rather active

Rather active

Active

Rather active

Passive

Informal and some

on-demand formal

Mainly informal

Informal and
formal

Main focus on
formalized
mechanisms

Only evaluating
projects, not
managing

Simple,
occasionally
advanced

Advanced

Advanced

Simple

Simple

Top management
Weak in formal,
Category E: KG
informal, and
mechanisms
relational
emphasized
Enabling, using
Category F:
command only in
Strategic
emergencies
responses to
implement KG
initiatives
Professional ethos
Category G:
Governance of
personal
networks to
generate
knowledge
processes
Uninformed
Category H:
strategy for
Exploitation
exploitation and
versus
exploration
exploration
processes
Middle management
Retrospective
Category I:
Learning
strategy
Developed but can
Category J:
be improved
Boundary
strategies at the
middle level
Category K: Passive Passive
versus active
approaches
Project management
Formal
Category L:
mechanisms
Boundary
strategies at the neglected in use
project level
Simple
Category M: KG
approach to gain
user-oriented
knowledge

Formal, relational,
and weak in
informal
Enabling, using
command only in
emergencies

Commanding

Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

Figure 1. Six KG strategies mapped against their three determining factors

interpretations, a procedure that we followed here. The goals of this approach are to allow for a multiplicity of interpretations at
ldberg, 2009).
various levels and to stimulate alternative views and theoretical viewpoints (Alvesson and Sko
The primary (rough) interpretations were conducted throughout the empirical data collection process as a way to summarize what had been observed and as a guide for how to proceed in the data gathering. These primary interpretations
underscored the necessity, when analyzing PBOs, of a multi-level approach if the full complexity of KG strategies in this
empirical setting is to be revealed. Primary interpretations were followed by secondary interpretations (Alvesson and
ldberg, 2009), which were based on the former, the transcribed interviews, the case vignettes, and other documents.
Sko
We then compared these secondary interpretations with the literature. This comparison revealed that two types of interpretation reected each other not only in terms of the theory but also at different levels of the organization. What occurred at
one organizational level appeareddunder the primary interpretation and as later conrmed under the secondary, reective
interpretationdto affect events at other levels with regard to how KG strategies were manifested. These connections led to
our development of the categories and the typology. Table 2 illustrates the scheme of the categories, by level, that jointly
determine the logic and structure of identied KG strategies.
After developing the typology, we entered a new phase of interpretation in our quest to understand why KG strategies
varied among PBOs. We re-examined the transcripts of interviews with top and middle managers, case vignettes, and related
documents in a search for patterns that could explain what drove the differences. As conjected, micro-level constructs and
individual attitudes had a measurable effect on the selection of KG strategies. At every stage of the analysis, iterations
continued until theoretical saturation was reached.
A typology of knowledge governance strategies
The case companies were categorized by their similarities in governance strategies, which resulted in six distinct
knowledge governance strategies: Protector, Deliverer, Polisher, Explorer, Supporter, and Analyzer. These strategies are
described next.
The Protector strategy is relatively undeveloped, reactive, and procedural. The amount of freedom in how to conduct
projects is substantial: we don't have to actually give our people a manual and say this is how you manage projects. We only
employ people who are competent project managers. (project director, Beta). Other Protector rms report that they have
guidelines but that the manuals are ignored because many do not see the value of using them (project director, Alpha). In
the rms relying on this strategy, project managers are for the most part allowed to protect their knowledge without sharing
it. The maturity level in project management, knowledge management, and general business processes leave substantial
room for improvement and development. Individuality and independence are the core competences supported by this
strategy, which fosters individually held knowledge and the building of either strong relationships or no relationships: It is a
lonely job it is OK not to collaborate with others, you manage your project anyway, so to say (middle manager, Alpha).
Some Protector rms have ambitions of developing their project management principles to the next level of maturity, which
would involve improving their operations and areas of knowledge and expertise. In contrast, other Protector rms have no
intention to expand or to develop new methods for knowledge sharing because of skepticism about its actual benets and/or
the fear of losing power once explicit knowledge becomes publicly accessible. As one of our informants said: But I guess in a
shared [knowledge bank] model you've got to be really careful about information because if you give them too much, then
they'll start doing things that they shouldn't be doing and that inevitably gets out of control (project director, Beta).
Protector rms rely heavily on their long-term client relationships; in some cases, relational facility (Pauget and Wald,
2013) can be rightly viewed as a core competence. In the Protector rm, employees are independent in terms of their
Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

