A Model of Project Knowledge Management

PA

PE

RS

April 2011 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 23

INTRODUCTION ■

Proper knowledge is a basic prerequisite for effective project man-agement.

According to Sankarasubramanian (2009), all projects have onething in common—knowledge. The Japanese project management

standard recognizes knowledge and experience as the main sources of proj-ect value (Project Management Association of Japan [PMAJ], 2005a, p. 86).Projects may be seen as knowledge management processes (Sauer & Reich,2009). Project knowledge management, especially in complex projects, isone of the main success factors in project management; lack of projectknowledge management is one of the main reasons for project failure(Desouza & Evaristo, 2004). Knowledge about project management, explicitas well as tacit, plays a decisive role in understanding this discipline (Morris,2004).

Systematizing the area of project knowledge management is the maingoal of this article. This area, which developed in parallel to other areas ofknowledge in project management like risk management, quality manage-ment, or communication management, has up until now not been as sys-tematized as those areas, which are described in detail in A Guide to theProject Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK ® Guide). The relativelyshort period in which practitioners and researchers have been interested inproject knowledge management is probably the main reason for this situa-tion. The first papers about project knowledge management date back to1987 (Boddie, 1987; Gulliver, 1987) and have attracted the attention of prac-titioners and researchers since that time. Many articles, some books (Love,Fong, & Irani, 2005; Milton, 2005; Sense, 2007a), and special issues of profes-sional journals devoted to project knowledge management (DeFillippi, 2001;Lampel, Scarbrough, & Macmillan, 2008; Love et al., 2005; Reifer, 2002;Susman & Majchrzak, 2003; Sydow, Lindqvist, & DeFillippi, 2004) have beenpublished. Project knowledge has been collected in bodies of knowledge(e.g., Association for Project Management [APM], 2006; Project ManagementInstitute [PMI], 2008a), standards (e.g., International Organization forStandardization [ISO], 2003), competency standards (e.g., InternationalProject Management Association [IPMA], 2006), methodologies (e.g., Officeof Government Commerce [OGC], 2005; PMAJ, 2005a, 2005b), and maturitymodels (e.g., PMI, 2008b; Software Engineering Institute [SEI], 2006).

In order to systematize the area of project knowledge management, wefirst have to understand the main approaches to the definitions of knowl-edge management. These definitions may be divided into two main groups;the first focuses on processing the single knowledge element and enumer-ates functions of its life cycle. The following definitions may be mentionedhere:• Knowledge management is a process of systematically and actively identi-

fying, activating, replicating, storing, and transferring knowledge (Probst,Raub, & Romhard, 2003).

A Model of Project KnowledgeManagementStanislaw Gasik, Sybena Consulting, Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT ■

Knowledge is the most important resourceneeded for project management. The aim of thisarticle is to present a full, consistent model of project knowledge management. There aretwo basic types of project knowledge: micro-knowledge, needed for performing a single task(or its part), and macro-knowledge (in otherwords, all the knowledge possessed by peoplefrom a given organizational level). Projectknowledge is managed at four distinct levels:individual, project, organization, and global.The article describes the micro-knowledge lifecycle and macro-knowledge life cycles fromeach organizational level, as well as theprocesses of vertical knowledge flow betweenorganizational levels.

KEYWORDS: project knowledge manage-ment; micro-knowledge; macro-knowledge;knowledge life cycle; vertical knowledge flow;organizational knowledge; global knowledge;individual knowledge; project knowledge.

Project Management Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, 23–44

© 2011 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20239

24 April 2011 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

A Model of Project Knowledge ManagementP

AP

ER

S

• Knowledge management is a methodto simplify and improve the process ofcreating, sharing, distributing, captur-ing, and understanding knowledge in acompany (Karlsen & Gottschalk, 2004).

• The processes of knowledge manage-ment include knowledge identifica-tion, creation, acquisition, transfer,sharing, and exploitation (AbdulRahman, Yahya, Beravi, & Wah, 2008).

• Knowledge management is a method ofcontrolling processes of knowledge cre-ation, its codification, ordering, storing,retrieval, processing, transfer, andapplication (Jemielniak & Kozminski,2008).

