Developing a dynamic project learning and cross‐project learning capability: synthesizing two perspectives

Abstract

Driven by the complexity of new products and services, project work has become increasingly common in all types of organizations. However, research on project learning suggests that often project teams do not meet their stated objectives and, moreover, there is limited organizational learning from the experiences of project work. We use the dynamic capabilities framework to argue that building a dynamic project learning capability is useful for organizations that make extensive use of projects. We use both survey and interview data to discuss the key ways in which such a dynamic capability can be built. Our survey data demonstrate the importance of documenting project learning, but our interview data show that teams are often remiss at documenting their learning. The results from the two different approaches are synthesized using Boland & Tenkasi's notions of perspective-making and perspective-taking. Importantly, combining the results from the two sets of data suggests that organizations need to emphasize the benefits from project reviews and documentation and explore ways in which the documents produced can be made more useful as boundary objects to encourage the sharing of learning across projects.

Learning between projects: More than sending messages in bottles

“…Maqsood et al, 2006;Koners and Goffin, 2007;Newell and Edelman, 2008;Paranagamage et al, 2012). The majority of these studies, often implicitly, adopt a sender/receiver perspective on learning which assumes the possibility of engineering communication channels for transferring knowledge between projects and "lubricating their operation with the proper tools and motivated context" (Kasper et al, 2013, p.334).…”

Mixing rich and asynchronous communication for new service development performance

“…However many organizations lack procedures and systems to record and recall their learning (Von Zedtwitz, 2002); post project reviews occur infrequently and are often relatively shallow in practice (Blazevic and Lievens, 2004;Busby, 1999). Activities such as formal project review processes, audits, and presentations provide the mechanism for teams to engage in reflective practices which can enhance learning (Newell and Edelman, 2008). This contributes to the effective retention and replication of knowledge developed during NSD (Marsh and Stock, 2003) and stops mistakes being repeated (Storey and Hughes, 2013).…”

“…It has been found that mere articulation, via interpersonal communication, during project post mortems is insufficient to create learning (Newell and Edelman, 2008). The activity of Learning by itself is of little value.…”

“…Supporting this, Maznevski and Chudoba (2000) found successful development teams communicate via a rhythm of faceto-face communication interspersed with asynchronous modes. For learning, Newell and Edelman (2008) argue that project teams should be encouraged to give examples and tell stories about their project experiences. Such narrative framing is likely to provide the contextual information that will allow others to interpret the experiences with reference to their own situation.…”

Challenges of Knowledge and Information Management during New Product Introduction: Experiences from a Finnish Multinational Company

“…Knowledge codification refers to the process of knowledge being transformed into information, a form of message or sets of identifiable rules and relationships, which can be transmitted (Kogut & Zander, 1992). Knowledge codification allows knowledge to be accessed and used by others sometime in the future, and it is not dependent on personal networking (Newell & Edelman, 2008). Converting knowledge into explicit information includes explaining one's own experiences and viewpoints in a way that is understandable to others.…”