Journal of Knowledge Management

Knowledge management in project environments

Bastian Hanisch Frank Lindner Ana Mueller Andreas Wald
Article information:
To cite this document:
Bastian Hanisch Frank Lindner Ana Mueller Andreas Wald, (2009),"Knowledge management in project environments", Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 Iss 4 pp. 148 - 160
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971897
Downloaded on: 30 January 2016, At: 13:11 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 26 other documents.
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10481 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Georg Disterer, (2002),"Management of project knowledge and experiences", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 Iss 5 pp.
512-520 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673270210450450
Mian Ajmal, Petri Helo, Tauno Kekäle, (2010),"Critical factors for knowledge management in project business", Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 156-168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015633
Graham Brewer, Scott Strahorn, (2012),"Trust and the Project Management Body of Knowledge", Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, Vol. 19 Iss 3 pp. 286-305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09699981211219616

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:364498 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than
290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional
customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Knowledge management in project
environments
Bastian Hanisch, Frank Lindner, Ana Mueller and Andreas Wald
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)
Bastian Hanisch,
Frank Lindner, Ana Mueller
are all Research Assistants
and Andreas Wald is
Director of Studies
‘‘Aviation Management’’, all
at the European Business
School, Oestrich-Winkel,
Germany.
PAGE 148 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is show how the management of knowledge in temporary
organizations is an increasingly important factor in many industries. This paper aims to examine
knowledge management in and between projects.
Design/methodology/approach – On the basis of 27 structured interviews with project managers and
knowledge management experts in different corporations mainly located in Germany and German
speaking countries, the prevalence, the organization and the success factors of project knowledge
management are analyzed.
Findings – As a result, most interviewees stated an urgent need for a significant improvement of project
knowledge management although only in few companies a systematic approach exists. The success of
project knowledge management is mainly determined by cultural factors whereas technical aspects like
information systems and project management methods are considered to serve as supporting factors
only.
Research limitations/implications – Future research should include large-scale surveys to
systematically analyze the causalities of successful project knowledge management in different types
of projects, organizations, and industries. Further research involving companies located in other cultural
areas could help extracting possible effects caused by cultural or societal influences.
Originality/value – The authors present a cross-sectional study on project knowledge management
comprising companies from different industries.
Keywords Knowledge management, Project management, Learning
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The economic development is characterized by a continuous de-materialization of the value
chain. This leads to a growing knowledge-intensity of work contents and an increased role of
(knowledge-intensive) services. As a consequence, knowledge plays an important role as
intangible resource and asset of organizations (Porter, 1991; Nahapiet and Goshal, 1998;
Teece, 1998; Winter, 1987). This trend is mirrored by theoretical approaches underlying the
relevance of knowledge. The knowledge-based view of the firm considers knowledge and
the ability to integrate individual knowledge in the context of a common task fulfillment to be
essential for competitive advantage (Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996).
At the same time, the degree of temporary forms of co-operation and working constellations
is growing. The prevalence of projects as a form of organizing has only recently been
acknowledged (Ekstedt et al., 1999). A shift in perspective is taking place from considering
projects as exceptional cases to account for projects as regular business processes
creating value (Winch, 2000). Due to their temporary and unique nature, projects are
different from standard organizational processes. They are characterized by discontinuous
personal constellations and work contents, a lack of organizational routines, a short-term
orientation and a cross-disciplinary integration of internal and external experts (Prencipe
j VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009, pp. 148-160, Q Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 DOI 10.1108/13673270910971897
 ‘‘ A concrete and systematic approach toward project
knowledge management is rather uncommon. ’’

and Tell, 2001; Schindler and Eppler, 2003). In many cases, projects are carried out beyond
the hierarchical lines of authority and therefore also require specific leadership skills (Ekstedt
et al., 1999).
The management of knowledge in and of temporary organizations is therefore an
increasingly important and even decisive competitive factor. In both areas of research,
knowledge management and project management, a substantial quantity of theoretical,
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

conceptual and empirical work deals with the different questions of the respective
disciplines. However, little research has tried to combine both areas and to analyze the
challenges of knowledge management in temporary organizations (Love et al. 2005;
Brookes et al. 2006). In this paper, the authors therefore introduce the specific problems of
knowledge management in temporary organizations and present the results of an
exploratory study on the prevalence, the organization and the success factors of knowledge
management in and between projects.
The following sections will introduce the concept of project knowledge management and
describe the specific challenges as opposed to knowledge management in permanent
organizations. Next, the design of the empirical study are explained and the results are
discussed. On the basis of the results avenues for further research are finally derived.