• Knowledge management scope isabout the generation, communica-tion, transformation, and applicationof knowledge that is sufficient untothe reasoned action in situated con-texts in which individuals and organi-zations find themselves (Zhu, 2008).

Another group of knowledge man-agement definitions and characteristicsfocuses on the whole knowledge pos-sessed by individuals and organizationsand the benefits of its application:• Knowledge management is a process

of systematically and actively manag-ing and leveraging the stores of knowl-edge in an organization (Laudon &Laudon, 1998).

• The challenge of knowledge manage-ment is how to generate and leveragecollective knowledge in the firm tocreate value that leads to competitiveadvantage (Zhang, 2007).

• Knowledge management is about har-nessing the intellectual and social cap-ital of individuals in order to improveorganizational learning capabilities(Swan, Newell, Scarbrough, & Hislop,1999).

• Knowledge management is a system-atic approach to managing and lever-aging an organization’s knowledgeassets, which may include knowledgeof the organization’s customers, prod-ucts, market, processes, finances, andpersonal services (Cope, Cope, &Hotard, 2006).

• Knowledge management refers to thedeveloping body of methods, tools,techniques, and values through whichorganizations can acquire, develop,measure, distribute, and provide areturn on their intellectual assets (vanDonk & Riezebos, 2005).

• Knowledge management is a disci-plined, holistic approach to usingexpertise effectively for competitiveadvantage (Arkell, 2007).

• Knowledge management deals withthe organizational optimization ofknowledge through the use of varioustechnologies, tools, and processes toachieve set goals (Kamara, Anumba,Carrillo, & Bouchlaghem, 2003).

This general classification of knowl-edge management perspectives anddefinitions is valid and important forproject knowledge management andprocesses from this area. For example,papers by Prencipe and Tell (2001);Smith (2001); Boh (2007); Tan, Carrillo,Anumba, Bouchlaghem, Kamara, andUdeaja (2007); Blessing, Goerk, and Bach(2001); Schindler and Eppler (2003);Kotnour (2000); Enberg, Lindkvist, andTell (2006); Jackson and Klobas (2008);Sense (2005); Söderlund (2004); andWhyte, Ewenstein, Hales, and Tidd(2008) describe processes performed inprojects on knowledge needed to per-form a single activity, or needed forsolving a single problem or a compo-nent part of one. In the field of projectknowledge management, there are alsoother types of processes that pertain toall the knowledge possessed by peoplefrom different organizational levels(i.e., their knowledge assets). Processespertaining to a project team’s knowl-edge assets are described by, amongothers, Kotnour (1999); Cuel andManfredi (2006); Kasvi, Vartiainen, and Hailikari (2003); Bower and Walker(2007); Blessing et al. (2001); K. G.Cooper, Lyneis, and Bryant (2002);Levin and Rad (2007); Hanisch,Lindner, Muller, and Wald (2008); and Reich, Gemino, and Sauer (2008).Other project knowledge management

processes are performed at the level ofthe organization that carries out theprojects. Processes from this level aredescribed by, among others, Kivrak,Arslan, Dikmen, and Birgonul (2008);Disterer (2002); Keegan and Turner(2001); Arthur, DeFillippi, and Jones(2001); Prencipe and Tell (2001); Suikki,Tromstedt, and Haapasalo (2006); Boh(2007); Prencipe, Brady, Marshall, andTell (2005); Kotnour and Landaeta(2002); Love et al. (2005); Liebovitz(2005); Hill (2003); Levin and Rad(2007); Brady and Davies (2004); vanDonk and Riezebos (2004); andLesseure and Brookes (2004). Projectknowledge is managed at the globallevel, too—the preparation and exis-tence of global sources of knowledge areevidence of this. Vertical knowledgeflow—processes of transferring knowl-edge between different managementlevels—represents yet another type of project knowledge managementprocess. A relatively low number ofpublications are devoted to these typesof processes, and papers by Walta(1995); Garcia (2005); Snider and Nissen(2003); Nissen and Snider (2002);Ahlemann, Teuteberg, and Vogelsang(2009); Ramaprasad and Prakash(2003); and Gann and Salter (2000) maybe mentioned here.

