Knowledge sharing practices of project teams when encountering changes in project scope: A contingency approach

Abstract

Prior studies indicate that undesired consequences may occur if knowledge cannot be effectively shared among members of a project team. Nevertheless, there are few studies that explore the knowledge-sharing (KS) mechanisms used and the contingency factors affecting their application in the context of managing new product development projects that encounter changes in project scope. Therefore, in this research the principles of the contingency approach were adopted in order to examine the KS mechanisms used and the contingency factors affecting their use in this context via an in-depth case study. Three key KS mechanisms and three contingency factors affecting their application were identified based on the research results. The relationship between the KS mechanisms and the contingency factors is formalized in five propositions. Future research that examines the interrelationships among these contingency factors and how they collectively influence KS practices in similar contexts is encouraged.

Keywords

contingency approach knowledge sharing project teams

1. Introduction

The impact of unexpected changes in project scope on the performance of project teams, in terms of project cost, schedule, and quality, cannot be overlooked in today’s complex business environment in which project owners’ requests and expectations can change constantly. Under such circumstances, project teams tend to encounter stress-inducing situations in which critical decisions must be made in a timely manner based on limited information in order to ensure favourable project performance.

The results of a recent literature review indicate that successful knowledge-sharing (KS) practices can lead to the development of competitive advantage in a project team by enhancing team members’ coordination and problem-solving abilities. Although academic research indicates that the key to enabling effective KS practices in project teams is to let the experts talk to each other, this is a difficult task in practice, particularly in a time-stressed decision-making context. However, undesired consequences may occur if the knowledge cannot be effectively shared among the team, such as a reduction in the work efficiency of the project team, an increase in the probability of failure of new product development (NPD) projects, and unreasonable project delays. Nevertheless, there have been very few studies that explore the KS mechanisms used and the contingency factors affecting their application in the context of managing NPD projects with unexpected disturbances.

Consequently, this study aims to explore specifically the KS mechanisms used by project teams and the contingency factors affecting the use of these mechanisms when encountering unexpected and/or disturbing changes in NPD project scope by conducting an in-depth case study. The findings of this study can help NPD project teams examine their ability to harness critical knowledge, and, in turn, develop effective methods to share it in order to enhance NPD project performance. To conclude, based on the previous works examining KS practices in the context of NPD projects that encounter changes in project scope, this study is conducted with the intention of answering the following research questions:

What are the KS mechanisms used in this context?

What are the contingency factors affecting the application of these KS mechanisms?

What are the relationships among the KS mechanisms used and the contingency factors identified?

2. Literature review

2.1. Knowledge sharing

Knowledge management (KM) is considered key for organizations seeking to acquire a competitive advantage in intensively competitive business environments [1]. Among various KM-related subjects, KS has been recognized as a major focus [2] that is strategically important to organizations, as it enables individuals to acquire the knowledge needed from knowledge owners in order to improve their work performance and, in turn, benefit the organization [3]. KS can be defined as a set of activities in which knowledge is transferred/distributed from specific individuals, groups, and organizations to others [4]. The results of the literature review carried out in this work indicate a number of primary research perspectives for comprehending KS, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Summary of primary research perspectives of KS

Perspective	Approach	Related literature
Communications	Viewing KS as a form of communication between knowledge owners and knowledge receivers, through which knowledge owners externalize their knowledge through communication media, and knowledge receivers reconstruct, comprehend, and internalize the new knowledge using the knowledge that they already have.	[2, 5, 6]
Learning	KS is perceived as a learning process in which an individual takes advantage of the knowledge acquired from others to develop certain know-how, which, in turn, facilitates positive behavioural changes and enables the individual to develop the capability to take effective actions.	[7 –9]
Knowledge market	Assuming the existence of inter/intra-organizational knowledge markets and addressing the processes and reasons for KS from a viewpoint of supply and demand.	[8, 10, 11]
Knowledge flow	Focusing on addressing issues related to the circulation of various types of knowledge (e.g. explicit and implicit knowledge) among different locations/entities (e.g. individuals, projects, groups, departments, and organizations).	[12 –15]
Interaction	Knowledge can be shared through informal and/or formal interpersonal social interactions that facilitate and effectively organize the movement of knowledge between knowledge owners and knowledge seekers.	[16 –20]

What connects these perspectives is the interaction perspective of KS. Knowledge can be shared not only through structured media, such as documents, but also through informal and/or formal interpersonal interactions [8, 18, 20]. With reference to the classic distinction of tacit and explicit knowledge [21 –23], KS practices tend to rely on four modes of interpersonal interactions (i.e. the SECI knowledge conversion processes) [24]: socialization (tacit to tacit), externalization (tacit to explicit), combination (explicit to explicit), and internalization (explicit to tacit). Hendriks [2] argues that, in order to share knowledge among multiple parties, it is necessary to perform an act of reconstruction, in which knowledge owners consciously communicate their knowledge in some form, while knowledge receivers do their best to understand that knowledge by using their own knowledge. This knowledge reconstruction process can be facilitated by effective interpersonal interactions [25]. To conclude, the core of KS is the perception that knowledge must continuously move throughout a group/organization by utilizing a diverse set of social and technical systems and processes that encourage and facilitate interactions among individuals so that the knowledge can be accumulated, reused, and recombined in order to generate potential benefits [12, 26, 27].

2.2. KS practices in NPD projects with changes in scope

A project is the combination of a series of activities or tasks that has the following features: (a) a specific objective (scope) to be completed within certain specifications (requirements); (b) defined start and end dates; and (c) the consumption and/or the utilization of resources [28]. Projects are challenging to plan and manage because their conditions and performance change over time as a result of environmental turbulence [29]. NPD projects have drawn significant attention from researchers and in this study NPD is defined as the complete process of bringing a new product from idea to market [30].

Competitive forces, such as intense global competition, demanding markets, and diverse and rapidly changing technologies, have caused organizations to undertake effective change management practices in their NPD projects in order to achieve the desired project performance [31]. It is indicated in the literature that very few NPD projects succeed because of the dynamic nature of key success factors, including time, cost, quality, and, in particular, scope [32]. For example, changes in project scope often lead to significant schedule and/or cost overruns as a result of unexpected reworks and additional tasks, redesign of work processes, or re-allocation of resources [33, 34]. Rodrigues et al. [32] further note that changes in NPD project scope tend to increase the volume and complexity of tasks, leading to insufficiencies related to project staffing. This, in turn, causes a significant decrease in work quality, and thus leads to the occurrence of reworks in the project execution process. Additionally, as changes in scope often occur during the course of NPD projects, and have significant impact on their progress, a number of researchers have conducted and/or called for research that aims to explore and examine issues related to effective change management during this process [e.g. 29, 32, 35]. For example, Eden et al. [36] argue that the efforts made by a project team to ensure that the project clients have sufficient knowledge of the related industry, such as well established knowledge banks accessible to the clients and appropriate knowledge sharing/communications activities with clients, can lead to client appreciation of the disruptions caused by changes in project scope, and thus mitigate their negative impact on project performance.

There is a significant body of studies related to KS in the context of project management, and there is a consensus that individual team members do not have all of the knowledge a project requires, and must therefore acquire the knowledge needed in order to accomplish their work. Koskinen [37] and Hong et al. [38] both point out that a great deal of the know-how required to achieve a successful project is tied to knowledge that is difficult, if not impossible, to present in an explicit format, but can be realized through the interactions between knowledge owners and seekers. Ruuska and Vartiainen [39] identify two primary challenges related to KS practices in a project management context. One is that projects are often dispersed and peers have to collaborate at a distance from each other; another is that project teams are temporary, and a lot of the knowledge learned may be lost when the team disbands. It is thus important to develop effective means to facilitate interpersonal communication among project team members, such as the development of a team atmosphere that encourages KS practices [40].