Project knowledge management

Knowledge can be defined as the set of skills, experiences, information and capabilities
individuals apply to solve problems (Baker et al. 1997). Knowledge management (KM) is the
set of practices an organization applies to create, store, use and share knowledge (Probst
et al. 1998). Project knowledge management (PKM) is knowledge management in project
situations and thus the link between the principles of knowledge management and project
management. Love et al. (2005) set the basis for understanding knowledge management in
project environments. In their work regarding the role and processes of KM in projects, they
put a particular focus on KM in the context of cross-functional and international project
teams as well as on the role of (organizational) learning in projects.
On a more general level, not only knowledge within projects is part of PKM but also
knowledge between different projects and knowledge about projects (Schindler, 2002).
Knowledge within projects is closely linked to the project management methodology and the
communication practices in projects. Both are strongly dependent on the project manager
and the individual project management style. Knowledge about projects denotes an
overview of the project landscape (the projects being conducted or having been conducted)
in an organization. The knowledge transfer from and between projects can be referred to as
expert knowledge, methodological knowledge, procedural knowledge, and experience
knowledge. Knowledge from and between projects contributes to the organizational
knowledge base (Figure 1).
The relevant types of knowledge in projects differ along the stages of the project life-cycle
(Schindler and Eppler, 2003). Experience from subsequent projects, information about the
buying team, and knowledge about technology and markets are examples of knowledge
types that are of particular importance for the early phases of the project. Knowledge about
existing (technical) solutions, experience from scheduling, and the application of tools might
be more interesting at the stage of implementation (Figure 2).

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 149
 Figure 1 Knowledge management in a project environment
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

Figure 2 Types of knowledge and project life-cycle

Challenges of knowledge management in project environments

The particular challenges of PKM are caused by the inherent project characteristics (Love
et al. 2005; Prencipe and Tell, 2001; Schindler and Eppler, 2003). Projects are unique and
temporary undertakings with changing work force. Moreover, projects are often short-term
oriented and integrating internal and external experts and knowledge. Project participants
have to adapt quickly to new conditions and contents of work. The temporality and
uniqueness is a major obstacle for organizational learning. This is particularly true for
projects which therefore lack an organizational memory, routines and other mechanisms of
organizational learning (Meyerson et al. 1996; Brusoni et al. 1998). From these conditions,
the importance of a process of securing project knowledge for the overall organization
seems obvious.

So far, literature has identified the specific problems and challenges of knowledge
management in project environments but does not derive general solutions of how to
manage knowledge in project-based firms and organizations (Hall and Sapsed, 2005;
Koskinen, 2004). Empirical research focuses on single or few cases (Ayas, 1996; Huang and
Newell, 2003; Sense and Antoni, 2003) and on single project types (Fong, 2003) and/or

j j
PAGE 150 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009
 industries (Bresnen et al., 2003; Bresnen et al., 2005). It does not provide general findings
about the organization, instruments, and methods of PKM. Even more important, the actual
user behavior of systems supporting PKM has not been investigated so far. As a
consequence, two major research gaps have to be filled in order to derive solutions for the
effective and efficient implementation and use of PKM:
1. The investigation of the status quo of PKM (organization, instruments, methods) across
different industries and types of projects (beyond single cases and industries).
2. The identification of success factors for PKM.

Research approach and methodology

In order to avoid a possible industry bias, in the empirical study corporations from different
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

industries were considered. Furthermore, the sample comprises different project. A

qualitative approach was employed to identify the factors that facilitate and inhibit the
success of knowledge management in projects. The study is based on 27 expert interviews
in different companies mainly located in Germany and comprises major subsidiaries of
foreign corporations. The data has been collected during the year 2007 in face-to-face
interviews with managers responsible for knowledge management and/or project
management. The interviews were designed as semi-structured, qualitative expert
interviews. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Table I shows the industry
affiliation and the size of the corporations.
The qualitative data was subjected to a computer based content analysis using the software
package ATLAS.ti (Krippendorff, 2003). In order to systematically examine the interview
transcripts, empirical categories were developed. The coding frame relates to different
aspects concerning the prevalence of knowledge management tools and project
management methods, user behavior, user satisfaction, success factors and project
performance. The categories of the coding frame were assigned to different parts of the
transcripts.

Results
Targets of PKM
The results show that companies and experts in project management are aware of the
problem of PKM throughout industry lines, enterprise sizes, and project types. The potential
of project knowledge management is especially high for companies with high project- and
knowledge-intensity as can be found in the plant construction sector, construction and
consultancy services. For instance, one of the interview partners estimated the potential cost
savings by excellent PKM in the plant construction sector at 3-5 percent of total project
volume.