Processes of all these types belongto one discipline: project knowledgemanagement. The development of proj-ect knowledge can encounter obstacles.None of the available publications sys-tematizes the field of project knowledgemanagement in a way analogous to sys-tematizing other areas of project knowl-edge in the bodies of knowledge andstandards. The lack of a systematicreview of the state of research is consid-ered to be one of the main obstacles tothe development of project knowledgemanagement (Hanisch et al., 2008).Inconsistencies in its literature are to benoted; development of work on projectknowledge management is not carriedout in any systematic way.

The existence of many perspec-tives, processes, and types of processes


in a given area makes it natural to aimto systematize that area in order tobuild a consistent whole. The vastrange of reasons for and goals of proj-ect knowledge management, com-bined with the existing evidence for theinfluence of project knowledge man-agement on project success (Cope et al., 2006; Karlsen & Gottschalk,2004; Kotnour, 2000; Landaeta, 2008;Liebovitz & Megbolugbe, 2003;Mohrman, Finegold, & Mohrman, 2003;Newell & Edelman, 2008), constitutethe rationale for systematizing the cur-rent output of project knowledge man-agement research and practice.

Systematizing the field of projectknowledge management area is the goalof this article. Building a consistentmodel that covers all activities related toproject knowledge management andtaking into account the current state ofthis discipline is the way to achieve thisgoal.

Knowledge Scale and Life CyclesThe definitions and general projectmanagement processes cited in theprevious section show that there is adimension of knowledge that we willcall scale, and there are two main val-ues in this dimension.• Micro-knowledge

Micro-knowledge is a piece of knowl-edge needed to perform one task (orits part) or to solve a problem (or itspart). A record of price list, the nameof a person who may perform sometask, or the way of fixing software bugsof particular types are examples ofsuch knowledge.

• Macro-knowledgeMacro-knowledge is the total knowl-edge possessed by a given person.Training of a single team member inorder to supply him or her with thegeneral knowledge needed to partici-pate in project execution is an exam-ple of a process performed on all theknowledge possessed by one person.Completing a project team with suffi-cient knowledge to perform a projectis an example of a project knowledge

management process performed atthe project level (dealing with all proj-ect team knowledge). Implementing aproject knowledge management sys-tem in an organization deals with all ofthe knowledge of the organization as awhole. Developing global projectmanagement bodies of knowledge isan example of a process performed onall the globally accessible project man-agement knowledge; hence, there arefour subvalues to project macro-knowledge:• individual macro-knowledge (knowl-

edge possessed by one team mem-ber),

• project team macro-knowledge(knowledge possessed by the projectteam),

• organizational macro-knowledge(knowledge possessed by the organi-zation), and

• global macro-knowledge (knowledgepossessed by the whole global com-munity of project managers).

The dimension of scale enables usto classify and systematize all theprocesses of project knowledge man-agement. The area of project knowledgemanagement consists of processesworking on the project knowledge of allscales. Each project knowledge scale(including subvalues) has its own lifecycle. There are five project knowledgelife cycles:• micro-knowledge life cycle (briefly,

micro-cycle),• individual-level macro-knowledge life

cycle,• project-level macro-knowledge life

cycle,• organization-level macro-knowledge

life cycle,• global-level macro-knowledge life

cycle.

The following sections of this articledescribe all these life cycles. The projectmicro-knowledge life cycle, althoughperformed at several different organiza-tional levels, makes a complete processfor one micro-knowledge element; this

is a full management cycle. The macro-knowledge life cycles at separate orga-nizational levels constitute full cycles ateach level. This is the reason why wehave decided to describe projectknowledge life cycles starting with thefull micro-knowledge life cycle, fol-lowed by descriptions of the four well-defined macro-knowledge life cycles.

Micro-Knowledge Life CycleIdentifying Needed KnowledgeKnowledge identification (Dickinson,2000) is a process that targets the pre-cise specification of a needed micro-knowledge. For example, to performthe task of building the foundation of abuilding, you need knowledge aboutconstruction norms, worker productiv-ity, and the technology of buildingfoundations. The characteristics ofmicro-knowledge needed to perform atask (solve a problem) determine theresults of this process. The knowledgeitself is not the result of this process.