Studies that focus on investigating KS in NPD project teams have been conducted based on various perspectives, such as action research [37] and the communication/networking [41 –43] and risk management views [44]. For example, from a social capital perspective, Bakker et al. [45] indicate that team membership, instead of trust, is the critical element of social capital that has the largest effect on the density of the KS relationships of project team members, particularly for individuals who belong to longer-lasting teams. Richtner and Ahlstrom [46] find that reduced possibility of change in project scope can facilitate sharing processes inside NPD projects, with a focus on explicit rather than tacit knowledge. Tukel et al. [47] indicate that much valuable NPD-related knowledge acquired from previous NPD projects, particularly knowledge which is left over from incomplete or failed NPD projects, tends to be lost gradually if not appropriately managed. They thus emphasize the importance of the development of knowledge banks for facilitating KS and increasing the salvage value of the knowledge created. While the literature emphasizes the important role of KS in supporting the successful execution of NPD projects, there are few empirical or theoretical studies that investigate factors influencing the execution of projects undergoing unexpected changes in scope using a contingency approach.

2.3. The contingency approach

The contingency approach has been widely adopted in various areas of management literature and has been an underlying theme for theory building [48]. This approach emphasizes the importance of choosing the most suitable management systems by taking into consideration critical contingency factors, including corporate strategy, structures, and culture [49]. To elaborate on this argument, it is worth noting that the essential premise of the contingency approach is that effectiveness, which can be broadly defined as organizational adaptation and survival, can be achieved in more than one way, which implies that universal principles for management excellence may not exist [50]. Zeithaml et al. [51] argue that effectiveness depends on the appropriate matching of contingency factors with internal organizational structures that enable appropriate responses to uncertainty and changes in the environment, and suggest three steps for theory building using the contingency approach, as follows:

identifying important contingency factors that distinguish between contexts;

grouping similar contexts based on the identified contingency factors;

determining the most effective organizational designs or responses in each major group.

Zeithaml et al. [51] also indicate that the theory-building steps of the contingency approach involve contingency, response, and performance variables. Contingency variables are situational characteristics that are often exogenous to the focal entities, such as organizations, departments, and teams. The control and manipulation of these tend to be limited and indirect, and the key is to identify the contingency factors which explain the greatest variance in performance variables. Response variables are the managerial actions taken in response to the current or anticipated statuses of the contingency variables (e.g. KS mechanisms). Performance variables are dependent measures that represent specific aspects of effectiveness, such as employee productivity, project completion time, and product quality in the case of NPD projects.

Although, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this approach is not very common in the literature on the management of NPD projects, it is essential in terms of building understanding KS practices in the context of such projects. This study thus adopts a contingency approach in order to explore the dynamics of KS practices in NPD projects undergoing changes in scope by identifying and taking into account the critical contingency factors.

3. Research methodology

3.1. Research design

The research subjects of this study were two research-oriented departments at two organizations, which operated on a project basis to develop new products. Thus, in this study the unit of analysis was the NPD project team, and the in-depth case study method was adopted with reference to the logic of the grounded theory [52]. Grounded theory is an inductive method that enables researchers to develop a theoretical account of the important issues/phenomena related to the topic of interest, while simultaneously grounding these issues/phenomena on empirical observations or data. The quality of the case study carried out in this work was examined from three perspectives: construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability [53], which will be addressed in the subsequent discussions.

This study used a step-by-step process recommended by previous studies [e.g. 54, 55]. The first step was to identify the key contingency factors and the KS mechanisms used by project teams by reviewing the existing literature on relevant domains, such as project management, KS, and group learning. The second step was to carry out a case analysis of two research-based departments (Departments A and B). The first aim here was to further evaluate the suitability of the identified contingency factors and the KS mechanisms, and then to group and modify them as necessary based on the results of the analysis. Then, the relationships between the identified contingency factors and the KS mechanisms were investigated and then summarized in the form of theoretical propositions.

Table 2 summarizes the profiles of these two departments, and the Appendix presents more detailed descriptions of them both. These departments were selected for the following reasons. First, they share a sufficient degree of similarity in terms of average team size and project duration. Additionally, the two departments were conducting research related to environmental protection and renewable/biomass energy generating technologies, and their project teams tended to function in similar business environments and to confront similar difficulties when executing research projects. To conclude, the cases used in this research share a considerable degree of commonality, and thus it is likely that by studying them it will be possible to draw consistent and insightful conclusions related to the research topic.

Table 2.

Summary of the department profiles

Department	Primary professional domain	Average project duration	Number of staff	Average size of a project team
A	Biochemistry-based environmental protection and energy generation technologies; health supplements	12 months	133	10–20
B	Green energy technologies; environmental protection research	12 months	146	20–30

3.2. Data collection

To ensure the construct validity of this study [53], three procedures were conducted. First, data was collected from multiple sources for the purpose of carrying out triangulation [56, 57]. The data sources were as follows: (a) data from 17 semi-structured, face-to-face personal interviews with executives, middle-level managers, and employees with non-managerial positions, each lasting 40–120 minutes (see Table 3); and (b) documents from the participating organizations, including memos, personal notes, work logs, and meeting minutes. A set of pseudonyms were selected for all the primary and secondary subjects to ensure confidentiality. Second, before the data collection process officially began, the sample interview questions, data collection protocols, and data analysis techniques to be used were sent to a number of academics and practitioners with expertise relevant to this study for their evaluation. Finally, three pilot interviews with two key informants were conducted in order to further validate the interview instruments.

Table 3.

Details of interviewees

Department^a	Managers	Middle-level managers	Employees	Total
Pilot interview (three interviews)^b
Department A	1 (interviewed twice)	0	0	2
Department B	0	1	0	1
Total:	2	1	0	3
Official interview (17 interviews)^c
Department A	1	3	4	8
Department B	2	2	5	9
Total:	3	5	9	17
Follow-up interview (three interviews)^d
Department A	1 (interviewed twice)	0	0	2
Department B	0	1	0	1
Total:	2	1	0	3

In both Departments A and B, only managers and middle-level managers (e.g., assistant managers and section supervisors) are eligible to be designated as a project leader.

Manager α of Department A was interviewed twice for the pilot test of the interview instruments. Neither of the interviewees in the pilot interviews were interviewed again in the subsequent official and follow-up interviews.

Each of all the interviewees in the official interviews was interviewed only once.

Manager β of Department A and assistant manager γ of Department B, who were interviewed during the official interview process, were asked and agreed to serve as reviewers of the drafts of the research results, and manager β was interviewed twice about this.

With regard to the reliability of this study, two procedures were conducted [53]. One was that a case study protocol, which described the research purpose, interview questions, and guidelines to be followed by the researchers, was developed and used to guide the entire data collection process. The other was that a research database was built and constantly maintained to systematically store and process the research materials, including the research protocol, records of data collection process, raw data, coding scheme, and data codes, for future auditing purposes.