Table I Sample by industry and size

Company size (number of employees)
Industry Number of cases ,500 500-1,000 1,001-5,000 .5,000 Total

Automotive 3 3 3
Plant engineering 3 1 1 1 3
Mechanical engineering 2 1 1 2
Transportation 3 1 2 3
Software/IT 5 1 2 2 5
Insurance 1 1 1
Construction 1 1 1
Consulting 5 2 2 1 5
Chemicals/pharmaceuticals 4 1 3 4
Total 27 2 4 7 14

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 151
 Apart from cutting costs, several other objectives of PKM where stated. These can be
summarized in five aims: increasing work efficiency and reducing risk by capitalizing the
experience gained during other projects and applying knowledge acquired during earlier
projects. A continuous learning process throughout the overall project work, in contrast to a
solemnly improvement during a single project life cycle, allows to constantly revise and
develop the processes applied as well as the created products. This also includes the
prevention of repeated mistakes, which might be part of the experience of previous projects.
Continuous improvement is also stated as main goal in terms of methods and standards
connected to project management. Another aim is the favorable staffing of projects. This
goes beyond the optimal allocation of available resources and implies the staffing of projects
along competences and expert knowledge of project workers. Last but not least, the
identification and fostering of innovation was stated to be a goal. Here, especially the
advantages of interdisciplinary project teams could be used for fostering innovative
approaches. Table II summarizes the main targets stated during the interviews.
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

Irrespective of the aims of PKM stated by the interviewees, the companies show different
preferences concerning the kind of knowledge transfer. While the majority focuses on
personification (the transfer of knowledge by personal interaction), also codification (the
transfer of knowledge by documents) as well as combinations of both are used when dealing
with knowledge transfer. It is noteworthy that only consultancies where able to actually
estimate the proportion of personal to codified knowledge transfer. Here, the ratio of
knowledge codification to personification strongly varies. In this respect, a correlation with
the company size is noticeable. A higher number of employees seem to require a higher
extent of formalization and therefore codification of knowledge. In addition, it is indicated
that a strategy of personification is applied if a higher degree of knowledge specialization is
used. Several companies clearly focus on people and implicit knowledge, which can be
brought down to a statement given by one interviewee (industry affiliation and interview
number in parentheses):
This informal [sharing of knowledge], because you know the other person, is much faster. For
example, if I know, a colleague of mine, she has a similar project [. . .]. Or it is the other way
around: she has a certain experience with a new publication then I instantly get to know it [from
her] (no. 13, chemicals / pharmaceuticals).
You always look for someone, who you sat together with, this is something, were trust is important,
to know the person.
Interviewer: ‘‘In terms of the credibility of knowledge? Or because one might fear the loss of
knowledge for the overall company?’’
Concerning both
Well, if I know that the person, I am communicating with, is somewhere in the same network as I
am, I don’t have a problem [to exchange knowledge], since I know him. It is not like that if
someone anonymously wants to participate (no.1, mechanical engineering).

Table II Targets of PKM as stated by interviewees

Avoiding duplication of Harmonizing of
work Learning by repetition Promoting innovation methods/standardizing Allocating resources

Reuse of previously Continuous improvement Identification and Identification of best Optimal staffing of
acquired knowledge of processes and application of innovative practices and transfer in projects with regard to
products ideas using the potential company standards capacity and
Facilitating access to of interdisciplinary competence of
information (methods, Avoiding repetition of collaboration Establishment of and employees
processes, contact mistakes support through routines
persons)
Creation of safety in
procedures

Consistent terminology

j j
PAGE 152 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009
 Prevalence and organization of project knowledge management
Nearly all respondents spot the need for action when it comes to PKM in their companies.
Nevertheless, a concrete and systematic approach towards PKM is rather uncommon.
Repeatedly, individual measures are conducted in this respect but without sustainable
effects. In rare cases, an institutionalized awareness and responsibility for project
knowledge management beyond the individual project cycle is recognizable. Again,
consultancies constitute an exception to these findings since their degree of institutionalized
PKM is comparatively high. Some organizations apply an internal structure of networks,
which facilitates finding experts by appointing defined persons as responsible for certain
subject areas. This specification helps others to identify persons in the organization who
have the demanded knowledge and competences or can act as agents for further contact
persons. This system is comparable to key-user-concepts. In this case, persons in charge
for PKM can be found on the level of project teams and business units.
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

