Knowledge transfer across projects: Codification in creative, high-tech and engineering industries

Cacciatori, Eugenia; Tamoschus, David; Grabher, Gernot

doi:10.1177/1350507611426240

Cited by 47 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 102 publications

(137 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, the codification process may enhance explorative learning by further joint development of explorative ideas. The outcome of codification, such as manuals or a database for lessons learnt, provides for knowledge storage and transfer through learning by implementing and replicating (Prencipe and Tell, 2001;Cacciatori et al, 2011), which is related to exploitative learning (Brady and Davies, 2004).…”

Section: Organizational Learning Processes In Cops Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Exploration involves search, diversity, flexibility, experimentation and longterm innovation, whereas exploitation involves refinement, standardization, control, constraints and short-term efficiency (March, 1991;Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). For project-based organizations (PBOs), defining characteristics such as decentralization, short-term project focus, and interdependencies between project actors and their activities make it especially difficult to manage both explorative and exploitative learning (Cacciatori et al, 2011;Eriksson, 2013). While the unique, temporary and autonomous nature of projects is sometimes argued to facilitate explorative intra-project learning and innovation, these characteristics also hinder opportunities and motivation for exploitative learning across projects in the PBO (Hobday, 2000;Bakker et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations: improving knowledge governance through a project management office?

Eriksson¹,

Leiringer²

2015

Engineering Project Organization Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational learning, in terms of both explorative learning within projects and exploitative learning across projects, is of strategic importance for project-based organizations (PBOs) in industries involving production of complex product systems (CoPS). In this conceptual article, we discuss and reflect on how organizational learning may be addressed in PBOs by the establishment of formal knowledge governance mechanisms in a project management office (PMO). Prior literature on PMOs has discussed a broad and diverse range of PMO functions, without conceptually reflecting on their interdependencies. Here, we synthesize the literature into seven main functions. From an organizational learning perspective, we identify significant synergies among the functions of Developing and maintaining a lessonslearnt database, Developing and maintaining project management standards and methods, Consulting and education, and Strategic management. We reflect on how a PBO may establish a centralized PMO utilizing these four systemic learning-related functions as knowledge governance mechanisms, in order to facilitate explorative and exploitative learning through articulation and codification of knowledge. There are also synergies among the three remaining functions, project resource management, monitoring and control, and project portfolio management. These three functions are, however, control related and could be detrimental to place within a centralized PMO focusing on organizational learning.Keywords: Exploration and exploitation, organizational learning, project-based organizations managing both explorative intra-project learning and exploitative inter-project learning (e.g. Keegan and Turner, 2001;Brady and Davies, 2004) and it is on this literature that this article seeks to build.The challenge of managing exploration and exploitation is particularly relevant in PBOs involved in production of complex product systems (CoPS), such as offshore oil platforms, aeroplanes, shipbuilding, IT and mobile telephone systems, and large building and civil engineering projects (Hobday, 2000;Prencipe and Tell, 2001). In CoPS industries, innovation and explorative intra-project learning are critical aspects for developing and delivering complex and customized products that satisfy evolving customer demands. At the same time, exploitative inter-project learning is necessary to achieve efficient use of limited project resources. These kinds of projects, however, involve highly time-bound social interaction, discrete forms of non-repeatable activity, formal objectives and one-off tasks. They, thus, typically lack the strong ties, continued participation and common identities that characterize the communitybuilding effects found in localized, ongoing, and more routine work activities. Accordingly, project members often lack motivation for a retrospective analysis of their past experiences (von Zedtwitz, 2001), and have little incentive to transfer project learning to the parent organization (Swan et al., 2010; Javer-nick -Will, 2011). Indeed,...

show abstract

Section: Organizational Learning Processes In Cops Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations: improving knowledge governance through a project management office?