Knowledge AcquisitionKnowledge acquisition (Dickinson, 2000;King, Chung, & Haney, 2008; Rus &Lindvall, 2002; Tiwana, 2000) means get-ting knowledge from outside the teamperforming the task. According to a clas-sification of ways of learning (Carbonell,Michalski, & Mitchell, 1983), the strategyof direct knowledge absorption or learn-ing by instruction is applied in thisprocess. The knowledge may be acquiredfrom the organization’s own knowledgerepository, may be transferred directlyfrom people with the needed knowledge,or it may be acquired according to therequirements of the particular task froman environment outside the organiza-tion (e.g., from a global norm or stan-dard). In order to use this knowledge, themicro-knowledge must be subject to the process of internalization (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995); the subject willing touse the knowledge must also learn it, andthen incorporate it into his or her ownstructure of concepts. In everyday jar-gon, this process is called “understand-ing” something.



AP

ER

S

Knowledge CreationKnowledge acquired from outside theproject team is often not sufficient toperform a planned task or solve anemerging problem. The knowledge maybe too general or it may be sufficientlydetailed but relates to a case similar, yetnot identical, to the one at hand, towhich it should be applied. In suchcases, new knowledge is created (Alavi &Leidner, 2001; Davenport & Prusak,1998; King et al., 2008; Rus & Lindvall,2002; Snider & Nissen, 2003; Ward &Aurum, 2004). Knowledge creation is aprocess of developing new micro-knowledge or replacing the currentcontent of knowledge with new content(Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Knowledge cre-ation is performed on the basis of exist-ing knowledge possessed by a subjectand the knowledge acquired from outside sources for the needs of perform-ing a given task. There are some well-defined ways for knowledge creation.

Knowledge combination (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995) is its grouping, newclassification, summarization, aggrega-tion, or similar techniques. The prepa-ration of periodical project reports mayserve as an example of knowledge com-bination. Replacing the content ofmicro-knowledge with new contentthat allows for more efficient task exe-cution or more effective problem solv-ing (or its categories) is called “creatingknowledge by evolution” (King et al.,2008; Snider & Nissen, 2003). An exam-ple of knowledge evolution is the cre-ation of new technologies applied tothe production of analogous products(integrated circuits, aircrafts, or agricul-tural products). Knowledge adoption(Ward & Aurum, 2004) corresponds tothe strategy of learning by analogy(Carbonell et al., 1983). Knowledge cre-ated when performing a given task orsolving a given problem may be, aftercarrying out the necessary transforma-tions, applied to the performance of ananalogous task or the solution of ananalogous problem. For example,knowledge created while constructing abridge may be used in the construction

of another bridge. The ways of reactingto risk that are applied in one projectmay be applied, after some modifica-tion, in another project or to similarrisks in the same project.

Knowledge ApplicationKnowledge application is the mainprocess of the micro-knowledge lifecycle. This is the process in which theknowledge is directly applied to taskperformance or problem solving.Knowledge may be possessed andapplied by individuals or by wholeteams (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008; Chen,2005) but in each event for the needs ofthe project as a whole. Companies ben-efit not from the existence of knowledgebut from its proper application (Alavi &Leidner, 2001). Organizational routines,direct guidelines and instructions, andself-organizing teams constitute themain mechanisms that guarantee the integration of knowledge with workthat is performed; in other words, itsapplication (Grant, 1996). Knowledgeapplication may take on different forms,such as its elaboration (when knowl-edge requires a different interpretationthan in the original situation), infusion(finding underlying issues), or thor-oughness (when different people orteams develop different understanding)(King et al., 2008).

Knowledge is an immaterialresource, which, in contrast to materialresources, may be used for many taskswithout it being lost. Passing on knowl-edge is a process that increases organi-zational capabilities without reducingthe possibilities for its application inthe original location. Occurrence ofidentical or analogous situations dur-ing the performance of identical oranalogous processes and projects is therationale for passing on knowledge.There are two main ways to pass onknowledge: transfer and sharing.