In principle, different approaches for incorporating PKM in the overall organization can be
found. This is due to the dual nature of projects within the organizational setting. The issues
of PKM are affiliated to the area of knowledge management, project management or exist as
a combination of both areas. At the same time, the responsibilities for knowledge
management and/or project management are established in different forms. Within the
interviewed companies, functional units, special departments or integration in the divisions
are found in charge of parts of the overall PKM process.
The use of project management methods was covered by the interviews in order to
scrutinize the eventual integration of project knowledge management in these methods. In
terms of use and binding character of project management methods, all characteristics were
found. While some companies use no specific project management methods at all, some
have even different project management methods for every type of project. Thus, a varying
use of project management methods can even be found within one single company,
depending on the type of project and organizational entity. Also, the binding character of the
applied methods greatly varies: While some participants offer project management methods
without obligatory character, other companies strictly use binding project management
methods. In this regard, size and risk of projects are two major factors influencing the
consistent application of project management methods.
A similar range of answers was given concerning the integration of PKM in existing project
management methods. Lessons learned, which is one of the most frequently mentioned
instruments of PKM (used in nine companies), is only in some cases integrated in
compulsory project management standards (seven companies). Nevertheless, this does not
imply that this form of securing experience made in projects is actually accomplished (two
companies). Often, the interviewees stated that time pressure, due to new projects or higher
priorities in operational business areas, prevent them from actually conducting lessons
learned workshops or meetings. Also, the rate at which experience is tried to be captured
varies to a great extent. In some cases, only the project close-out reports were used for
mapping lessons learned. Other interview partners stated a cyclical elaboration of gathered
experience according to the methodology in use, e.g. at the finalization of subprojects or
project milestones. Table III summarizes the main measures taken in order to secure
knowledge from projects found in the respondent’s project management methods.
Significant differences also exist in the evaluation and availability of the accomplished
lessons learned and debriefings. In some companies, the corresponding documents are
distributed only within project teams; other companies electronically store these documents
in a way which allows access for all employees. A further option of collecting experience
gained during projects is the discussion of projects in meetings on the project manager
level. Regarding the support of PKM by information technology, several of the queried
companies are using Wiki-technology in addition to other measurements. This platform, alike
the role model of Wikipedia, enables all users of the company to paste and modify articles on
virtually any subject.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 153
 Table III PKM during project life cycle
End of project/independent of project
Beginning of project During project cycle cycle

Staffing along skill/competence database Training project members PKM Lessons learned

Use of typical errors database Review/lessons learned at project Project review

milestones/check points
Recourse on proposals written for similar One pager project summary for evaluation
projects in offer phase Evaluation of external on potential project knowledge by
consultants/sub-contractors and recourse knowledge management office
of this experience during project cycle
Debriefings
Meeting of project leaders on a regular basis
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

Further software tools for the support of PKM are varying in extend and use in the interviewed
companies. For example electronic templates for project-specific documents are used in
several of the respective companies. While in some organizations, these documents belong
to standardized and binding project methods, they are applied as mere supportive
documents in other organizations. Table IV summarizes these tools.
Altogether, the support by information technology tools has proven to be a necessary but not
sufficient factor for the quality of project knowledge management. This outcome is
consistent with the vast majority of respondents considering the emphasis of knowledge
transfer on people/implicit knowledge.

Critical factors for successful project knowledge management

Success factors and barriers from practice where specifically targeted during the expert
interviews. Four categories of success factors could be extracted from the expert interviews:

Table IV Overview of used IT-tools devices for PKM

Templates Electronic document masters for project specific documents (e.g.
project mandate, proposals, structure plan, status report etc.)
Platforms/catalogued Network-based ‘‘collaboration rooms’’ via network assigning (also
storage ‘‘E-rooms’’, ‘‘team rooms’’), or document management systems, which
have further capabilities compared to the basic file exchange on
network drivers. Here, different versions and upgrades of documents,
the search for bywords, categorization and full text search can be
accomplished and be of major use for the re-finding of knowledge and
experience
Intranet Intranet-forums for the free and multidirectional exchange of
knowledge between employees in contrast to the bidirectional
exchange via e-mail or telephone
Database Terminology database, as online reference work for vocabulary, and
source for the creation of a mutual language
Expert database for finding reference persons for particular subjects
are used by several companies. These can significantly reduce the
search for knowledge and ensure that gained experience is traceable
‘‘Error database’’ with typically occurring errors and their causes are
especially found for development projects, but can in general serve as
a valuable knowledge source in project management
Technical data of competitors. These databases provide valuable
information, e.g. when it comes to launching new products in the
market
Proposal database with proposals to already realized projects serves
as support during the proposal stage since knowledge gained from
previous preparations of proposals can be reused

j j
PAGE 154 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009
 1. information- and communication technology;
2. organization;
3. methods; and
4. culture and communication.
The areas of information and communication technology merely serve as supporting factors
to successful PKM – this contrasts to the prevalent approach in the visited companies but is
in line with the answers given by the interviewees. Without pertinent support by IT-tools,
project knowledge management is difficult to put in use, but the implementation of
corresponding software should not be considered as an end in itself. Even the best possible
IT-support is not sufficient if the corporate culture does not encourage the use of the
provided software and application devices.

Well, this urging of project leaders to hand in lessons learned after each stage [. . .]. From my
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

experience, this process does not necessarily ‘‘live’’. Technically, it might be done and then be
ticked off, but is not part of the culture. [. . .] it is done a couple of times and then slowly
abandoned (no. 2, transportation).
Now we are getting to the point and that is the mental matter. We have the tools, they are here,
without question, nothing to decide about, it is all Microsoft-Based [. . .] the processes are clear,
they are not complicated [. . .] but how this is then really lived – this does at the moment, as it
seems to me, not really work, I clearly have to say that (no. 14, software/it).