knowledge sharing and learning behavior and generally do not appreciate interference from executives; the organizational
culture, legal contracts, and collective norms tend to sustain this kind of behavior. The outcome is often that managers who
want to encourage knowledge-creating activities feel helpless because of a prevailing culture that discourages knowledge
sharing: We have too much to do to be able to have proper discussions that lead to development and integration of
knowledge (project manager, Alpha). Middle managers are not equipped to overcome these cultural barriers. As one of our
informants put it: I don't know how to make the non-talkers talk (project director, Alpha).
Project-based organizations that adopt the Deliverer strategy have developed routines and procedures for projects and
business processes and tend to focus on documentation and control, favoring procedures over an integrative strategy. This
strategy tends to result in the development of project management, evaluative, and technical core competences (Lampel,
2001). Employees are independent as regards their knowledge-sharing and learning behaviors: The project managers
learn the most from each other, external consultants, and various experts in our project management ofce (project director,
Eta). The employees of Deliverer rms tend to resent interference from executives, though not to same degree as Protector
employees: We are trying to make them use existing guidelines and report into existing systems. But it is difcult to make
them use our guidelines and standards they prefer to use their own documents, procedures, and routines (project director,
Eta). The Deliverers typically regard themselves as well managed. These rms direct their focus more at the control of
outcomes than of behavior (Mller, 2009) and claim to be striving for improvements; yet because they do not fully invest in
such improvements, the result is a sequence of ineffective and short-lasting learning endeavors rather than a corpus of viable
routines. As one of our informants said: Not everybody working in projects necessarily have academic skills, writing skills, or
research skills (top manager, Kappa). Moreover, project managers who style themselves as pragmatists may not acknowledge the need to engage in such reective endeavors and in any case might well be temperamentally disinclined to do so.
Hence their management behavior restrains innovation and results in weak entrepreneurial competences (Lampel, 2001).
The PBOs adopting a Polisher strategy have well-developed processes, procedures, and control systems as well as a greater
dependence and focus on the sharing and integration of knowledge than do Protectors and Deliverers. In fact, Polisher rms
intend knowledge sharing and integration processes to be the cornerstones of their organizational culture: I try to encourage
an atmosphere of openness. Everyone here, you know, is one big team (top manager, Nu). For instance, some of these rms
have internal research and development units to build capabilities in the area of project management. Polishers do not accept
protective or superior attitudes among employees and so, in a sense, govern knowledge by way of implied threat; as one of the
interviewees remarked: Well, this is an unusual organization in that [a selsh attitude] doesn't get you anywhere. So those
behaviors won't get you to the top; they'll probably get you out of the door (top manager, Mu).
derlund and Tell, 2011b),
The Polisher strategy results in a wide range of core competences; these include combinatorial (So
entrepreneurial, evaluative, and project management competences (Lampel, 2001). The large size of these organizations can
complicate attempts to change owing to the many areas of expertise that require signicant coordination efforts. Yet because
employees exhibit a passion for and curiosity about their role and also an eagerness for personal development, changes tend to be
well received. Hence this strategy may foster integrative and dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2009) as well as vibrant communities
of practice within the area of project management. One project director described how he encouraged his staff to build strong
relationships and engage in communities of practice by allowing less experienced individuals to work with more knowledgeable
ones, who were asked to include them in their networks so as to open up [the] more closed and less condent staff into a
knowledge-sharing community. This KG strategy focuses more on controlling behavior (e.g., via establishing templates and
guidelines) than on the outcome control of any particular deliverables: the staff are remunerated such that the performance of
the whole determines their reward, not their individual efforts, to try and create that culture of sharing knowledge and sharing
failures as well. It's not always about winners. Often, you learn more from your losers (top manager, Mu).
Project based-organizations adopting the Explorer strategy are stand-alone PBOs and specialists in offering project
management services for all types of construction projects. They do not rely on building relationships with customers in
maintenance and operations; rather, the approach of these rms is to attract new customers by reputationdin other words,
by striving for professional excellence in all operations. The result is a different kind of knowledge control style than seen in
companies featuring closer interactions and discussions; in particular, Explorer PBOs tend to undertake more thorough
performance evaluations even as they exhibit a greater sensitivity concerning the ability of individual employees to prosper:
This organization is not about mediocrity, it's about excellence. The project managers are assigned a senior project director
with whom they should interact and talk to on a regular basis. In fact, it's like a mentoring tool but it's a little bit more than
that: it's a sounding board consisting of somebody who is very experienced. (project director, Pi).
Employees are passionate about what they do; for example, [t]here is a desire and a strong passion to have the healthiest
and most sustainable and attractive buildings (project director, Rho). Staff members are frequently the targets of headhunters and are viewed as being among the most highly qualied in their respective industries, which motivates the PBO to
strive for excellence. Indeed, those who work in these organizations tend to be strongly driven and to have an entrepreneurial
spirit. That spirit works synergistically with a pervasive knowledge-sharing culture: You know, it's really the way we do
things around here: share knowledge, we share it through forums, we share it through processes and systems, and we share it
through just sort of day-to-day interaction (project director, Pi). There is an intense and cohesive focus on knowledge
throughout the organization. Explorer rms have close relationships with research centers and universities, especially in the

Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

area of project management. The attention paid by such organizations to building relationships both internally and with
external experts is a core competence established through various communities of practices. That competence serves as the
foundation for developing other core competences (e.g., project management, entrepreneurship) and also for combining
derlund and Tell, 2011b).
competences (Lampel, 2001; So
The PBOs that adopt a Supporter strategy include subsidiary organizations conducting both projects and maintenance
services. These PBOs have competence development units and regularly invest in award-winning activities as well as in
professional conferences and internal research projects. They also have a strong customer focus and employ various activities
to build long-term customer relationships. A distinguishing feature of this strategy is its preference for relying more on
interactivity (in its various forms) than on formal documents. So even though this kind of organization would like to be as
excellent as Explorer rms, they are relatively less adept at striking a balance between explicit (codied) and implicit
knowledge or between exploration and exploitation (Burgers et al., 2008). For Supporters, then, the focus is more on the
accumulation and articulation of knowledge and much less on its codication (Prencipe and Tell, 2001). Neither are Supporter
PBOs as successful at searching data from research centers; when it comes to knowledge production, they rely mainly on ad
hoc and individually driven client interactions, internal discussions, and relatively formal internal training sessions.
Knowledge sharing is part of the culture but is less advanced than in the case of Explorers. More specically, in Supporter
organizations it is rather viewed as being up to our leadership team and our team leaders to motivate and encourage people
to be part of knowledge-sharing activities the culture is certainly inclusive and infusive to make people want to learn and
share and create something that is better than just the individual (top manager, Sigma)dthat is, a more informally driven
knowledge culture. The core competences developed under this strategy are relational and integrative.
Finally, a PBO that adopts an Analyzer strategy has a business model similar to that of a franchise company, which is rare in
the real estate market. It develops concepts of residential buildings, such as apartments and villas, and has a strong control
focus and an advanced knowledge codication process. So just as with Supporters, the focus of Analyzers is on the client: Our
business is very client-driven; our business starts from the clients' needs and requirements (top manager, Upsilon). But
rather than relying on informal, face-to-face interactive knowledge sharing and integrating endeavors, the emphasis is on
formal meetings and on codied and mainly decontextualized knowledge. This approach often makes it difcult to inject new
information into embodied and embrained knowledge systems (Blackler, 1995), which means that Analyzer PBOsddespite
their sophisticated data-gathering toolsdare poorly suited to act on collected information or to integrate conceptual
knowledge (derived from their survey respondents) internally. According to one of the managers we interviewed: The
systems are dis-integrated, and we have difculties in integrating them and maximizing the value creation from the results
(top manager, Upsilon). Exploitation and exploration processes are usually well-enough balanced, although both are plagued
by a lack of KG mechanisms for motivating engagement with the collected data and for interpreting that data with more
nuanced methods and techniques: the information often remains mere information rather than being transformed into
usable knowledge (top manager, Upsilon). Analyzer rms suffer also from an imbalance in their KG initiatives: Analyzers rely
heavily on formal command-oriented strategies, which are inefcient for knowledge governance. That being said, the
Analyzer strategy does seem to promote evaluative and technical core competences (Lampel, 2001).
Four organizational levels of KG
Our multi-level analysis establishes that knowledge management strategies manifest differently depending on the
organizational level. In this section we describe the categories of strategy that manifest KG at four levels: the rm level and
the top, middle, and project management levels (see Table 3).
Firm level
Foss et al. (2010) contend that organizational (macro-level) antecedentsdincluding reward systems, job descriptions,
corporate culture, capabilities, and so forthdset the scene for KG initiatives. This claim was conrmed by our data. At the
organizational (rm) level, there emerged four categories into which these organizational antecedents could be grouped:
Category A, PBO design; Category B, organizational culture; Category C, capabilities; and Category D, core competences.
PBO design refers to whether the PBO is a subsidiary or rather a stand-alone organization (Keegan and Turner, 2001).
Organizational culture refers to aspects of the PBO that facilitate or hinder knowledge generation, where the former (resp.
latter) are characteristic of organizations that place a high (resp. low) value on knowledge sharing. Capabilities are the
particular strengths of an organization in terms of its knowledge governance; examples include using communities of
practice and dened processes for integrating knowledge. Core competences refer to the organization's primary focus: an
entrepreneurial and technological orientation or attending more to managerial and integrative activities (Leonard-Barton,
1992; Lampel, 2001); see Table 3.
Top management level
At the organizations' top management level, four categories emerged: Category E, KG mechanisms; Category F, implementing KG initiatives as a strategic response; Category G, governance of personal networks for generating knowledge
processes; and Category H, exploitation versus exploration processes.
Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

