Knowledge retention in oil and gas industry – the case of contract workforce

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this article is to investigate how organization retain the knowledge of Contract Workforce (CWF) and to understand the associated challenges in this regard.Design/methodology/approachAdopting an inductive approach, 15 semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior managers, project heads and consultants working in leading oil and gas companies across eight countries (USA, Australia, UAE, KSA, Pakistan, UK, Thailand and Russia). Thematic analysis was carried out to analyze the data collected.FindingsCWF appears to be a significant source of knowledge attrition and even knowledge loss in the oil and gas sector. There are various risks associated with hiring of CWF, such as hallowing of organizational memory, repeated training of contractors, no knowledge base, workforce shortage among others which can impede the knowledge retention capability of O&G companies in the context of contract workforce. Various knowledge retention strategies for CWF have been revealed, however, there is interplay of various factors such as proportion of CWF deployed, proper resource utilization, cross-functional multi-level teams' involvement and strength of transactional ties. Maintaining strong relationships (Transactional ties) is crucial to maintain a virtual organizational memory (partial knowledge retention) and to follow a adopting a rehired when required policy.Originality/valueThe knowledge retention issue in the context of CWF has not be addressed in past researches. This article attempts to fill this gap.

Do you want to retain your relevant knowledge? The role of contextual factors in the banking sector

“…are considered critical. Banks rely on these areas for their growth and success and, thus, employees working in these areas are critical; supporting the findings of Sumbal et al (2021) that stressed that people with domain specific knowledge in organizations are (always) key. The findings are also in line with the findings of Durst et al (2018) regarding the importance of firm-specific knowledge.…”

“…Further empirical research on KR has led to more industry-specific work such as critical types of knowledge lost in various industries (e.g. Joe et al , 2013; Sumbal et al , 2020; Sumbal et al , 2018), knowledge risk assessment frameworks (Sumbal et al , 2020), cross-border mergers (Tseole and Ngulube, 2022) and KR in project-based organizations (Sumbal et al , 2021). In sum, existing literature on KR has mainly focused on: factors of knowledge loss and reasons to go for KR; strategies for KR; issues and challenges for KR; and finally, assessment of KR i.e.…”

“…As the issue of aging workforce and multigenerational workforce along with "war for talent" caught the attention of researchers, more empirical work was conducted in this domain proposing knowledge retention frameworks (Levy, 2011), strategies (Harvey, 2012;Daghfous et al, 2013, Massingham, 2014Bratianu and Leon, 2015;Durst and Bruns, 2016;Sumbal et al, 2017), organizational and behavioral factors (Martins and Meyers, 2012), and major challenges (Bessick & Naicker, 2013;Aggestam et al, 2014;Agarwal et al, 2015;Sumbal et al, 2017). Further empirical research on knowledge retention has led to more industry specific work such as critical types of knowledge lost in various industries (e.g., Joe et al, 2013;Sumbal et al, 2020;Sumbal et al, 2018), knowledge risk assessment frameworks (Sumbal et al, 2020); cross-border mergers (Tseole and Ngulube, 2022) and knowledge retention in project-based organizations (Sumbal et al, 2021) etc. In sum, existing literature on knowledge retention has mainly focused on, i) factors of knowledge loss and reasons to go for knowledge retention, ii) strategies for knowledge retention, iii) issues and challenges for knowledge retention, and finally, iv) assessment of knowledge retention i.e., knowing who to retain and why.…”

“…Consequently, existing literature emphasizes the need for organizations to identify who has what knowledge in the organization (Davenport and Prusak 1998;Durst and Wilhelm, 2011;Sumbal et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2022). And if the knowledge of an individual turns out to be critical for the development of the company, it should think about measures to retain this knowledge (Levy, 2011;Durst and Bruns, 2017;Sumbal et al, 2021). Failure to retain critical knowledge can result in knowledge leakage, knowledge attrition, or in the worst case knowledge loss (DeLong & Storey, 2004;Durst & Ferenhof, 2016); which can significantly impair organizational activities (Massingham, 2018).…”

Nexus of knowledge management and organizational performance: a cross-country study of China and Pakistan higher educational institutes

“…Hence, the background of KM processes is often seen as a specific culture and context (Iqbal et al, 2019, Sahibzada et al, 2020a, Sahibzada et al, 2020d, and various levels of country-based influence have been assigned to organizational performance through KM processes (Ahmed et al, 2021, Sahibzada et al, 2020b, Sahibzada et al, 2020d). Therefore, to determine KM processes, the country's specific context should be considered (Sumbal et al, 2021, Sahibzada et al, 2020b; for example, knowledge creation might not be applicable in certain developing countries' contexts in industries utilizing the existing knowledge through knowledge application and knowledge sharing (e.g., Ahmed et al, 2021). In addition, economies differ in terms of their economic circumstances, level of progress, environment, and background (Munir et al, 2019), which may cause differences in the strength of KM enabler(s), KM processes, KM satisfaction, and organizational performance relationships.…”