Knowledge TransferKnowledge transfer is an act of commu-nication between two specific subjects:the sender and the receiver. The roles of

the sender and the receiver may beplayed by individuals as well as teams ofpeople (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).Socialization (i.e., knowledge transfer bydirect contact with people possessingknowledge), through observing peopleand watching their behavior, consti-tutes a specific form of knowledgetransfer (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).Implicit knowledge relates mainly toknowledge socialization and is appliedwithout any permanent medium (docu-mentation). Codified knowledge (e.g.,project reports) as well as noncodifiedknowledge may be transferred. Fortransfer of noncodified knowledge, itsprior identification is not necessary, anda person with micro-knowledge maynot be aware of possessing it (Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995).

Identification and Documentation ofCreated KnowledgeEach micro-knowledge element may bedocumented on external media (Bower &Walker, 2007; Damm & Schindler, 2002;Kasvi et al., 2003; Prencipe & Tell, 2001). The first step in documentationis identification of a micro-knowledgeelement—a person performing a taskor solving a problem must be consciousthat a new piece of knowledge has beencreated or that existing knowledge hasbeen modified (Ward & Aurum, 2004).The important part of the identificationprocess is defining the name of the knowledge unit. Documentedknowledge may be subject to transfer,especially within the project team thatproduced the knowledge. In order todocument the piece of knowledge, onehas to state that new knowledge hasbeen created. A person who is con-scious of having created new knowl-edge may externalize this knowledge(Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The processof externalization causes knowledge tobe shared with other people or teams.Externalization is the process of movingknowledge to a medium independent ofits original possessor. The medium maybe more (knowledge documentation)or less (oral statement) permanent.


Knowledge identification and docu-mentation may be results of knowledgereview (Boddie, 1987; Gulliver, 1987;Smith, 2001). Knowledge is document-ed after and not before its applicationbecause its application serves as a kindof validation for it: successful applica-tion is a prerequisite for its applicationby people and teams other than its cre-ator(s). Knowledge identification anddocumentation are the first steps inproject knowledge review.

Knowledge SharingKnowledge sharing (Alavi & Leidner,2001; Davenport & Prusak, 1998;Dickinson, 2000; King et al., 2008; Rus &Lindvall, 2002; Snider & Nissen, 2003;Tiwana, 2000; Ward & Aurum, 2004)along with knowledge transfer isanother type of knowledge passing.Documented knowledge may be usedby the author of the documentation ormay be submitted to the organizationalrepository. Sharing knowledge from theperson who created the knowledge isnot oriented toward a particular recipi-ent; each worker in the organization (tothe extent his or her security systemprivileges permit) may have access tothe repository. Knowledge sharing con-sists of stating that some earlier docu-mented knowledge may be useful to theorganization and placing it in a knowl-edge repository. Placing acquired anddocumented experiences into an orga-nizational repository may serve as anexample of knowledge sharing (King et al., 2008).

Externalization is necessary forknowledge sharing. Externalization issometimes called knowledge formal-ization (Nissen, Kamel, & Segupta,2000), because knowledge outside ofthe person who created it must have awell-defined form and structure.Formalization may be called “codifica-tion” (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).

Formalized knowledge is organized(Rus & Lindvall, 2002; Snider & Nissen,2003; Ward & Aurum, 2004). Knowledgeorganization is the creation of a struc-ture for knowledge repositories that

enables efficient access to micro-knowledge that is needed in particulardefined situations. Knowledge is prop-erly classified within the process oforganization; for example, by assigningkeywords or classificatory categories tothem. Micro-knowledge elements pre-pared in this way may finally be storedin the organizational repository for thepurpose of their later use.

External Knowledge AcquisitionKnowledge may be put into an organi-zational repository not only for the pur-pose of solving a particular problem.Many organizations have organization-al units or teams for the purpose ofacquiring knowledge from externalsources, with the goal of increasing gen-eral organizational capabilities or forthe needs of specific projects. Knowledgefor a project may also be acquired fromoutside an organization on its own.

Knowledge management is not apurely managerial activity because itmay be performed by all project teammembers and not only by the manage-ment team. Each team member, especi-ally in a project that makes intensive useof knowledge, can and should take partin the creation, storage, and distributionof knowledge (Damm & Schindler, 2002).