Category E refers to whether the focal KG strategy emphasizes formal, informal, and/or relational KG mechanisms
(Antonelli, 2006; Foss et al., 2010); examples include the use of knowledge databases, knowledge meetings, and other formal
procedures. Commanding versus enabling strategies and structures (Category F) are top managers' methods of imposing or
enforcing particular ways of knowledge sharing and exchangedversus delegating knowledge management to lower levels in
the organization (Bosch-Sijtsema and Postma, 2010). Category G refers to the most important KG mechanism for governing
personal networks: the reliance on trust, professional ethos, and reputation for knowledge-generating and knowledgesharing activitiesdfor instance, the professional ethos stemming from the expert status of engineers given their specialized knowledge (Grabher, 2004). Category H, exploitation and exploration processes (March, 1991), refers to the mechanisms
and structures facilitating knowledge search and knowledge use (Osterloh and Weibel, 2009). Examples in this category
include implementing KG mechanisms to exploit internal knowledge or establishing external relationships with centers of
expertise to develop new knowledge.
Middle management level
At the middle level, three distinct categories of knowledge governance emerged: Category I, prospective versus retrospective learning strategies; Category J, boundary strategies; and Category K, passive versus active approaches.
Category I captures the kind of mechanisms and capabilities used by middle managers (most of them acting in the project
management ofce) to trigger knowledge processesdfor example, prospective or reactive learning operations (Liu and
Yetton, 2007)deither by generating knowledge from previous projects or by engaging in comparatively more interactive
learning such as through mentorship, job rotations, and so on. Category J reects how knowledge boundaries between internal and external stakeholders and units are governed; in other words, this category includes the bridging strategies
implemented at the middle level to facilitate interactions by encouraging individuals to interact with people who represent
other knowledge bases (van Buuren, 2009). One such strategy involves using dynamic boundary strategies to translate and
transform knowledge either through the specic roles it plays or the boundary objects it references. Our analysis also revealed
distinct strategies as regards (a) passive or active approaches (Category K) to cross-unit learning and (b) intervening in order
to overcome collaboration inertia (Gray, 2008).
Project management level
The project level involves two categories as follows: Category L, boundary strategy mechanisms; and Category M, user
involvement. Category L refers to the formal governance support that project managers receive for developing skills to
transfer and interpret knowledge in their cross-disciplinary projects. Such skills were usually based on experience, but some
organizations employed both formal and informal KG mechanisms that were less subtle. Formal mechanisms include training,
education, and mentoring whereas informal mechanisms include conversations with colleagues and discussions in communities of practices. Finally, Category M focuses on the KG approaches used to gain knowledge of end-user requirements and
needs. The PBOs intervened to various degrees with the different end-user organizations. Advanced intervention and
involvement required more formal mechanisms of developing role structures that incorporated specic skill sets, subtle
analysis tools, and methodologies of how to approach organizations in a multi-level manner. Simple intervention and
involvement encompassed a smaller range of tools and techniques and focused on certain parts of the end-user organizations
and their needs but without the same depth of intervention.
Summary
The categorization scheme just presented aims to clarify the patterns and differences observed across the case companies.
These patterns evidence barriers to as well as enablers of knowledge processes, so they offer insight into the integrative
nature of KG strategies. But why do PBOs implement these strategies? How do top and middle managers rationalize their
chosen KG strategies? In our case, the KG strategies attempt to bridge the distance between governance and the cultural
aspects of determining, for instance, whether it is legitimate to share knowledge across knowledge regimes or perhaps to
overthrow knowledge regimes altogether so that individuals more willingly engage in knowledge creation and sharing.
Knowledge governance strategies can thus be described as active choices, made at various organizational levels, that affect
the organization's ability to reach its knowledge-related goals. The KG strategies can be viewed both as a result of contextual
conditions and as a force for changing those conditions. The six identied KG strategies offer the answer to our rst research
question. However, two key questions remain unanswered: Why do organizations choose to develop different KG strategiesdand what are the implications of these strategic choices?
ldberg, 2009) whose starting
Our analysis of the underlying reasons employed a reexive approach (Alvesson and Sko
point was the already developed KG strategies. We devised tables and diagrams for the purpose of categorization; we also
analyzed in depth the examples and illustrations provided by our case-study companies to expose the rationale underlying
their respective knowledge and learning activities. In the process of searching for empirical patterns and theoretical concepts
that could offer explanations, we reected on the data already collected and compared our ndings with a number of
theoretical concepts and explanations. From this process, three variables emerged as having the most explanatory power and
guring the most prominently in patterns common to the entire data set. The three variablesdwhich distinguish the top and
Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