3.3. Data analysis

This study adopts the grounded theory approach [52], which can be summarized by the following five characteristics. First, the researchers engaged in data analysis while collecting data. This practice allowed the researchers to gradually adjust the orientation of their data collection procedures based on their improving understanding of the research topic, which made the collected data become more focused. Second, the two-stage method of analytic coding [58] was adopted for the data coding process. In the first stage of initial coding, the data collected was examined line by line in order to identify statements that were related to the study. When initial coding was completed, the second stage of focused coding began, in which the codes were sorted and categorized based on their conceptual similarities. During the process of sorting and categorizing codes, those that were considered irrelevant or relatively less productive were discarded. The remaining codes were then re-examined and their concepts were further elaborated for future analysis.

Third, the researchers used an inductive method in order to identify and develop theoretical reasoning for the critical themes relevant to the research topic, while simultaneously grounding this reasoning in empirical observations or data. These themes were then further analysed using the technique of pattern matching in order to ensure internal validity [53]. The fundamental logic of this technique is to compare an empirically-based pattern or a rival pattern with one or multiple-predicted patterns [59]. If the patterns are identical, the internal validity of the case study is strengthened. If there are two potential patterns, the task is to first determine whether the data matches one pattern better than the other, and then to appropriately explain and organize what was observed from the collected data. Fourth, the external validity of this study was ensured by the use of multiple case studies and cross-case comparisons. Specifically, the themes related to the project teams in two departments were examined by treating each team as a separate case. Findings across different cases in this study were then compared in order to determine whether they shared similar characteristics. The question of how and why these cases were similar or different from one another was examined by identifying the dominant intervening factors and investigating their interactions with the case characteristics. Finally, the overall validity of the research results, which were presented in the form of theoretical propositions, was checked and verified by the research participants through three follow-up interviews.

4. Research results

4.1. Initial findings

Results acquired from the two research steps identified multiple ways through which knowledge was shared among individuals in NPD projects, and these were categorized into three main KS mechanisms, as follows: communities of practice, documentation, and mentoring systems (see Table 4). Additionally, multiple factors that influenced KS practices were found and grouped into three key contingency factors, as follows: knowledge categorization and indexing, management style, and level of task complexity (see Table 5).

Table 4.

KS mechanisms used in NPD projects

KS mechanisms	Definition and supporting literature	Supporting evidence from the empirical data
Communities of practice	Formal or informal groups where individuals come together for common purposes or interests and share information and knowledge with one another [8, 60 –63].	“A list of external supporting groups and their contact information shall be specified and announced on the designated web pages on the department’s web site.” [Source: Handbook of Research Project Management of Department A] “To improve our competence, four training sessions were held, in which instructors were Professors X and Y from TK University who used to work with us on a number of research projects.” [Source: Minutes of the annual review meeting of Department B]
Documentation	A set of activities for transforming, coding, and preserving the expertise of employees in various forms for future reference and reuse by other employees [8, 64, 65].	This is supported by the various paper and digital documents acquired by the researchers regarding the operations of the two departments, including the Technical Guide of Employee Management, Change Management Handbook, and Essentials of Internal Inspection and Auditing.
Mentoring systems	A mechanism in which a mentor (an individual who is relatively experienced) conducts a set of activities for a mentee (an individual who is relatively inexperienced), in which the mentor monitors and coaches the mentee’s practice [8, 15, 66].	“The functioning of the apprenticeship is important to coordinate efforts and pass along valuable information and experience.” [Source: Presentation handouts of the annual review meeting of an assistant manager of Department B] “Every new employee is assigned to a senior employee who will be responsible for acquainting the new employee with the details of his or her work.“ [Source: Minutes of the annual review meeting of Department B]

Table 5.

The contingency factors influencing KS practices in NPD projects

Contingency factor	Supporting arguments from literature	Supporting evidence from the empirical data
Knowledge categorization and indexing	Effective KM in project-based organizations involves interventions which reflect various ways of appropriately embedding knowledge within organizational information systems and processes, and avoiding knowledge fragmentation and loss [67]. To perform successful KS practices, it is critical to focus not only on the acquisition of knowledge but also on the search within it [68]. Better indexing of knowledge enables effective searching for the knowledge needed, and hence drives the success of NPD projects [69].	“Project teams shall establish and maintain procedures for the preservation and identification of all the project execution records, as well as the results of audits and reviews … Records shall be stored and maintained in such a way that they are readily retrievable.” [Source: Handbook of Research Project Management of Department A] “Documents related to the changes in projects shall be reviewed, updated, sorted, and stored within reasonable time period, and then be distributed to interested parties.” [Source: Technical Guide of Change Management of Department B]
Management style	Teams with better communication (i.e. KS ability) are more likely to have better project performance, and thus organizations may benefit from creating contexts that encourage such communication [70]. There exists a significant relationship between leadership style and the organizational climate that may encourage or discourage interpersonal communications among project team members for sharing tacit knowledge [71 –73]. Project team members who exhibit different attitudes and behaviours regarding interpersonal coordination (i.e. KS) have different preferences for management styles [74, 75].	“Managers and supervisors shall put special efforts into monitoring and evaluating the performance of employee training … It is important that managers shall proactively ask the subordinates to attend specific training programs that focus on up-to-date technologies and skills in order to keep up with the progress of the industry.” [Source: Technical Guide of Employee Management of Department B] “All those with management responsibilities shall demonstrate their commitment to the determination and the continuous improvement of the competence of their subordinates in terms of educational backgrounds, training, and work-related experience.” [Source: Occupational Health & Safety Assessment Series of Department A]
Level of task complexity	A higher degree of complexity has the potential to create a situation where KS is hampered [40]. The complex nature of modern products requires that members of NPD projects work together and share knowledge in order to enhance project performance [45]. Changes in scope would result in loss of competence (e.g. skills and knowledge) of project staff due to decreasing human interactions [32]. For complex projects, sharing of knowledge from multiple technical and functional domains is necessary and tends to be time-consuming [38].	“Are communication procedures/channels for receiving, recording, reviewing, and responding to messages acquired from both internal and external interested parties established and enforced persistently?” [Source: Essentials of Internal Inspection and Auditing of Department A] “Details and potential risks of the changes in projects, and the criteria for evaluating project performance shall be specified… interested parties/stakeholders shall be identified and be consulted based on the types, features, and complexities of the changes in projects to minimize the potential risks before executing the amended projects.” [Source: Technical Guide of Change Management of Department B]

The research results confirmed that the use of these KS mechanisms had a considerable influence on project performance. This was manifested in the data by the improving productivity of project staff, the on-time project completion, and the successful development of new products. Building on the cases analysed in research step three, the role of KS mechanisms used in the NPD projects was explored by examining their relationships with the identified contingency factors and project performance indicators. To take into consideration the sharing of both tacit and explicit knowledge, the conceptualization of the use of the identified KS mechanisms is grounded on the definition of the well known SECI (i.e. socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization) knowledge conversion processes [19, 24] introduced previously in this work.

4.2. Knowledge categorization and indexing

Organizing knowledge (e.g. grouping, indexing, and establishing associations with appropriate, context-specific keywords) to make it more easily accessible by people who need to use it is an important KM task. At the individual level, although the task of knowledge categorization and indexing mostly requires sophisticated techniques, users can contribute to this by using tools that allow them to represent and index any sets of knowledge at the level of precision they desire [76]. However, academics have argued that the key to this task lies at the organizational level, and proposed a variety of principles for categorizing knowledge [77, 78].