The main focus has to be on the people and their acceptance of the tools to-be-used. With
this, the primary goal should be the development of a software management process, in
which the used tools are integrated. It was thus often stated that voluntarily used tools (such
as the Wikipedia model) need to achieve a critical mass of participants and information in
order to be enforced and used in a company. Additional effort for filling these systems with
knowledge should simultaneously be as small as possible in order to gain a high level of use
and enforcement. In general, a self-explaining filing structure and tools with further features
(apart from standard filing functions, e.g. categorization and full text search) should be
feasible. This facilitates reusing deposited knowledge by providing efficient possibilities of
search.

People want to have access. [. . .] It has to be structured in a simple way [. . .], otherwise no one
uses that (no. 4, consulting).

The possibility of unwanted outflow of knowledge also has also to be considered. This could
be prevented at the IT-level by corresponding access rights. Further reference to this point in
terms of other forms of knowledge exchange can be found in a later section discussing
cultural factors.
Concerning the organization and the organizational embedding of PKM in a company, the
support by top-management is a fundamental factor. The role model function of
top-management as a starting point for supporting soft factors was mentioned by several
respondents.

And this really has to be, this has to be exemplified by the top-management. And if one does not
do something, one must face the consequences (no. 5, consulting).

In addition, the priority of PKM should be stronger emphasized as it is crucial for the securing
of the sustainable development of the factor knowledge as one of the central competitive
factors. This could for example be realized by the integration of knowledge goals in reward
systems. Here, the binding of variable income to the transfer of knowledge to other
colleagues, for instance via trainings or workshops, should be mentioned.

Because employees can only slightly change something, and if, this would be a lucky case, if the
management is open minded and acknowledges this and says: yes, we see that, we anticipate
this [...]. But in the end, the management has to exemplify this. As long as it only comes from the
employees it will most probably not work (no. 5, consulting).

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 155
 ‘‘ Four categories of success factors could be extracted from the
expert interviews: information and communication
technology, organization, methods, and culture and
communication. ’’

Also the interfaces to other functional areas (e.g. personal development, quality
management, management systems, IT) which have an impact on knowledge
management, must be considered. These functional areas should be included in the PKM
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

process by looking for possibilities and facilitations of close cooperation in knowledge

management related subjects.
The use of a standardized project knowledge management method offers general
conditions and routines to employees and therefore facilitates concentration on the gist.
Easy-to-use standards and processes should be chosen on purpose, since the aim is an
easy usage with as little as possible additional effort. Most of the time it will not be possible to
cover all probable use cases – here, a contact person in the company could help whom the
knowledge could be passed in order to put it in the system as well as assisting when
difficulties to access the system or finding relevant information occur. This way, a designated
person is a reference for possible ideas, questions and suggestions and furthermore can
push the very subject matter in the company.

[. . .] how do I do it, then. I have an idea, but don’t know exactly. And then I’m searching and
searching. You don’t get into these problems when you have a certain person who can support
you (no. 10, software/IT).

In the ideal case, a process of quality assurance exists for the stored knowledge. This
implies that a different person to the one who is feeding knowledge into the system analyzes
the documents and evaluates them if applicable.

In the past, it was a little bit, everybody put something into the system and of course that also
grew with the number of employees. [. . .] But since two years now we have that quality assurance,
we now have worldwide several reference persons, which are in charge for defined areas, and
who filter what they want to be put in. And this quality assurance is essential for me (no. 7,
consulting).

For more sensitive topics, as the implementation of an expert data base, in which the
qualifications of individual employees can be seen, it is indispensable to include the
responsible person for data protection and the workers council.

That was a very pleasant cooperation, I have to say. It really is a very good thing, I’m sure it’ll get
through the board for privacy protection, together with the workers council, [. . .] and then, this is
of course the signal, that is the cachet, the seal of approval, that everything is ok (no. 3,
transportation).

During the interviews, it became obvious that cultural factors are of fundamental importance
for the success of PKM. In several interviews, an insecurity concerning the danger of the
outflow of knowledge (to the outside of the company) was signaled. In this context, a trustful
cooperation needs to be built and obtained. At this point, cultural differences have to be
regarded in particular.

[...] we made the experience, that cultures are in fact very different. Even now, as I am in
Switzerland, which is not far away but still a completely different mentality: You simply have to
approach people in a completely different manner in order to ensure that knowledge is actually
absorbed and secured [. . .] (no. 7, consulting).