10

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

middle managers' rationale behind a given KG strategydare manager attitudes about humans, knowledge, and knowledge
control (see Figure 1). These variables emerged as we analyzed the logic underlying the six identied KG strategies and asked
why, exactly, managers decided to implementing particular KG mechanisms and strategies. Our analysis suggests that
considering these three variables is vital for generating organizational knowledge processes because that evaluation brings us
closer to understanding the true logic of the KG strategies and why they were implemented.
Explaining knowledge governance strategies
Our results are in line with previous research ndings that the behavior and attitudes of not only top managers (Eisenhardt
and Bourgeois, 1988) but also middle managers (von Krogh et al., 2000) have a signicant effect on organizational culture. A
negative instance of that effect would be mistrust among subordinates, which would naturally reduce their willingness to
engage in knowledge production (Connelly et al., 2012). The empirical data presented here indicate that the mindset of
managers toward learning and knowledge likewise inuence the nature of chosen KG strategies and thus the organization's
ability to develop and achieve its knowledge-based goals. We shall now discuss our three identied variables in more detail.
Attitudes about humans
The managers in our study exhibited a variety of mindsets. These ranged from resilience (a persistent attitude toward
setbacks) and a belief in the abilities of others to non-resilience and the tendency to have limited faith in the willingness and
ability of others to learn.
The managers in rms relying on the Explorer strategy demonstrated the highest level of resilience: I suspect that, as
human beings, we can learn any skill. I think you need to have a certain amount of raw talent and obviously you bring it out in
training a winner never quits but a quitter never wins, right? (project director, Pi). Managers working in rms that employ
the Polisher or Supporter KG strategy also demonstrate a relatively high level of resilience.
Managers who adopted Protector strategies hewed the most closely to a non-resilience view, as exemplied by this quote:
I'm not saying that my employees are crappy, but they have a low level of analytical capacity and with a low level of analytical
abilitydhow can you be capable of being reective and drawing conclusions or learning lessons? I don't know what to do
(project director, Gamma). Managers depending on Analyzer and Deliverer KG strategies exhibited the tendencies of a nonresilient mindset, though less strongly so than did managers who adopted the Protector KG strategy.
Attitudes about knowledge
To simplify the analysis, we view managers as being one of two types: those who hold the valuable knowledge viewdand
who thus perceive knowledge as being the most important resourcedand those who do not; we say that members of the
latter group all hold the modest knowledge view. Managers holding a valuable knowledge attitude are proactive and inclusive,
and they use a range of (usually interaction-intensive) methods to maximize their knowledge-sensing opportunities. As one
of our interviewees said: Things are always changing. At the moment, I guess we are in the front, we are leading and the
biggest. We need to stay there; therefore, we must constantly learn and develop our knowledge bases jointly (middle
manager, Mu). Similarly, one of the interviewed project directors made the following statement: The culture is one where
you share your knowledge and you share your opportunities and you help each other because everybody benets from that
(project director, Pi).
In contrast, managers holding a modest knowledge view take a relatively passive approach, rely on the ability of each
individual to develop independently, and use unsophisticated search methods that capture only limited aspects of the
available knowledge. Managers in rms relying on a Protector or Analyzer strategy tend to hold this view, as illustrated by the
following quote: We treat each job as a learning experience, experience is invaluable you have an obligation to learn. Your
job is to be out there making sure that you're keeping up with the changes Collectively, it's a mechanical thing; we update
our standards and guidelines (director, Epsilon).
Managers in rms relying on a Deliverer or Supporter KG strategy are in the middle of the spectrum. To some extent, they
appreciate the value of knowledge. Although their methods are more sophisticated than those of Protector and Analyzer
organizations, they are less sophisticated than the methods employed by Explorers and Polishers.
Attitudes about knowledge control
Our empirical ndings reveal two main types of knowledge control attitudes: performance and socialization. Managers
emphasizing performance control (viz. Protector, Analyzer, Deliverer, Supporter) believe it is possible to control the learning
processes of articulating and accumulating knowledge (via, e.g., the number of training courses, interactions with universities
and other expert organizations, formal review sessions) or to control the knowledge outcome/codication (e.g., databases of
lessons learned, course certicates, improved skills in managing new types of customers or complex projects) or sometimes
to control both. The Protector strategy is the only one that relies solely on performance control; the three others named
engage in both performance and socialization control, which explains why they are not positioned as far leftward in Figure 1
as is the Protector.
Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

