Managing projects with distributed and embedded knowledge through interactions

In project-based industries studies show difficulties in extracting, distributing and applying embedded and practice knowledge across structural and organisational boundaries. We focus on interorganisational projects consisting of distributed and embedded knowledge. Interaction becomes important in order to cooperate and share interorganisational and distributed knowledge. The aim of the research is to explore how sharing and generating practice based and distributed knowledge occurs through interaction in interorganisational projects and how this is managed. The study focuses on the design phase and relates traditional design practices to concurrent design practices. In the study we observed six cases of design meetings in the construction and oil and gas industry and performed 31 interviews. The paper contributes with the following: (1) understanding and visualisation of interaction patterns, (2) insight in use of various forms of interaction, and (3) ways of managing distributed and embedded knowledge through interaction.

[1]  Stephen R. Axley.  Managerial and Organizational Communication in Terms of the Conduit Metaphor , 1984 .

[2]  Sébastien Brion,et al.  Project leaders as boundary spanners: Relational antecedents and performance outcomes , 2012 .

[3]  Siu Loon Hoe,et al.  The boundary spanner's role in organizational learning: unleashing untapped potential , 2006 .

[4]  Juliana Sutanto,et al.  Facilitating Knowledge Sharing Through a Boundary Spanner , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[5]  Alexander Löfgren,et al.  EDITOR: B-C Björk , 2006 .

[6]  Petra M. Bosch-Sijtsema,et al.  Cooperative Innovation Projects: Capabilities and Governance Mechanisms* , 2009 .

[7]  Dennis W. Organ,et al.  Linking pins between organizations and environment: Individuals do the interacting , 1971 .

[8]  Davide Nicolini.  Studying visual practices in construction , 2007 .

[9]  Chimay J. Anumba,et al.  Assessing the suitability of current briefing practices in construction within a concurrent engineering framework , 2001 .

[10]  J. Whyte,et al.  Visual representations as ‘artefacts of knowing’ , 2007 .

[11]  Seonaidh McDonald,et al.  Studying actions in context: a qualitative shadowing method for organizational research , 2005 .

[12]  Anita Moum,et al.  Design team stories: Exploring interdisciplinary use of 3D object models in practice , 2010 .

[13]  Will Hughes,et al.  Building Design Management , 2001 .

[14]  Martin Fischer,et al.  Supporting the constructability review with 3D/4D models , 2007 .

[15]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[16]  H. Tsoukas.  The firm as a distributed knowledge system : A constructionist approach , 1996 .

[17]  Charlotte N. Gunawardena,et al.  Analysis of a Global Online Debate and the Development of an Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing , 1997 .

[18]  Ulrike Schultze,et al.  A Confessional Account of an Ethnography About Knowledge Work , 2000, MIS Q..

[19]  Emmanuelle Vaast,et al.  The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems , 2005, MIS Q..

[20]  Stephen J. Farenga,et al.  Teaching Observation: Gathering Baseline Data. , 2003 .

[21]  David A. Nembhard,et al.  Measuring knowledge worker productivity , 2004 .

[22]  G. Latham,et al.  Networking with boundary spanners , 2011 .

[23]  Jason Foley,et al.  Patterns of interaction in construction team meetings , 2005 .

[24]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infrastructures, and organisational identities: the introduction of 3D modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering, and construction industry , 2008, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[25]  John E. Taylor,et al.  Emergence and Role of Cultural Boundary Spanners in Global Engineering Project Networks , 2010 .

[26]  A. Prencipe,et al.  Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms , 2001 .

[27]  Donald Hislop,et al.  The effect of network size on intra-network knowledge processes , 2005 .

[28]  Per Erik Eriksson,et al.  Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: Development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies , 2013 .

[29]  M. Engwall.  No project is an island: linking projects to history and context , 2003 .

[30]  Jennifer Whyte,et al.  Professionalism in digitally mediated project work , 2013 .

[31]  Lawrence M. Wein,et al.  Economics of Product Development by Users: the Impact of Sticky Local Information , 1998 .

[32]  Mao-Lin Chiu,et al.  An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration , 2002 .

[33]  D. Gann,et al.  Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: the construction of complex products and systems , 2000 .

[34]  Derek Torrington,et al.  Letting go or holding on ‐ the devolution of operational personnel activities , 1998 .

[35]  T. Davenport,et al.  Improving Knowledge Work Processes , 1996 .

[36]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[37]  Petra M. Bosch-Sijtsema,et al.  The WALL: participatory design workplace supporting creativity, collaboration and socialization. , 2011 .

[38]  Pasi Pyöriä,et al.  The concept of knowledge work revisited , 2005, J. Knowl. Manag..

[39]  Thomas Froese,et al.  The impact of emerging information technology on project management for construction , 2010 .

[40]  A. Bakker,et al.  Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects , 2011 .

[41]  Ana Cristina Bicharra Garcia,et al.  Cifecenter for Integrated Facility Engineering Building a Project Ontology with Extreme Collaboration and Virtual Design & Construction Building a Project Ontology with Extreme Collaboration and Virtual Design and Construction , 2003 .

[42]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction , 2007, Organ. Sci..

[43]  Michael Murray,et al.  Communication in Construction: Theory and Practice , 2006 .

[44]  Michael J. Earl,et al.  Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy , 2001, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[45]  John Haymaker,et al.  Relationships Between Project Complexity and Communication , 2011 .

[46]  A. Dainty,et al.  Integrated project teams’ performance in managing unexpected change events , 1999 .

[47]  D. Denyer,et al.  Alternative Approaches for Studying Shared and Distributed Leadership , 2011 .

[48]  G. Currie,et al.  Inter-professional Barriers and Knowledge Brokering in an Organizational Context: The Case of Healthcare , 2012 .

[49]  Gabriel Szulanski.  Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm , 1996 .

[50]  Chimay J. Anumba,et al.  Organisational structures to support concurrent engineering in construction , 2002, Ind. Manag. Data Syst..

[51]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing , 2002, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[52]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Boundary Spanning Roles and Organization Structure , 1977 .

[53]  Petra Bosch-Sijtsema,et al.  The WALL: participatory design workspace in support of creativity, collaboration, and socialization , 2011, AI & SOCIETY.

[54]  Edward M. Reingold,et al.  Graph drawing by force‐directed placement , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[55]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[56]  Kathryn Henderson,et al.  Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering , 1991 .