j j
PAGE 156 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009
 A supportive corporate culture in the sense of enhancing interdisciplinary cooperation and
knowledge exchange in geographic distribution of project teams was identified as a key
success factor. Also the willingness to cooperate with participants of different nationalities
and to cooperate with external parties (suppliers, consultants, etc.) was shown to have
strong influence on a beneficial knowledge exchange environment in a corporation. A goal in
regard to enhancing the quality of PKM could for example be the encouragement of soft
factors such as the cooperativeness (also under time pressure), openness and trust. Further
factors, such as the initiative on one’s own and fault tolerance, must be connected to the
observable willingness to admit mistakes and learn from experience.
Of high ranking should be the communication of the use of project knowledge management
in the company. PKM naturally competes with daily business for resources. The overall
disregard of the importance of the individual’s contribution to PKM seems to be a major
obstacle when it comes to a successful implementation of PKM. Here, a prioritization in favor
of project knowledge management can be reached by supporting the regard of use of PKM
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

on the individual and on the company level. A second possibility in order to permanently
secure the knowledge gained during projects is the establishment of reward systems. In this
connection, a combination of strategies is imaginable, where the value for the individual is
not exclusively realized with the results of PKM (time saving, avoiding of mistakes, etc.) but
with additional rewards. As one example in some of the companies, the leading of trainings
and workshops with to-be-worked-on subjects was part of the employees target
agreements. Here, the exchange of knowledge is anchored in the reward system and
becomes a success factor for the employee. In this context, the acknowledgement of a
person’s achievements can also take place in form of a general acknowledgement of the
individual’s achievements.
Correspondingly, the communication across all levels of hierarchy is of importance. One
approach, which is above all used in management consultancies, is the systematic support
of knowledge exchange on an informal basis. This ranges from regular project rehearsals
(among the team/location as well as across teams/locations), performing of trainings and
workshops on current topics, to company-wide events with the introduction of best
practices.
This is the typical way, that we do this every three to four weeks, the so-called brown bags, where
we just come together during lunch [. . .] and one is presenting his lately gained knowledge [. . .]
the aim is, to simply make this knowledge accessible to the others (no. 7, consulting).

Again, executive personnel serves as a role model when it comes to knowledge transfer and
can in this function positively as well as negatively influence the behavior of employees.
Particularly openness, transparency, the prioritization of PKM related activities and the
dealing with mistakes is essential in this context. In this context, it should also be possible to
communicate and tolerate mistakes. Connected to this, the willingness to learn and in the
ideal case the ambition to eliminate mistakes has to exist.
I used to work for [XXX] they really nearly managed it to crash the whole big business [. . .] simply
because they did not have an adequate culture to tolerate mistakes and you weren’t allowed to
say it [...] and they changed, they really learned from that, but it was a good example that a big
ship can sink because of that (no. 5, consulting).

Conclusions
This paper illustrates the findings of an explorative study on PKM. The observations are
based on a series of expert interviews with representatives from different industries. The
findings of this study strongly support the assumption that PKM is a topic of highest
relevance in contemporary forms of organization. Further significance arises from the
observation that the implementation of knowledge management in project settings
nowadays still appears to be insufficiently used. This general shortcoming in business
practice is striking concerning the high potential benefits regarding efficiency, effectiveness
and innovation resulting from successfully implemented PKM in different types of firms.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 157
 ‘‘ The organizational culture seems to be a critical factor for
successful project knowledge management. ’’

Above all, the organizational culture seems to be a critical factor for successful PKM. In this
context, several interviewees stated the role model function of the top management and the
importance of having individual employees pushing the concept of PKM. Even the best IT
systems and methodologies for supporting the storage and dispersion of knowledge gained
in projects are useless if the employees resist using them. However, a high quality IT system
and a systematic approach towards PKM, which fit to the needs of the project and the
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

organizational structures was found to support successful management of project

knowledge.
The study provided first empirical evidence on PKM reaching beyond single cases.
However, the results are based on a small sample of 27 interviews and should be considered
as a starting point for further research only. The majority of the interviewees was located in
Germany or a German speaking country. With this, possible cultural or societal influences on
PKM must be considered when comparing the results to further research from other parts of
the world. Another point of interest might be the comparison of the study’s findings to
research conducted in the non-profit sector. In this context, the question arises, whether
PKM might be affected by different working styles, long-ranged goals and sustainability and
different intrinsic motivations of employees.
More empirical research in the field of PKM is needed in order to further determine and
evaluate organizational interdependencies and alternative approaches to successful project
management. In particular, a large-scale survey will be necessary to analyze causalities of
successful PKM. Further research goals of this survey should be the foundation of a solid
understanding for supporting decisions regarding improvements in the knowledge
management for specific types of projects in different industries.

References
Ayas, K. (1996), ‘‘Professional project management: a shift towards learning and a knowledge creating
structure’’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 131-6.