11

Managers focusing on socialization control (Supporters and Explorers) use performance control to some extent. However,
these types rely mostly on clan-oriented and social controldespecially when it comes to knowledge concerns. Socialization
control is indirect and aims to reach higher levels of commitment among employees by creating a knowledge-friendly
environment and culture that includes training in both skills and values. This approach is well illustrated by the following
quote:
we try to create an environment that is more positive. It's good to have a good work environment because it excites
people, and it's good to have passionate and professional people because they're great mentors for others. You know
they're experienced, they talk about things, and we have formal and informal training sessions. Once a positive learning
environment is created, it tends to grow on itself. (project director, Pi)
In summary, our analysis derived six KG strategies by developing a typology (Table 3) to explicate the logic that drives each
and then identifying three key variables by which these strategies can be distinguished (Figure 1). A manager's attitude about
the learning abilities of individuals is highly associated with the cultural behavior of either boosting or restraining knowledge
ows and also with the choice of a relatively more active or passive KG approach. Attitudes about knowledge per se are
associated with the willingness to engage in exploitation and exploration processes, the preference for formal versus
experience-based knowledge, and the development of certain core competences. Finally, knowledge control attitudes affect
whether a largely enabling (less direct control) or commanding (more direct control) approach is chosen as well as whether
formal boundary strategies and roles are developed (more indirect control) or not (less indirect control).
Conclusions and implications
Throughout this paper we have argued that too little scholarly work has addressed knowledge governance and, in
particular, KG strategies. We have argued also that there is a need to enhance our understanding of the dependence of KG
strategies on context, and on that front we addressed the variation in KG strategies used by project-based organizationsda
context in which knowledge governance is not just clearly called for but also fundamentally challenging. The research presented in this paper adds to our understanding of the logic underlying KG strategies and of their consequences for knowledge
processes. Responses to our research questions motivated our developing a typology of knowledge governance via a categorization scheme that accounts for the varying effects the strategies have on PBO knowledge processes. Finally, we identied
three crucial variables that together explain when and why the various governance strategies are chosen.
The main theoretical implication of this research is the unlikelihood of nding a single answer to the question of how a
PBO's underlying mechanisms affect its internal knowledge processes and achievable efciency. We instead identied a
spectrum of strategies available to rms and thus offered a set of concepts and distinctions that may guide further research
and analysis addressing knowledge governance in project-based organizations. In addition, we provided a categorization
scheme that may contribute to such analysis. According to that scheme, there are important complementarities involved in
KG strategies and, with respect to knowledge processes, the behavior of individuals is affected by various activities and
mechanisms at different levels. We also nd that each strategy is driven by a set of particular logics, which has important
consequences for the PBO's choice of knowledge management process(es).
Our research has a number of managerial implications. It highlights the critical role that top and middle managers play in
ensuring that knowledge does not lose value or ownership within the organization. Project-based organizations build on the
principles of temporary decentralization and uid structures, which makes knowledge government difcult but at the same
time a high priority. In this context, top and middle managers are well positioned to make a signicant difference in PBOs'
ubiquitous struggles to generate and transfer knowledge. We have identied some critical issues that managers must address.
The rst is to identify the organization's prevailing KG strategy and then analyze the rationale that underlies its implementation. Full understanding requires that the KG strategy be viewed not only from the top-level perspective but also from
other levels, including middle and project management levels. Moreover, this paper shows that some strategies are relatively
less adequate to the task of yielding appropriate and efcient knowledge processes. Most importantly, the research reported
here focuses on the underlying rationale and attitudes that shape governance mechanisms. We document the importance of
analyzing these attitudes in detaildespecially those about the capacity of individuals, knowledge, and knowledge controldand then address how particular governance mechanisms shape organizational knowledge processes. Therefore,
becoming more aware both of attitudes and of governance mechanisms operating at multiple levels is prerequisite to a PBO's
creating adequate conditions for knowledge sharing and other knowledge processes. Finally, this paper clearly establishes
that multiple levels interact to shape governance mechanisms; as a result, those mechanisms are complementary yet also
connected through different organizational levels.
This study features both strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include the wide scope of approaches identied through the
sampling method; when combined with our abductive procedure, that scope contributed to the robustness of our results. Our
choice of analysis technique proved an appropriate one in that it offered different perspectives that yielded new insights,
which in turn validated the subsequent categorization. The study's main weaknesses are its limitations in terms of geography
and industry, which constrain the generalizability of our ndings. Future comparative studies in different countries and
sectors would serve to shore up this weakness. Moreover, further research is encouraged to investigate whether the KG
strategies we identied are applicable to and in conformance with other kinds of PBOs, sectors, and regions; that would
conrm (or not) the robustness of these strategies and encourage the exploration of new ones and their main contingencies.
Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