Documentation, particularly that distributed by various information technologies, such as websites, information systems, and discussion boards [64], is believed to surpass other methods and media in the speed of transferring/sharing knowledge [8]. Both Departments A and B use a KM system (KMS) for managing the documents of previous projects. As presented in Table 6, the data indicate that rigorous documentation practices benefited both departments beyond simply enabling the effective identification and retrieval of the knowledge needed, as they also encouraged employees to transform their tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (i.e. knowledge externalization) for preservation and reuse. A manager of Department A stated:

We have a standardized protocol for processing documents related to this kind of project … Mostly we ask senior employees to teach the junior employees. It is like the relationship of master and apprentice … They work together to help each other to speak out and discuss their know-how, and then turn it into documents to be stored in the KMS … we do use the knowledge we learned from previous experience to make the way we do things more effective.

Table 6.

Summary of knowledge categorization and indexing and documentation practices in the case sites

Key theme	Department A	Department B	Relationship to KS
Official, standardized protocols for processing documents related to projects	Official and well established protocols were developed and strictly used for storing documents/knowledge using the KMS.	Official protocols were developed and strictly used for storing documents/knowledge using the KMS.	These protocols facilitated the transformation of tacit knowledge into various forms of explicit knowledge (i.e. documentation).
Knowledge categorization and indexing practices for managing documentation	Official and well established protocols were developed and strictly used for categorizing and indexing documents/knowledge using the KMS.	There were no well-organized protocols for performing knowledge categorizing and indexing. The use of the KMS for this task was voluntary and loosely regulated.	Effective knowledge categorization and indexing practices not only enabled efficient identification and retrieval of the knowledge needed, but also facilitated the discovery of genuine knowledge gaps.
Applications of the knowledge stored to facilitating employee learning	Collaborative technologies in the KMS, including internal online discussion forums, online instruction programmes, and collaborative knowledge retrieval functions, were used to facilitate interpersonal and human–machine interactions for sharing and distributing the knowledge stored.	The knowledge stored was constantly used as the basis for designing employee training programmes. Basic knowledge retrieval functions were available in the KMS for knowledge search.	The discovery of genuine knowledge gaps often occurred as a result of the knowledge sharing activities and the design processes of training programmes.
Slackness in performing documentation due to the deteriorated work conditions caused by changes in project scope	Reduced efforts to perform documentation were observed. Alternative actions were taken to mitigate the negative impact of this.	Reduced efforts to perform documentation were observed.	Important tacit knowledge might not be articulated into forms of explicit knowledge (i.e. documentation). Genuine knowledge gaps might develop.
Slackness in performing knowledge categorization and indexing due to the deteriorated work conditions caused by changes in project scope	Reduced efforts to perform knowledge categorization and indexing were observed. Alternative actions were taken to mitigate the negative impact of this.	Almost no efforts were made to perform knowledge categorization and indexing.	The identification and retrieval of the knowledge needed might become more difficult. Project team members’ perceptions of pseudo knowledge gaps might develop.

Additionally, most informants in both departments indicated that effective knowledge categorization and indexing practices, along with thorough documentation, would benefit them in various ways beyond the conventional benefits of the effective identification, retrieval and distribution of the critical knowledge. A noteworthy benefit of knowledge categorization and indexing is its usefulness in facilitating the arrangement and integration of the explicit knowledge (e.g. documents and logs of online forums) in the KMS into more sophisticated sets of domain-specific knowledge and electronic instruction programmes (i.e. knowledge combination) for employee learning, which can then enable individuals to identify knowledge gaps. An assistant manager of Department A, who served as the knowledge ambassador to oversee and facilitate KM-related tasks in his unit, commented:

The appropriate ordering of the knowledge documents and the content of people’s discussions on the online forums in our KMS is very important to the identification of knowledge gaps caused by insufficient efforts to turn people’s experience into explicit knowledge documents … knowing what knowledge documents are missing regarding a particular area is a good sign of a knowledge gap … We need to train people to do this, since knowledge that is purposely organized will offer more values to us.

In the case of Department A, changes in project scope were usually demanded by the key shareholders, particularly those of the state-owned shares, due to market conditions and public opinion. This would result in extreme time pressure and potential financial losses. This increased time pressure was mainly responsible for the staff making less effort with regard to performing the necessary documentation tasks. Thus, to keep the process of documentation and knowledge categorization and indexing going smoothly, even when the project team members were under extreme pressure because of the changes in project scope, the management of Department A hired part-time assistants, who were mostly graduate students majoring in relevant areas at the local universities with which Department A had associations. Additionally, in the case of Department B, changes in project scope were common in the projects from private companies for reasons related to technical problems, market competition, and changes in the decision making authorities of the client companies. During the course of a project that encountered changes in scope, the resulting new work and rework tended to keep the team members more occupied than usual. This in turn led to significant time lags, both in developing related documents and in categorizing these documents for knowledge sharing purposes, especially the latter (see Table 6).

The reduced efforts in these KS-related tasks caused problems for both Departments A and B regarding the preservation of critical knowledge and the identification and elimination of knowledge gaps. This resulted in further problems in terms of facilitating effective learning activities. As another assistant manager of Department A stated:

The information was messy and there was too much in the KMS. Sometimes our colleagues, particularly those relatively young and in-experienced ones, cannot figure out what kinds of documents in the KMS they should look for when having problems at work, and absorbing the knowledge needed in order to solve their problems in time is almost impossible … it is like a fake knowledge gap caused by the inappropriate location of the knowledge documents.

Additionally, without convenient access to important documents, employee training programmes might not develop appropriately, since the programme coordinators would have problems determining what new subjects to include, who would be an appropriate instructor, and what teaching materials should be offered in order to close the identified knowledge gaps. A manager in Department B stated:

What I considered a failure is that most people simply upload the documents they are required to upload to our online knowledge repository in the KMS, without thinking about what “knowledge gaps” we have and then what documents needed to be created and shared … Systematic organization of the documents uploaded is also a neglected issue. Everyone has to realize that the knowledge can only be accessed easily and be useful to people who need it if the documents are properly organized … All these actions can help us do an iterative ‘knowledge needs assessment’ process that will let us know what knowledge needs to be recorded and shared, who has it, and who should be trained to understand it.

In summary, when encountering changes in project scope, a decrease in the efforts devoted to documentation diminishes the effectiveness of externalizing individuals’ tacit knowledge for preservation and future reuse. Additionally, a decrease in efforts to follow knowledge categorization and indexing practices makes it more difficult for project teams to identify genuine knowledge gaps and then to determine what knowledge needs to be acquired or created in order to work more effectively. Based on this discussion, the following propositions are developed:

P1. The effective documentation practices of a project team undergoing changes in project scope positively impact the effectiveness of preserving critical knowledge via the performance of the KS mechanism of externalization (tacit to explicit).

P2. The effective knowledge categorization and indexing practices of a project team undergoing changes in project scope positively impact the effectiveness of discovering knowledge gaps via the use of documentation for performing the KS mechanism of combination (explicit to explicit).

4.3. Management style

Management style is defined as the practices adopted by leaders in decision making, as well as the management of information, knowledge, social relationships, motivation, and subordinates [79]. Management style influences the level of delegation, the manner of decision making (in terms of time required and the approach used), and the control of activities [80]. Bossink [81] indicates that a manager’s performance of an innovative leadership style is successful when it is combined with KM. There have thus been several studies that point out the need to further explore the relationship between management style and KS practices in a context of project management [e.g. 38, 70, 81, 82].