Baker, M., Baker, M., Thorne, J. and Dutnell, M. (1997), ‘‘Leveraging human capital’’, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 63-74.
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaja, A. and Swan, J. (2005), ‘‘Organizational routines, situated learning and
processes of change in project-based organizations’’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 27-41.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2003), ‘‘Social practices and the
management of knowledge in project environments’’, International Journal of Project Management,
Vol. 21, pp. 157-66.
Brookes, N.J., Morton, S.C., Dainty, A.R.J. and Burns, N.D. (2006), ‘‘Social processes, patterns and
practices and project knowledge management: a theoretical framework and an empirical investigation’’,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 474-82.
Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A. and Salter, A. (1998), ‘‘Mapping and measuring innovation in project-based
firms’’, Working Paper No. 46, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton.
Ekstedt, E., Lundin, R.A., Söderholm, A. and Wirdenius, H. (1999), Neo-Industrial Organising. Renewal
by Action and Knowledge Formation in a Project-intensive Economy, Routledge, London.
Fong, P. (2003), ‘‘Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project teams: an empirical study of the
processes and their dynamic interrelationships’’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21
No. 7, pp. 479-86.

j j
PAGE 158 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009
 Grant, R.M. (1996), ‘‘Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm’’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, pp. 109-22.
Hall, J. and Sapsed, J. (2005), ‘‘Influences of knowledge sharing and hoarding in project-based firms’’,
in Love, P., Fong, P. and Irani, Z. (Eds), Management of Knowledge in Project Environments, Elsevier,
Oxford, pp. 57-79.
Huang, J. and Newell, S. (2003), ‘‘Knowledge integration processes and dynamics within the context of
cross-functional projects’’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 167-76.

Koskinen, K. (2004), ‘‘Knowledge management to improve project communication and

implementation’’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 13-19.
Krippendorff, K. (2003), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Love, P., Fong, P. and Irani, Z. (2005), Management of Knowledge in Project Environments, Elsevier,
Oxford.
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

Meyerson, D., Weik, L. and Kramer, R. (1996), ‘‘Swift trust and temporary groups’’, in Kramer, R. and
Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 166-95.
Nahapiet, J. and Goshal, S. (1998), ‘‘Social capital, intellectual capital and organizational advantage’’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-66.
Porter, M.E. (1991), ‘‘Towards a dynamic theory of strategy’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12,
Winter Special Issue, pp. 95-117.
Prencipe, A. and Tell, F. (2001), ‘‘Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge
codification in project-based firms’’, Research Policy, Vol. 30 No. 9, pp. 1373-94.
Probst, G., Büchel, B. and Raub, S. (1998), ‘‘Knowledge as strategic resource’’, in Krogh, G., Ross, J.
and Kleine, D. (Eds), Knowing in Firms. Understanding, Managing and Measuring Knowledge, Sage,
London/New Delhi, pp. 240-52.
Schindler, M. (2002), Wissensmanagement in der Projektabwicklung, 3rd ed., Josef Eul Verlag GmbH,
Lohmar-Köln.
Schindler, M. and Eppler, M. (2003), ‘‘Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning
methods and success factors’’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 219-28.

Sense, A. and Antoni, M. (2003), ‘‘Exploring the politics of project learning’’, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 487-94.
Spender, J-C. (1996), ‘‘Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm’’, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter Special Issue, pp. 45-62.

Teece, D.J. (1998), ‘‘Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how,
and intangible assets’’, CMR, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 55-79.
Winch, G. (2000), ‘‘The management of projects as a generic business process’’, in Lundin, R.A. and
Hartman, F. (Eds), Projects as business constituents and guiding motives, Kluwer, Dordrecht,
pp. 117-30.
Winter, S. (1987), ‘‘Knowledge and competence as strategic asset’’, in Teece, D.J. (Ed.),
The Competitive Challenge – Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal, Ballinger, Cambridge,
pp. 159-84.

About the authors

Bastian Hanisch is a research assistant and doctoral candidate at the Strascheg Institute for
Innovation and Entrepreneurship. His research activities are focused on project
management, soft factors in project management, (social) network analysis and
organisational networks. He graduated with a diploma in Industrial Engineering and
Management (Diplom-Wirtschaftsingenieur) from the University of Karlsruhe, Universität
Karlsruhe (TH).
Frank Lindner is research assistant and doctoral candidate at the Strascheg Institute for
Innovation and Entrepreneurship. His research activities are focused on project and
innovation management. He received a Master of Science in Technology and Management
(Diplom-Ingenieur) from the University of Stuttgart.

j j
VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 159
 Ana Mueller is a research assistant and doctoral candidate at the Strascheg Institute for
Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Her main research interests are organizational culture and
leadership in project management. She holds a degree in Economics (Diplom-Volkswirtin)
from Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität Frankfurt.
Andreas Wald is an Assistant Professor of Aviation Management at the European Business
School (EBS), International University Schloss Reichartshausen. His research activities are
focused on organizational networks, network analysis, leadership, aviation management
and project management. He received a MA degree and a PhD from the University of
Mannheim. Prior appointments include the German Research Institute for Public
Administration, the University of Hagen and the University of Mannheim. Andreas Wald is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: andreas.wald@ebs-siie.de
All authors are employed at the Strascheg Institute for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
(SIIE) which is part of the European Business School (EBS) International University Schloß
Reichartshausen, 65375 Oestrich-Winkel.
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

j j
PAGE 160 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT VOL. 13 NO. 4 2009
 This article has been cited by:

1. Helge F.R. Nuhn, Andreas Wald. 2016. Antecedents of team turnover intentions in temporary organizations. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business 9:1, 194-213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Miwa Nishinaka, Katsuhiro Umemoto, Youji Kohda. 2015. Emergence of common tacit knowledge in an international IT
project. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 8:3, 533-551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Marija Lj. Todorović, Dejan Č. Petrović, Marko M. Mihić, Vladimir Lj. Obradović, Sergey D. Bushuyev. 2015. Project
success analysis framework: A knowledge-based approach in project management. International Journal of Project Management
33, 772-783. [CrossRef]
4. Hans Solli-Saether, Jan Terje Karlsen, Kim van Oorschot. 2015. Strategic and Cultural Misalignment: Knowledge Sharing
Barriers in Project Networks. Project Management Journal n/a-n/a. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)

5. D. Oehme, R. Riedel, E. MullerModular, building blocks — Based approach for information and documentation
management in planning projects 428-432. [CrossRef]
6. Gillian Ragsdell, Eva Ortoll Espinet, Michael Norris. 2014. Knowledge management in the voluntary sector: a focus on
sharing project know-how and expertise. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 12, 351-361. [CrossRef]
7. Gillian Ragsdell, Allan Jepson. 2014. Knowledge sharing: insights from Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) Festival volunteers.
International Journal of Event and Festival Management 5:3, 279-296. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Robert T. Hans, Ernest LedwabaKnowledge management health status assessment: a South African government department
case study 209-213. [CrossRef]
9. Hammad Akbar, Saud Mandurah. 2014. Project-conceptualisation in technological innovations: A knowledge-based
perspective. International Journal of Project Management 32, 759-772. [CrossRef]
10. Przemyslaw Lech. 2014. Managing knowledge in IT projects: a framework for enterprise system implementation. Journal of
Knowledge Management 18:3, 551-573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Donald S. McKay, Timothy J. EllisTracking the Flow of Knowledge in IT Organizations: The Impact of Organizational
Learning Factors and Project Learning Practices on Project Success 5185-5194. [CrossRef]
12. Walter Skok, Kevin Clarke, Sandeep Krishnappa. 2013. Managing Organisational Knowledge: A Case Study of a Global
Energy Consulting Group. Knowledge and Process Management 20:10.1002/kpm.v20.3, 123-130. [CrossRef]
13. Therese Johansson, Robert C. Moehler, Ramesh Vahidi. 2013. Knowledge Sharing Strategies for Project Knowledge
Management in the Automotive Sector. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 74, 295-304. [CrossRef]
14. Kalsom Salleh, Siong Choy Chong, Syed Noh Syed Ahmad, Syed Omar Sharifuddin Syed Ikhsan. 2012. Learning and
knowledge transfer performance among public sector accountants: an empirical survey. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice 10, 164-174. [CrossRef]
15. Laura-Patricia Pinto-Prieto, Luis-Eduardo Becerra-Ardila, Luis-Carlos Gómez-Flórez. 2012. Carencias en los sistemas de
gestión del conocimiento: una revisión bibliográfica. El Profesional de la Informacion 21, 268-276. [CrossRef]
16. Vitor Ricardo Santos, António Lucas Soares, João Álvaro Carvalho. 2012. Information Management Barriers in Complex
Research and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers. Knowledge and Process
Management 19:10.1002/kpm.v19.2, 69-78. [CrossRef]
17. Yu-Cheng Lin, Hsin-Yun Lee. 2012. Developing project communities of practice-based knowledge management system in
construction. Automation in Construction 22, 422-432. [CrossRef]
18. Vitor Ricardo Santos, António Lucas Soares, João Álvaro Carvalho. 2012. Knowledge Sharing Barriers in Complex Research
and Development Projects: an Exploratory Study on the Perceptions of Project Managers. Knowledge and Process Management
19:10.1002/kpm.v19.1, 27-38. [CrossRef]
19. Mohamad Fauzan Noordin, Roslina Othman, Noor Azura ZakariaPeopleware & heartware - The philosophy of
knowledge management 1-6. [CrossRef]
20. Frank Lindner, Andreas Wald. 2011. Success factors of knowledge management in temporary organizations. International
Journal of Project Management 29, 877-888. [CrossRef]
21. Dali Zhao, Meiyun ZuoKnowledge Transferred across Projects and Its Characteristics in an IT Service Enterprise 267-270.
[CrossRef]
 22. Mostafa Jafari, Jalal Rezaeenour, Mohammad Mahdavi Mazdeh, Atefe Hooshmandi. 2011. Development and evaluation of
a knowledge risk management model for project‐based organizations. Management Decision 49:3, 309-329. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
23. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Roles of Information Technology and Knowledge Management in Project Management Metrics
332-361. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 13:11 30 January 2016 (PT)