12

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

References
Abell, P., 2004. Narrative explanation: an alternative to variable-centered explanation? Annual Review of Sociology 30, 287e310.
ldberg, K., 2009. Reexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research. Sage, London.
Alvesson, M., Sko
Antonelli, C., 2006. The business governance of localized knowledge: an information economics approach for the economics of knowledge. Industry and
Innovation 13 (3), 227e261.
Arvidsson, N., 2009. Exploring tensions in projectied matrix organisations. Scandinavian Journal of Management 25 (1), 97e107.
Barley, S., Kunda, G., 2004. Gurus, Hired Guns, and Warm Bodies: Itinerant Experts in a Knowledge Economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
derlund, J., 2011. Exploring knowledge integration and innovation. In: Berggren, C., Bengtsson, L., Bergek, A.,
Berggren, C., Bergek, A., Bengtsson, L., So
derlund, J. (Eds.), Knowledge Integration and Innovation: Critical Challenges Facing Technology-based Firms. Oxford University Press,
Hobday, M., So
Oxford, pp. 61e77.
Blackler, F., 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work, and organization. Organization Studies 16 (6), 1021e1046.
Bosch-Sijtsema, P., Postma, T., 2010. Governance factors enabling knowledge transfer in interorganizational development projects. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management 22 (5), 593e608.
Brady, T., Davies, A., 2004. Building project capabilities: from explorative to exploitative learning. Organization Studies 25 (9), 1601e1621.
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., 2004. Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organization Studies 25 (9),
1535e1555.
Burgers, J.H., van den Borsch, F., Volberda, H., 2008. Why new business development projects fail: coping with the differences of technological and market
knowledge. Long Range Planning 41 (1), 55e73.
Castells, M., 1995. The Rise of the Network Society: the Information Age. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden.
Connelly, C.E., Zweig, D., Webster, J., Trougakos, J.P., 2012. Knowledge hiding in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33, 64e88.
DeFillippi, R.J., Arthur, M.B., 1998. Paradox in project-based enterprise: the case of lm making. California Management Review 40 (2), 125e139.
Dougherty, D., 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large rms. Organization Science 3 (2), 179e202.
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.-E., 2002. The construction industry as a loosely coupled system: implications for productivity and innovation. Construction Management and Economics 20 (7), 621e631.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14 (4), 532e550.
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), 737e770.
Foss, N.J., 2007. The emerging knowledge governance approach: challenges and characteristics. Organization 14 (1), 29e52.
Foss, N.J., Husted, K., Michailova, S., 2010. Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management Studies 47 (3), 455e482.
Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J., 2000. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced rms: the construction of complex products and systems. Research Policy 29
(7e8), 955e972.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research. Wledenfeld and Nicholson, London.
Grabher, G., 2002. The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams. Regional Studies 36 (3), 245e262.
Grabher, G., 2004. Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization Studies 25 (9), 1491e1514.
Grandori, A., 2001. Neither hierarchy nor identity: knowledge-governance mechanisms and the theory of the rm. Journal of Management and Governance
5 (3e4), 381e399.
Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the rm. Strategic Management Journal 17 (Winter special issue), 109e122.
Gray, B., 2008. Intervening to improve inter-organizational partnerships. In: Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., Smith Ring, P. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook
of Inter-organizational Relations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 664e690.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., Tierney, T., 1999. Whats your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review 77 (2), 106e116.
Hedlund, G., 1994. A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation. Strategic Management Journal 15 (S2), 73e90.
Heimeriks, K.H., 2010. Condent or competent? How to avoid superstitious learning in alliance portfolios. Long Range Planning 43 (1), 57e84.
Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy 29 (7e8), 871e893.
Hoetker, G., Mellewigt, T., 2009. Choice and performance of governance mechanisms: matching alliance governance to asset type. Strategic Management
Journal 30 (10), 1025e1044.
Ibbs, C., Kwak, Y.H., 2000. Assessing project management maturity. Project Management Journal 31 (1), 32e43.
Ivory, C., Vaughan, R., 2008. The role of framing in complex transitional projects. Long Range Planning 41 (1), 93e106.
Jugdev, K., Mathur, G., 2012. Classifying project management resources by complexity and leverage. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 5
(1), 105e124.
Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2001. Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices. Management Learning 32 (1), 77e98.
Lampel, J., 2001. The core competencies of effective project execution: the challenge of diversity. International Journal of Project Management 19 (8),
471e783.
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), 7e16.
Leonard-Barton, D., 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal 13
(Summer special issue), 111e125.
Lindkvist, L., 2004. Governing project-based rms: promoting market-like processes within hierarchies. Journal of Management and Governance 8 (1),
3e25.
Lindkvist, L., 2005. Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: a typology of knowledge work in groups. Journal of Management Studies 42 (6),
1189e1210.
derlund, J., Tell, F., 1998. Managing product development projects: on the signicance of fountains and deadlines. Organization Studies 17
Lindkvist, L., So
(6), 931e951.
Liu, L.L., Yetton, P.Y., 2007. The contingent effects on project performance of conducting project reviews and deploying project management ofces. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 54 (4), 789e799.
Lundin, R., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., Sydow, J., 2015. Managing and Working in Project Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2 (1), 71e87.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: an Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mller, R., 2009. Project Governance. Gower Publishing, Aldershot, UK.
derlund, J. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford University
Mller, R., 2011. Project governance. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., So
Press, New York, pp. 297e321.
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), 33e54.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N., 2000. SECI, Ba and Leadership: a unied model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning 33 (1), 5e34.
Okhuysen, G.A., Eisenhardt, K.M., 2002. Integrating knowledge in groups: how formal interventions enable exibility. Organization Science 13 (4), 370e386.
Ordanini, A., Rubera, G., Sala, M., 2008. Integrating functional knowledge and embedding learning in new product launches: how project forms helped EMI
music. Long Range Planning 41 (1), 17e32.

Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

S. Pemsel et al. / Long Range Planning xxx (2016) 1e13

13

Osterloh, M., Weibel, A., 2009. The governance of explorative knowledge production. In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.), Knowledge Governance: Processes
and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 138e165.
Pauget, B., Wald, A., 2013. Relational competence in complex temporary organizations: the case of a French hospital construction project network. International Journal of Project Management 31 (2), 200e211.
Pemsel, S., Wiewiora, A., Mller, R., Aubry, M., Brown, K., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations. International
Journal of Project Management 32 (8), 1411e1422.
Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codication in project-based rms. Research Policy 30 (9),
1373e1394.
Schroeder, A., Pauleen, D., 2007. KM governance: investigating the case of a knowledge intensive research organization. Journal of Enterprise Information
Management 20 (4), 414e431.
Schroeder, A., Pauleen, D., Huff, S., 2012. KM governance: the mechanisms for guiding and controlling KM programs. Journal of Knowledge Management 16
(1), 3e21.
derlund, J., 2005. Developing project competence: empirical regularities in competitive project operations. International Journal of Innovation ManSo
agement 9 (4), 451e480.
derlund, J., Tell, F., 2009. The P-Form organization and the dynamics of project competence: Project epochs in Asea/ABB, 1950-2000. International Journal
So
of Project Management 27, 101e112.
derlund, J., Tell, F., 2011a. The P-form corporation: contingencies, characteristics, and challenges. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., So
derlund, J. (Eds.), The
So
Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 201e223.
derlund, J., Tell, F., 2011b. Strategy and capabilities in the P-form corporation: linking strategic direction with organizational capabilities. Advances in
So
Strategic Management 28, 235e262.
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., DeFillippi, R., 2004. Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: editorial. Organization Studies 25
(9), 1475e1489.
Teece, D., 2009. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management: Organization for Innovation and Growth. Oxford University Press, New York.
van Buuren, A., 2009. Knowledge for governance, governance of knowledge: inclusive knowledge management in collaborative governance processes.
International Public Management Journal 12 (2), 208e235.
von Hippel, E., 1994. Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Management Science 40 (4), 429e439.
von Krogh, G., Kazou, I., Nonaka, I., 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation. Oxford University Press, New York.
Wang, H.C., He, J., Mahoney, J.T., 2009. Firm-specic knowledge resources and competitive advantage: the roles of economic- and relationship-based
employee governance mechanisms. Strategic Management Journal 30 (12), 1265e1285.
Whitehill, M., 1997. Knowledge-based strategy to deliver sustained competitive advantage. Long Range Planning 30 (4), 621e627.
Whitley, R., 2006. Project-based rms: new organizational form or variation on a theme. Industrial and Corporate Change 15 (1), 77e99.
Wiewiora, A., Murphy, G., Trigunarsyah, B., Brown, K., 2014. Interactions between organizational culture, trustworthiness, and mechanisms for inter-project
knowledge sharing. Project Management Journal 45 (2), 48e65.
Whyte, J., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M., Tidd, J., 2008. Visualizing knowledge in project-based work. Long Range Planning 41 (1), 74e92.
Yin, R., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Zhang, L., Cheng, J., 2015. Effect of knowledge leadership on knowledge sharing in engineering project design teams: the role of social capital. Project
Management Journal 46 (5), 111e124.
Zyngier, S., Burstein, F., 2012. Knowledge management governance: the road to continuous benets realization. Journal of Information Technology 27,
140e155.
Zyngier, S., Venkitachalam, K., 2011. Knowledge management governance: a strategic driver. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 9 (2), 136e150.

Biographies
Soa Pemsel, PhD, is Assistant Professor at Copenhagen Business School, Denmark. Her main research interests are project competence, knowledge
governance and project governance. Soa took her PhD at Lund University, Sweden. During her time as a PhD student she was a visiting scholar at
Queensland University of Technology, Australia and SKEMA Business School, France. In 2012, Soa successfully defended her doctoral thesis titled
Knowledge processes and capabilities in project-based organizations. Soa has thereafter been a visiting lecturer in project management at Ume School of
 du Que
bec a
 Montre
al, Canada. E-mail: sp.ioa@cbs.
Business, a visiting scholar at BI Norwegian Business School, and a post-doctoral researcher at Universite
dk
Ralf Mller, DBA, is Professor of Project Management at BI Norwegian Business School. His research interest is in leadership and governance of projects,
programs, portfolios and PMOs. He is the (co-)author of more than 180 publications, and receiver of several awards, like the 2012 IPMA Research Award, and
the Project Management Journal's 2009 Paper of the Year Award. He holds an MBA from Heriot Watt University and a DBA degree from Brunel University.
Before joining academia, he consulted large enterprises and governments in 47 different countries and was the Worldwide Director of Project Management
at NCR Corporation. E-mail: ralf.muller@bi.no
derlund, PhD, is Professor at BI Norwegian Business School and a founding member of KITE, Linko
ping University. He has researched and published
Jonas So
widely on the management and organization of projects and project-based rms, time and knowledge integration in projects, and the evolution of project
competence. His work has appeared in such journals as Human Relations, Organization Studies, Management Learning, Advances in Strategic Management,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Human Resource Management, and R&D Management. His most recent books are the Oxford Handbook of
Project Management (Oxford University Press), Human Resource Management in Project-based Organizations: the HR Quadriad Framework (Palgrave), and
Knowledge Integration and Innovation (Oxford University Press). E-mail: jonas.soderlund@bi.no

Please cite this article in press as: Pemsel, S., et al., Knowledge Governance Strategies in Project-based Organizations, Long Range
Planning (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001