To conceptualize the management styles of Departments A and B, this study adopted the framework proposed by Likert [83] that identifies and categorizes the management styles based on six operating characteristics. By using this, it was found that Department A implemented an autocratic management style, in that the attitude of the management tended to be strong, decisive, and firm but fair, and was protective and generous to loyal subordinates. Additionally, Department B was found to implement a consultative management style, with the attitude of the management tending to be egalitarian and influenced by subordinates in matters related to the tasks. Using a consultative management style, managers also used their authority to get the resources needed to accomplish the jobs on hand. This was evident by a number of observations made of these two departments, as illustrated in Table 7.

Table 7.

Management styles of Departments A and B

Character of management style	Department A	Departments B	Relationship to KS
Motivational forces	Financial rewards and improvement in personal work-related status motivated individuals the most. Occasionally some administrative punishments were involved.	Financial rewards motivated individuals the most. Other motives, such as a desire to pursue personal growth and excellence in particular areas, also played an important role. Individuals generally committed themselves to achieving collective project goals.	Department A: Employees performed KS behaviours mostly for self-interest and avoided helping others with whom they were competing. Department B: Employees performed reciprocal KS behaviours to achieve overall growth of the team.
Communication process	The amount of communication was little, with most being downward. Additionally, the upward and sideward communication that team members performed was mostly initiated/demanded by their supervisors.	There existed frequent horizontal communication among members of project teams. Vertical communication initiated or triggered mostly by the subordinates occurred occasionally. The relationships between project leaders and members were fairly close.	Department A: The sharing of information and knowledge was mostly via formal group gatherings. Department B: Informal interpersonal interactions for KS across hierarchical levels were common.
Interaction-influence process	The amount of cooperative work between individuals was very little. Project team members generally had no influence on project leaders’ decisions regarding the goals and methods used in the projects.	There existed a moderate amount of cooperative work between individuals. Project team members had a considerable influence on project leaders’ decisions regarding the goals and methods used in the projects.	Department A: Employees were not motivated to voluntarily share their knowledge. Department B: Informal interpersonal interactions for KS and collaboration across hierarchical levels were common.
Decision-making process	Project leaders tended to be decisive and authoritative in situations which involved a great deal of uncertainty, such as deciding how to respond to the clients’ requests for changing the project scope. The team members complied with these decisions mostly out of respect for the superior hierarchical position of the project leaders.	Decisions regarding a project tended to be made by the team leader by synthesizing his or her perceptions with the opinions of the team members. The team members complied with these decisions mostly out of their confidence in and respect for the team leader’s expertise in the relevant areas.	Department A: Downward communication via formal group gatherings dominated KS. Employees considered it unnecessary to voluntarily contribute knowledge to their peers. Department B: Employees were likely to voluntarily share knowledge with each other for the collective success of the team.
Goal-setting or ordering	Goal setting was primarily done by the project leaders based on a consensus with the clients. Objections for the team members might exist, but were usually ignored.	Acceptance of changes in project goals was mostly done by the project leaders after discussing with relevant team members.	Department A: Employees seldom voluntarily shared their knowledge with others. Department B: Multi-directional communications for KS were common.
Control process	Individuals with managerial positions were required to develop specific plans for supervising the progress of their subordinates, as well as to design and disclose the rules for rewarding or disciplining them if they did or did not fulfill the requirements regarding their tasks.	Project leaders mostly oversaw the problem-solving process, and constantly gave guidelines for doing things as they saw fit. Project team members also took responsibility at a lower level by monitoring the detailed performance of the methods used to carry out tasks.	Department A: Individuals relied on sharing knowledge in the form of documents (knowledge externalization). Department B: Individuals relied on sharing knowledge in the form of personal experience/expertise (knowledge socialization).

Interactions among individuals in physical and virtual professional communities can facilitate interpersonal knowledge transfer and transformation, which broaden their expertise [63]. Communities of practice have implications for project-based learning, as it is assumed that learning deepens as participants change their membership from more peripheral project roles to more central ones within a project community [84]. Haslam et al. [60] divide communities of practice into two categories of formal (e.g. participants in regular or ad hoc project meetings) and informal ones (e.g. informal discussion groups, study groups, and online communities).

It was found that Department A had a well established system for enforcing the functioning of formal communities of practice. This included weekly project progress meetings and regular quarterly workshops in which department managers and project leaders made decisions related to resource re-allocation, and the design and execution of training activities that allowed project staff to constantly update their knowledge related to their professional areas. The instructors of these training courses were mostly university professors or experts recruited from business partners. Additionally, the information gathered showed that both formal and informal communities of practice were functioning in Department B. The project teams held regular project progress meetings (i.e. formal communities of practice) twice a month. Additional meetings might be called when there was a change in project scope, although these were not preferred by most of the employees in Department B, who favoured undertaking KS via the use of informal communities of practice, such as informal meetings and personal social networks.

When encountering changes in project scope, the managerial personnel of Department A reinforced the autocratic management style in order to keep themselves on top of things. The managerial personnel intended to develop a set of overall strategic guidelines and goals (as the products of knowledge externalization processes) for their subordinates to perform their individual tasks. Vertical communications dominated the communication processes via the increased use of formal communities of practice in order to share the knowledge necessary for managers to make high-level strategic decisions, and then to accurately pass along these decisions to their subordinates. As an assistant manager of Department A stated:

Client requests for changes in project scope usually cause disturbances in our work, and the leader of the project team will hold additional project meetings … In these project meetings we are asked to extensively share our opinions and experience in order to develop a collective view of the project and alternative measures for dealing with the problems caused by the changes in project scope … the project leader will then decide what to do next in response to the client’s request … In this way, everyone knows exactly what to do and how to avoid disturbing other people’s work schedule by reducing error rates.

In contrast, the use of informal communities of practice is less obvious and less important in Department A, and changes in project scope further hampered the use of this KS mechanism. The autocratic management style of Department A made its employees accustomed to sharing knowledge vertically via formal communities of practice in order to impress their superiors for the purpose of gaining personal benefits or avoiding punishment. Horizontal communication with peers or business friends via informal communities of practice was considered less important and less productive, and thus was relatively limited. As a senior researcher of Department A mentioned:

We get used to sharing what we know with one another during the scheduled project progress meetings, since it saves time to talk about things when everyone is present. Besides, we can also let our bosses know clearly what we have been doing and what kinds of assistance we may need from them.

When encountering changes in project scope, the managerial personnel of Department B tended to shift from a consultative to an autocratic management style. The changes in scope created more pressure for the managerial personnel with regard to successfully implementing the project, which, in turn, resulted in a demand for better understanding and control of the progress of the project. The autocratic management style was thus adopted, which led to the more intensive use of formal communities of practice for facilitating vertical communication/knowledge sharing behaviours. For example, additional project meetings were usually held when changes in scope first occurred for the purpose of facilitating vertical communications. However, the subordinates perceived these additional meetings as unnecessary, unproductive, and a waste of time. As an engineer of Department B stated:

Although project meetings can be helpful sometimes since we can straighten things out and acquire some resources and assistance from our supervisors or colleagues, our progress can be delayed if these are held too frequently … we spend most of the time reporting what we have been doing to our bosses and waiting for them to issue their commands. There are plenty of more efficient ways than official meetings to do that … we usually tell our supervisors why we do not like to have too many meetings, and they tend to take our suggestions after a while, if we complain enough, and reduce the number of such meetings.