Eriksson¹,

Leiringer²

2015

Engineering Project Organization Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These realities dictate the extent to which it is technically possible to separate the final product or service into independent plug-and-play modules. Such technical issues are often the basis of the findings that different industries have different 'norms' regarding the extent of modularization (Cacciatori, Tamoschus, and Grabher, 2012).…”

Section: Modularization: Engineering Design and Firm Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Modularity and the Architecture of Multinational Firm

McDermott

Mudambi

Parente

2013

Global Strategy Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multinational enterprises (MNEs) are increasingly recognizing the importance of utilizing knowledge and capabilities from a wider innovation ecosystem beyond their corporate network of subsidiaries. In order to manage the complexity associated with setting up and running such international networks of practice, they devolve responsibility for significant activities to external agents. They accomplish this by designing or reengineering their products or services as modular subassemblies that can be parceled out to a network of partner organizations. The extent to which such modularization occurs varies depending on technical/engineering drivers and strategic considerations. It differs between process and product industries and varies depending on output variety, batch size, and the balance of bargaining power between supplier and buyers in the value chain. This ensures that the observed level of modularization varies across industries. However, we also observe that it varies across firms within industries. Depending on their capabilities, firms may implement a strategy leaning toward vertical integration and integration or specialization and modularization.

show abstract

“…In the backdrop of project-based industries exist latent network structures (Cacciatori, Tamoschus, & Grabher, 2011;DeFillippi & Arthur, 1998;Grabher, 2004;Jones & Lichtenstein, 2008). What is meant by latent networks is that, although projects are finite endeavours, PBFs tend to maintain relationships with other firms that span across multiple projects.…”

Section: Structural Constraintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, system integrator firms depend on enduring relationships between key partners and several specialist component suppliers that are repeatedly drawn upon in different combinations to support innovation activities in CoPS industries (Cacciatori et al, 2011;Hobday et al, 2005;Hobday, 2000).…”

Section: Study 3: Structural Embeddednessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel product innovation in project-based firms: explaining innovation where interdependent firms deliver complex system-level outcomes

Ford¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Project-based firms (PBFs) are an increasingly important firm type in today's projectdriven world. Over the next two decades, PBFs will transform nearly $60 trillion into complex product systems (CoPS) that comprise the communication, energy, and transportation infrastructure of our modern global economy. In the process, they will participate in a collective technological development process that is iterative, intensely interorganisational, and dominated by their participation in large industry projects. In this environment, PBFs will deliver components, subsystems, and CoPS, some being novel products that are new to the world. These are called CoPS-related novel products.However, the current understanding of how PBFs introduce CoPS-related novel products is lacking. In general, the existing innovation literature does not provide an adequate inter-organisational perspective, which is necessary to explain the development of new The CoPS innovation literature itself remains too focused on the role of large system integrators, and not on the broader network of firms that support innovation. This leaves unscrutinised rest of the 'project-based productive network' of firms delivering products (components, technologies, and subsystems) into the higher-level CoPS. Taken together, the current literature inadequately addresses many factors that are important to novel product innovation in PBFs. Therefore, the central research question this thesis aims to answer is: What factors facilitate PBFs' ability to introduce novel product innovations in environments where interdependent firms deliver complex system-level outcomes?Three specific challenges are imperative to understanding novel product introduction in PBFs. The first relates to the project-based nature of organising, which means that PBFs have contingent opportunities for novel product innovation, depending upon the circumstances of the projects they conduct. This is called the contingent opportunities problem. The second challenge is that PBFs have to ensure that their innovations are compatible with our technologies in their environment. This is called the technological interdependencies problem. The third challenge is that PBFs have enduring interorganisational commitments that extend across the projects they conduct. This is called the enduring relationships problem.ii Novel product innovation in project-based firms Three research studies were designed and conducted to address the three specific challenges. The research is based on survey data collected from PBFs in the Australian upstream oil and gas industry. Study 1 investigates capabilities that PBFs use to overcome the contingent opportunities problems. This study finds that firms use an adaptive problemsolving capability to recognise opportunities within projects, and are reliant on networking capabilities to bring about novel product innovations. Study 2 investigates how PBFs use both inbound and outbound non-pecuniary open innovation practices to resolve technological interdependencies. This stud...

show abstract

Knowledge transfer across projects: Codification in creative, high-tech and engineering industries

Cited by 47 publications

References 102 publications

Explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations: improving knowledge governance through a project management office?

Explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations: improving knowledge governance through a project management office?

Strategic Modularity and the Architecture of Multinational Firm

Novel product innovation in project-based firms: explaining innovation where interdependent firms deliver complex system-level outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About