Beyond the Body of Knowledge: A Knowledge-Flow Approach to Project Management Theory and Practice

Abstract

Much of the theory associated with project management is explicitly organized according to taxonomic bodies of knowledge (BOK). Although such BOK are conceptually simple and easily disseminated, their generally static and explicit nature is out of phase with the dynamics of critical, tacit knowledge as it flows through the project organization. In this paper, we argue for a more descriptive view of project management theory, one that captures the dynamics of knowledge flows, addresses tacit knowledge and provides new insight into interrelationships between the management of project knowledge and the management of project activities in the enterprise. Introducing a multidimensional model of knowledge flow to describe project management theory, we instantiate this model with a project example from the domain of software development.

Refining the classification of knowledge transfer mechanisms for project-to-project knowledge sharing

“…In order to find dimensions for knowledge transfer mechanisms, the original literature review also included a search on the characteristics of knowledge flow and the capability of transfer mechanisms to transfer knowledge of a specific knowledge characteristic. The literature review was able to identify a number of characteristic elements, namely, knowledge explicitness (Snider & Nissen 2003), knowledge richness (Boh 2007), knowledge stickiness (Cummings & Teng 2003), knowledge reach (Nissen 2007), knowledge flow time (Snider & Nissen 2003) and timeliness (Cummings & Teng 2003), knowledge formality (Boh & Wong 2013;Patriotta et al 2013) and knowledge distortion (Hansen 2002). As knowledge explicitness, richness and the stickiness characteristic element relate to each other these three are combined into a single element namely knowledge explicitness and together with the remaining four make up the five knowledge transfer mechanism characteristic dimension that will be used in this study and are discussed in the following sub-sections.…”

“…The two extremes of this continuum would be tacit knowledge on the one hand versus explicit knowledge on the other (Snider & Nissen 2003). According to Nonaka (2007), new knowledge is often tacit and always starts within the individual.…”

“…At the other end of the continuum explicit knowledge is found, which is formal and systematic and can be easily codified, communicated and shared. Typical examples include product specifications, operating procedures, instructions, scientific formula and computer programmes and databases (Nonaka 2007;Snider & Nissen 2003). Hansen et al (1999) maintained that firms can follow two knowledge management strategies, namely, a personalisation strategy (tacit knowledge closely tied to the individual that developed the knowledge) and a codification strategy (explicit knowledge codified and routinised and revolve around ICT-based technologies).…”

“…Snider and Nissen (2003) and Nonaka (1994) define four organisation-based aggregations of people, namely the individual, the work group, the organisation and the inter-organisation aggregation. In a more recent metaanalysis on research publications on the topic of knowledge brokering in project management, Holzmann (2013) identified four organisational levels across in which knowledge can flow, namely, the team, the project, the organisational level and industry.…”

“…slow moving), for the knowledge to move between these states and can vary by several orders of magnitude. To operationalise the flow time dimension, Snider and Nissen (2003) divided the flow time in a corresponding scale using highly-granular temporal markers, namely hours, days, months and years. The flow time dimensions can be used for categorising knowledge transfer mechanisms in the sense that certain mechanisms are more suited for quick and in-time transfer of knowledge, that is, face-to-face discussion and email, while other mechanisms are more suited for longer term transfer, that is, post project reviews and best practices.…”