The above discussion indicates an unsuccessful shift from consultative to autocratic management style in Department B, as eventually the managerial personnel went back to using the former. The subordinates were then motivated by the concept of voluntarily pursuing self-improvement. This encouraged them to develop and maintain their informal communities of practice in order to efficiently acquire the knowledge needed to better resolve the difficulties they encountered at work via more effective vertical and horizontal communication and interactions with their peers, superiors, and friends working in similar professional areas. Additionally, horizontal communication in which employees shared their experience and expertise with their peers (i.e. knowledge socialization) was found to occur much more often than the vertical communication. An assistant manager of Department B recalled:

When encountering an unavoidable change in project scope, the project leader simply informs everyone of the news and encourages us to resolve our own problems associated with it … We don’t like a project meeting that takes too long, since it’s a waste of time and not productive … I simply contact the colleagues who may know what to do with the problems I cannot solve … I can run to their offices during regular office hours or their leisure time, such as lunch breaks, to talk to them personally, and instant messaging software and emails are also good ways to reach them … My team leader will ask me to do exactly the same thing anyway if I ask for his advice.

In summary, the above discussion highlights important implications of this study, as follows. One is that the management style of a project team may evolve in accordance with the shifting managerial concerns in response to unexpected changes in project scope. Additionally, different management styles have different foci that have different influences on individuals’ attitudes toward KS when encountering changes in project scope, and thus promote different methods for sharing knowledge. Based on the comparison of the two departments studied, it was observed that project teams that adopt a more autocratic oriented management style are more likely to use KS mechanisms that facilitate formal, vertical communication/interaction for knowledge externalization (tacit to explicit) in order to achieve consensus and control. In contrast, project teams that adopt a more consultative oriented management style tend to value KS mechanisms that promote informal, horizontal communication/interaction for knowledge socialization (tacit to tacit) in order to achieve self-improvement and collaborative problem-solving. This implies that organizations may adjust their strategies and support to encourage employees to engage in KS to enhance project performance with reference to the management style adopted. The following propositions are thus developed:

P3. Project leaders/managers who implement an autocratic management style tend to emphasize control over the project progress and maintaining team consensus when encountering changes in project scope, and thus promote the functioning of formal communities of practice that facilitate vertical communication for performing knowledge externalization.

P4. Project leaders/managers who implement a consultative management style tend to value voluntary self-improvement and interpersonal collaboration when encountering changes in project scope, and thus promote the functioning of informal communities of practice that facilitate horizontal communication for performing knowledge socialization.

4.4. Level of task complexity

Research indicates that changes in project scope tend to increase the level of task complexity [32], which refers to the extent to which operations must be performed upon data resources by the group in order to complete the task successfully [85]. When the project team members perceive tasks and requirements to be complex, it becomes difficult for them to understand what is expected from the project, and thus they require more communication activities/interactions for sharing information and knowledge in order to make sense of the surrounding environment and develop actionable understanding [86]. However, Roberts et al. [87] indicate that, the more complex a project is, the lower the overall level of interpersonal communication that takes place for sharing knowledge, because the team members require more time to concentrate on their individual tasks to develop solutions.

The results of the data analysis provide support for the phenomena reported in the literature (see Table 8). Both Departments A and B had mentoring systems functioning to facilitate KS, especially for sharing tacit knowledge by facilitating learning by doing. As a section supervisor of Department A stated:

There is a hierarchical mentoring system running in almost all the departments in our organization, and we count on this system to distribute the skills developed to those who are less experienced. As far as we know, it works quite well … The mentors constantly pass along what they have learned from field experiences to their individual mentees in order to help the latter improve their work efficiency and reduce errors.

Table 8.

Dynamics of the levels of task complexity of project teams undergoing changes in scope

Key theme	Department A	Department B	Relationship to KS
Use of mentoring systems	Official mentoring systems were strictly used.	Unofficial mentoring systems were used freely.	The aim of the mentoring systems was to pass along experience (tacit to tacit) via learning by doing.
Increase in the level of task complexity because of the changes in project scope	More issues had to be taken into consideration simultaneously, such as those related to budgets, technological development, and market competition.	Similar to what happened in Department A.	The demand for diverse kinds of knowledge from others usually increased. Mentoring systems tended to be ineffective in this occasion.
Impact of the increased level of task complexity on team members’ work conditions because of the changes in project scope	It resulted in lack of time, extra tasks, necessary reworks, and modifications of project plans and approaches.	Similar to what happened in Department A.	Increased time pressure led to a decrease in the efforts of team members to share knowledge via the mentoring systems.
Decreased level of communication via mentoring systems because of the changes in project scope	Selective knowledge transfer from the mentors to the mentees.	Passive knowledge sharing practices of the mentors in response to the questions/requests of the mentees.	It led to a decreased in the integrity/completeness of the critical knowledge transferred from the mentors to the mentees.

Nevertheless, the results indicated that when encountering changes in project scope, members of project teams were very likely to be forced to develop and then implement new approaches in order to successfully achieve the newly requested or amended project goals. These tasks tended to involve intensive trial-and-error processes for developing new methods and/or coordinating with previous accomplishments of the projects, while carefully taking into consideration the changes in the business environment, including budget adjustment, technological advancement, and dynamic market conditions. This might result in an increase in the level of task complexity. Consequently, a lack of time and less effort made by project team members would diminish the use of the mentoring systems, particularly due to the increased demands made on the mentors. As a section supervisor of Department B mentioned:

It takes time to teach and guide my mentees … time pressure tends to be heavier when the project’s scope changes based on the requests of the clients, and I am forced to just provide my mentee with some simple guidelines and then ask him try to learn the necessary skills through learning by doing and leave me alone to do my own work. However, sometimes the mentee just cannot pull it off on his own, and this usually results in an increase in work-related errors and unnecessary reworks.

The mentors thus usually prioritized what knowledge to share based on either their own judgments and/or questions from their mentees. However, unintentional loss of knowledge from the perspective of the mentees may occur during these ill-organized KS practices. The research results indicated that the mentors tended to decide to share the know-what and know-how knowledge first to deal with the most urgent problems on hand, and leave the know-why knowledge for later, which may then never be shared and be lost from the mentees’ standpoint. Being unable to acquire the complete version of a particular set of knowledge may keep the mentees from making the most of it. As an engineer of Department A stated:

My mentee has to ask the right questions in order to get useful answers from me … I just don’t have time to teach him something in great detail like teaching a fresh college student. On most occasions I briefly tell him what to do and how to do it fast to help him solve the problems on hand first, and save the fundamentals for later when I have more time to talk to him … There are no such things as standard procedures when doing jobs like ours. Without telling him the reasons why we do these things, he may not be able to improvise when things do not go as expected. This may cause him some trouble at work.

To conclude, changes in project scope result in an increase in the level of task complexity, which creates a context that may diminish the effectiveness of the mentoring systems for sharing tacit knowledge. The results show that the mentoring systems are the first KS mechanism that is discarded, since their benefits to the mentors are few and unclear, and they are unlikely to be sufficient or effective enough for a particular mentee in terms of acquiring all the knowledge needed under these circumstances. Based on this discussion, the relationship between mentoring systems and the level of task complexity of a project undergoing changes in scope is thus summarized in the following proposition:

P5. An increased level of task complexity caused by changes in project scope will negatively impact the effectiveness of the mentoring systems for performing the KS process of socialization (tacit to tacit) in terms of the integrity/completeness of the knowledge shared.

