Contextualising capability development: configurations of knowledge governance mechanisms in project-based organizations

Abstract

Given the project-based organization's (PBO) strong focus on autonomy and temporary decentralisation, it faces unique challenges with regard to longterm organisational learning and capability development. To address how PBOs cope with these challenges, we address the role of knowledge governance (KG) mechanisms to foster capability development. The present paper reports on a multiple case study comprising 23 PBOs and demonstrates the importance of 'configurations of KG mechanisms' for facilitating learning and capability development. This paper develops four distinct configurations (balanced, formalistic, interactive, and fragile) that promote three principal organisational-level learning processes: shifting, leveraging and adapting. This research underscores the close relationship between knowledge governance mechanisms and capability development and the importance of designing the appropriate configuration of KG mechanisms to foster capability development. ARTICLE HISTORY

Classification of inter-organizational knowledge mechanisms and their effects on networking capability: a multi-layer decision making approach

“…Based on the literature review, a few studies, which have classified IOKMs used a variety of methodologies. These methodologies can be divided into three categories such as review and conceptual studies (Chai and Yap, 2004;Spraggon and Bodolica, 2012), qualitative studies (Rebentisch and Ferretti, 1995;Almeida and Grant, 1998;Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000;Chai et al, 2003;Sako, 2004;Pemsel et al, 2018) and quantitative studies (Prevot, 2007;Distanont et al, 2012;Van Waveren et al, 2017). As our research conducted in the context of LCFs, and a limited number of companies usually use IOKMs successfully in this context, Information is exchanged between the firm and the suppliers and the goal is to develop the suppliers jointly Consulting/problemsolving teams…”

“…Studies introduce various characteristics for IOKMs, including capacity, richness, territory, the extent of access to knowledge, interactivity or ability to feedback, formalization, duration, and cost (Rebentisch and Ferretti, 1995;Prevot, 2007;Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000;Distanont et al, 2012;Van Waveren et al, 2017;Almeida and Grant, 1998;Sako, 2004;Spraggon and Bodolica, 2012;Pemsel et al, 2018). The firm must trade-off between these features to set its portfolio of IOKMs.…”

A Routine Dynamics Lens on the Stability-Change Dilemma in Project-Based Organizations

“…This article has aimed to shed light on the role of routines in PBOs, and specifically in relation to PBOs’ need to balance between flexibly responding to changing customer demands in individual projects and creating consistent performances in the organization at large. This balancing act, representing the key dilemmas of PBOs (Sydow et al, 2004), has received much attention in project studies, particularly in studies of how PBOs balance between innovative and routine project capabilities (Brady & Davies, 2004; Davies & Brady, 2016; Pemsel et al, 2018).…”

“…The integration and knowledge/learning dilemmas of PBOs have attracted project management researchers’ interest (Sydow et al, 2004) and are fundamental to research on how PBOs build capabilities (Brady & Davies, 2004; Davies & Brady, 2000, 2016; Gann & Salter, 2000; Pemsel et al, 2018; Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Söderlund et al, 2008). These scholars have shown how PBOs build project capabilities through an interactive process of bottom-up (explorative) learning at the project level and top-down (exploitative) learning at the business level (Brady & Davies, 2004).…”

Integrating interorganizational justice to facilitate tacit knowledge sharing in architectural and engineering design projects: a configurational approach

“…However, these studies took the concept of knowledge as unidimensional and failed to make a distinction between explicit and tacit knowledge sharing (e.g. Pemsel et al , 2018; Sun et al , 2019; Wei and Miraglia, 2017). Also, an integrative interorganizational justice framework is absent for explaining tacit knowledge sharing in IOP relationships.…”