5. Conclusion

5.1. Implications for theory

This study intended to highlight the importance of performing effective KS practices during the process of NPD projects that encounter unexpected and/or disturbing changes in scope. The study explores the KS mechanisms used to share and use critical knowledge by conducting an in-depth case study of two research-based departments in two organizations. Additionally, this study investigates and summarizes the relationships among the identified KS mechanisms and key contingency factors in five theoretical propositions, which provide insights into planning better KS practices for managing NPD projects. The identification of key KS mechanisms and contingency factors in the research context and the theoretical propositions developed in this work also provide answers to the research questions.

The key implications for researchers of this study are twofold. One is that it specifically identifies the most commonly used KS mechanisms and the key contingency factors affecting the use of these in a specific and critical business context, namely the implementation of NPD projects with changes in project scope. As there have been very few studies that specifically examine issues related to KS in this context, the findings of the current work have advanced our understanding of KS within NPD project teams when encountering unexpected changes in project scope, and, in turn, can enable future researchers to further develop a programmed body of research on topics related to the use of KS mechanisms in various business contexts in which unexpected disturbances often occur. Additionally, this study examined the relationships among the KS mechanisms used and the key contingency factors that could affect their effectiveness with the results summarized in five theoretical propositions. These findings shed light on how the use of specific KS mechanisms can benefit an organization. Moreover, the results of this study also underline the importance of taking into consideration the influence of key contingency factors on the use of KS mechanisms when implementing KS practices in a specific business context. This study thus highlights the need to conduct further research on KS in various business contexts based on a contingency approach in order to enrich our understanding of the use of KS mechanisms.

5.2. Implications for practice

This study also provides insights for the managers of project-based organizations. First, it identifies the KS mechanisms that are used for sharing knowledge among knowledge owners and seekers for executing successful NPD projects. Second, it identifies the three contingency factors that affect the application of KS mechanisms in NPD projects. Finally, it depicts the relationships among these KS mechanisms and the contingency factors identified in NPD projects.

To be more specific, the usefulness of documentation in helping employees to handle projects with unexpected changes in scope seems to be contingent upon the effectiveness of the knowledge categorization and indexing practices used. Additionally, in the context of managing NPD projects encountering unexpected changes in scope, the adoption of an autocratic management style can promote the functioning of formal communities of practice, while the adoption of a consultative management style can promote the functioning of informal ones. Furthermore, it was found that unexpected changes in project scope resulted in an increased level of task complexity, and thus diminished the effectiveness of the mentoring systems in project teams for acquiring the complete knowledge needed to implement the projects. This finding can provide managers with guidelines for determining how and under what circumstances, in terms of the variations of the key contingency factors, the KS mechanisms identified in this work should be used in order to maximize the benefits they can generate to the organization in the indicated business context. To conclude, the findings of this study enable organizations to better examine their strengths and weaknesses in terms of the use of KS practices to better handle disruptions in their NPD projects, and then make appropriate strategic choices to match their KS efforts with their organizational contexts (e.g. the three contingency factors). This, in turn, can help them develop useful KS mechanisms to perform effective knowledge sharing practices, and thus facilitate the generation of effective ways to appropriately manage potential disturbances to future NPD projects.

5.3. Limitations and future research directions

Like all studies, this work has its limitations. First, since the research findings were generated based on the analysis of only two cases, the generalizability of the findings is debatable from the perspective of quantitative research. However, this study is believed to have contributed to the understanding of the use of KS mechanisms in NPD projects encountering changes in scope and their relationships with the identified contingency factors by achieving analytic generalization, namely the ability to allow others to use their experience to generalize the proposed theory to understand and conceptualize similar problems and social contexts, as should be possible through a rigorous case study research project [53]. However, since it is generally agreed that a large number of cases can strengthen findings and eventually achieve statistical generalization, further research should be conducted to address related issues and to validate the theoretical propositions outlined above.

Another limitation of this study is that, although the relationships between the KS mechanisms identified and the key contingency factors were investigated, these mechanisms were examined separately with a focus on their individual relationships with the key contingency factors. To compensate for this limitation, future research projects that specifically examine the interrelationships among these KS mechanisms in the process of NPD projects encountering changes in scope are strongly encouraged.

Footnotes

Appendix: Description of the contexts of the two participating organizations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the companies studied for providing valuable data. The authors also thank the Editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on this paper. This study was funded by the National Science Council, Taiwan (grant number: NSC99-2410-H-006-071-MY3).

References

Corso

Martini

Pellegrini

Massa

Testa

. Managing dispersed workers: the new challenge in knowledge management. Technovation 2006; 26: 583–594.

Hendriks

. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on motivation of knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management 1999; 6: 91–100.

Kulkarni

Ravindran

Freeze

. A knowledge management success model: Theoretical development and empirical validation. Journal of Management Information Systems 2006; 23: 309–347.

Lee

. The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information and Management 2001; 38: 323–335.

Dixon

. Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 2000, pp.17–30.

Fernie

Green

Weller

Newcombe

. Knowledge sharing: context, confusion and controversy. International Journal of Project Management 2003; 21: 177–187.

Chua

AYK

Lam

Majid

. Knowledge reuse in action: the case of CALL. Journal of Information Science 2006; 32: 251–260.

Davenport

Prusak

. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998, pp.162–178.

Senge

. Sharing knowledge. Executive Excellence 1998; 15: 11–12.

10.

Desouza

Awazu

. Constructing internal knowledge markets: considerations from mini cases. International Journal of Information Management 2003; 23: 345–353.

11.

Matson

Patiath

Shavers

. Stimulating knowledge sharing: Strengthening your organization’s internal knowledge market. Organizational Dynamics 2003; 32: 275–285.

12.

Gupta

Govindarajan

. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal 2000; 21: 473–496.

13.

Lin

Tan

Chang

. An exploratory model of knowledge flow barriers within healthcare organizations. Information and Management 2008; 45: 331–339.

14.

Santhanam

Seligman

Kang

. Postimplementation knowledge transfers to users and information technology professionals. Journal of Management Information Systems 2007; 24: 171–199.

15.

Swap

Leonard

Shields

Abrams

. Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplaces. Journal of Management Information Systems 2001; 18: 95–114.

16.

Wei

. What drives continued knowledge sharing? An investigation of knowledge-contribution and -seeking beliefs. Decision Support Systems 2009; 46: 826–838.

17.

Holtshouse

. Knowledge research issues. California Management Review 1998; 40: 277–280.

18.

Kim

Lee

. Knowledge strategic planning: methodology and case. Expert Systems with Applications 2003; 24: 295–307.

19.

Nonaka

Takeuchi

. The knowledge–creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp.95–160.

20.

Hsu

Yeh

. Fostering the determinants of knowledge transfer: a team-level analysis. Journal of Information Science 2007; 33: 326–339.

21.

Polanyi

. Personal knowledge: Towards a post–critical philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., 1958, pp.69–131.

22.

Polanyi

. The tacit dimension. Gloucester, MA: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966, pp.3–25.

23.

Nonaka

. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 1994; 5: 14–37.

24.

Nonaka

Toyama

Konno

. SECI, Ba, and leardership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning 2000; 33: 5–34.

25.

Baba

Gluesing

Ratner

Wagner

. The contexts of knowing: Natural history of a globally distributed team. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2004; 25: 547–587.

26.

Garud

Kumaraswamy

. Vicious and virtuous circles in the management of knowledge: The case of Infosys Technologies. MIS Quarterly 2005; 29: 9–33.

27.

Kim

Lee

. The impact of organizational context and information technology on employee knowledge-sharing capabilities. Public Administration Review 2006; 66: 370–385.

28.

Project Management Institute. A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute, Inc., 2004, pp.5–8.

29.

Lyneis

Ford

. System dynamics applied to project management: a survey, assessment, and directions for future research. System Dynamics Review 2007; 23: 157–189.

30.

Olson

Walker

Ruekert

Bonner

. Patterns of cooperation during new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: Implications for project performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2001; 18: 258–271.

31.

Wheelwright

Clark

. Revolutionizing product development: Quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1992, pp.175–187.

32.

Rodrigues

LLR

Dharmaraj

Rao

BRS

. System dynamics approach for change management in new product development. Management Research News 2006; 29: 512–523.

33.

Lee

Pena-Mora

. Understanding and managing iterative error and change cycles in construction. System Dynamics Review 2007; 23: 35–60.

34.

Park

Pena-Mora

. Dynamic change management for construction: introducing the change cycle into model–based project management. System Dynamics Review 2003; 19: 213–242.

35.

Mitchell

. Knowledge integration and information technology project performance. MIS Quarterly 2006; 30: 919–939.

36.

Eden

Williams

Ackermann

Howick

. The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society 2000; 51: 291–300.

37.

Koskinen

. Tacit knowledge as a promoter of project success. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 2000; 6: 41–47.

38.

Hong

Kim

Leem

. The effect of knowledge on system integration project performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 2008; 108: 385–404.

39.

Ruuska

Vartiainen

. Characteristics of knowledge sharing communities in project organizations. International Journal of Project Management 2005; 23: 374–379.

40.

Zarraga

Bonache

. The impact of team atmosphere on knowledge outcomes in self-managed teams. Organization Studies 2005; 26: 661–681.

41.

Adenfelt

. Exploring the performance of transnational projects: Shared knowledge, coordination and communication. International Journal of Project Management 2010; 28: 529–538.

42.

Akgun

Byrne

Keskin

Lynn

Imamoglu

. Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information and Management 2005; 42: 1105–1120.

43.

Peters

Fletcher

. Communication strategies and marketing performance: An application of the Mohr and Nevin framework to intra-organisational cross-functional teams. Journal of Marketing Management 2004; 20: 741–770.

44.

Regev

Shtub

Ben-Haim

. Managing project risks as knowledge gaps. Project Management Journal 2006; 37: 17–25.

45.

Bakker

Leenders

RThAJ

Gabbay

Kratzer

van Engelen

JML

. Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product development projects. Learning Organization 2006; 13: 594–605.

46.

Richtner

Ahlstrom

. Organizational slack and knowledge creation in product development projects: The role of project deliverables. Creativity and Innovation Management 2010; 19: 428–437.

47.

Tukel

Kremic

Rom

Miller

. Knowledge–salvage practices for dormant R&D projects. Project Management Journal 2011; 42: 59–72.

48.

Gioia

Pitre

. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. The Academy of Management Review 1990; 15: 584–602.

49.

Chenhall

. Management control systems design within its organizational context: findings from contingency-based research and directions for the future. Accounting, Organizations and Society 2003; 28: 127–168.

50.

Tosi

Jr Slocum

. Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of Management 1984; 10: 9–26.

51.

Zeithaml

Varadarajan

Zeithaml

. The contingency approach: Its foundations and relevance to theory building and research in marketing. European Journal of Marketing 1988; 22: 37–63.

52.

Corbin

Strauss

. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2008, pp.65–86.

53.

Yin

. Case study research: Design and methods. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2003, pp.33–147.

54.

Ahn

Lee

. Balancing business performance and knowledge performance of new product development: Lessons from ITS industry. Long Range Planning 2006; 39: 525–542.

55.

Maltz

Shenhar

Reilly

. Beyond the balanced scorecard: Refining the search for organizational success measures. Long Range Planning 2003; 36: 187–204.

56.

Lincoln

Guba

. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 1985, pp.332–356.

57.

Sieber

. The integration of fieldwork and survey methods. American Journal of Sociology 1973; 78: 1335–1359.

58.

Lofland

. Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. 3rd edn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995, pp.190–193.

59.

Trochim

. Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning 1989; 12: 355–366.

60.

Haslam

Eggins

Reynolds

. The ASPIRe model: Actualizing social and personal identity resources to enhance organizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 2003; 76: 83–113.

61.

Rothaermel

Sugiyama

. Virtual Internet communities and commercial success: Individual and community-level theory grounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.com. Journal of Management 2001; 27: 297–312.

62.

Wang

Belardo

. The role of knowledge management in achieving effective crisis management: a case study. Journal of Information Science 2009; 35: 635–659.

63.

Young

Tseng

. Interplay between physical and virtual settings for online interpersonal trust formation in knowledge–sharing practice. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2008; 11: 55–64.

64.

Grover

Davenport

. General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems 2001; 18: 5–21.

65.

Hansen

. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 1999; 44: 82–111.

66.

Canavan

Doherty

. Technical education in Scotland: Fit for purpose? International Journal of Technology and Design Education 2007; 17: 291–304.

67.

Bresnen

Edelman

Newell

Scarbrough

Swan

. Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management 2003; 21: 157–166.

68.

Jordan

Segelod

. Software innovativeness: outcomes on project performance, knowledge enhancement, and external linkages. R&D Management 2006; 36: 127–142.

69.

Jian

Gao

Wang

. A multi–agent based knowledge search framework to support the product development process. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 2010; 23: 237–247.

70.

Pons

. Project management for new product development. Project Management Journal 2008; 39: 82–97.

71.

Gillard

Johansen

. Project management communication: a systems approach. Journal of Information Science 2004; 30: 23–29.

72.

Johansen

Gillard

. Information resources project management communication: personal and environmental barriers. Journal of Information Science 2005; 31: 91–98.

73.

Nauman

Khan

Ehsan

. Patterns of empowerment and leadership style in project environment. International Journal of Project Management 2010; 28: 638–649.

74.

Turner

Muller

. The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: A literature review. Project Management Journal 2005; 36: 49–61.

75.

Turner

Ledwith

Kelly

. Project management in small to medium–sized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project Management 2010; 28: 744–755.

76.

Martin

Eklund

. Embedding knowledge in web documents. Computer Networks 1999; 31: 1403–1419.

77.

Kalpic

Bernus

. Business process modeling through the knowledge management perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management 2006; 10: 40–56.

78.

Rosa

Porac

. Categorization bases and their influence on product category knowledge structure. Psychology & Marketing 2002; 19: 503–532.

79.

Burton

Obel

. Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: The dynamics of fit. 3rd edn. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004, pp.87–125.

80.

Garengo

Bititci

. Towards a contingency approach to performance measurement: an empirical study in Scottish SMEs. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 2007; 27: 802–825.

81.

Bossink

BAG

. Leadership for sustainable innovation. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development 2007; 6: 135–149.

82.

Burgess

. What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit? Journal of Business Communication 2005; 42: 324–348.

83.

Likert

. The human organization: Its management and value. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967, pp.13–25.

84.

DeFillippi

. Introduction: project–based learning, reflective practices and learning outcomes. Management Learning 2001; 32: 5–10.

85.

Shaw

. Group dynamics: The psychology of small group behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1976, pp.308–324.

86.

Vlaar

PWL

van Fenema

Tiwari

. Cocreating understanding and value in distributed work: How members of onsite and offshore vendor teams give, make, demand, and break sense. MIS Quarterly 2008; 32: 227–255.

87.

Roberts

Cheney

Sweeney

Hightower

. The effects of information technology project complexity on group interaction. Journal of Management Information Systems 2004; 21: 223–247.