Figure 1 schematically presents theproject micro-knowledge managementprocesses described here.

The above-presented processesmake up the micro-knowledge lifecycle—a set of processes performed onmicro-knowledge, ranging from identi-fication of the need for its existence toits storing in the knowledge repository.The micro-cycle is performed at fourmanagement levels: individual, project,organization, and global. For example,the identification of needed micro-knowledge may take place at the projectlevel, its creation at the individual level,and its sharing at the organization leveland, in some cases, at the global level.Processes of project micro-knowledgeperformed at particular organizationallevels are described in the paragraphsthat follow.

Processes directly oriented towardincreasing knowledge—its acquisition(including transfer and acquisitionfrom external sources) and creation—are called learning processes.

For the sake of simplicity, theprocesses for identifying needed knowl-edge and creating it will be called knowledge-generation processes; proce-sses of knowledge acquisition (internaland external), transfer, identification,and documentation of created knowl-edge and knowledge sharing will becalled knowledge distribution processes.The last group of processes consists ofone process—knowledge application.

Organizational Levels of theProject Micro-Knowledge LifeCycleThe full micro-knowledge life cycleconsists of processes performed at allmanagement levels, as defined previ-ously.

Individual LevelIdentification of needed knowledge isperformed at the individual level whena project team member receives a taskfor execution without the neededknowledge being specified, so that heor she must determine what knowledgeis needed for him or her to execute thetask. This is the usual way in which atask with a high level of innovation isdefined. Some forms of individualknowledge acquisition are, for example,contacts with other team members orworkers at the organization that do notbelong to the project team, and thathave been established and initiated bythe team member. Team members mayacquire the knowledge from an organi-zational knowledge repository. Indivi-dual knowledge creation may be, butdoes not have to be, an effect of indi-vidual identification of knowledgeneeded for task execution or problemsolving. After knowledge application(performed at the project level, all workthat is performed is always managedfrom a level above that of the individ-ual), a team member may identify theknowledge just created as a new element



AP

ER

S

of micro-knowledge. This knowledgemay be transferred to other team mem-bers and initiated by the knowledgecreator; hence, the following processesare performed at the individual level(see Figure 2):• identifying needed knowledge,• knowledge acquisition,• knowledge creation,• knowledge transfer, and• identification and documentation of

created knowledge.

Project LevelIdentification of needed knowledgemay be performed at the project levelwhen a manager passes a descriptionof needed knowledge along with thetask definition to a team member whois performing an activity. This type ofsituation occurs when a similar taskhas been performed earlier. The proj-ect team as a whole may acquire knowl-edge needed for task execution orproblem solving. If a micro-knowledge

element must be acquired from the organization’s environment, then theparticipation of the project manage-ment team is necessary, because usual-ly only members of this team have theauthority to decide about activities thatcross project borders. The whole project team or part of it may be therecipient of the knowledge transfer.Knowledge may be created collectivelyby a project team—this method ofknowledge creation is stressed by peo-ple who view knowledge as a socialproduct. Meetings, discussions, andgroup work tools are examples of theways and instruments that can be usedfor collective knowledge creation. Asmentioned in the previous section,project knowledge is always applied atthe project level because its applicationis totally integrated with task execution(problem solving), which is alwaysmanaged from the project manage-ment team level. After knowledgeapplication, the project team may state

collectively that a new micro-knowledgeelement has been created. The projectteam may be a sender in the process ofknowledge transfer. Tasks aiming toacquire knowledge from outside theorganization may be defined in theproject; hence, the following processesare performed at the project level (seeFigure 3):• identifying needed knowledge,• knowledge acquisition,• knowledge creation,• knowledge application,• knowledge transfer,• identification and documentation of

created knowledge, and• external knowledge acquisition.

Organizational LevelThe process of identifying the knowl-edge needed for a project may be per-formed at the organization level, whenthe goal of the project in the area ofknowledge management is defined bythe organization; the organization, in

Identifying NeededKnowledge

KnowledgeAcquisition

Knowledge CreationKnowledgeApplication

Knowledge Transfer Knowledge Sharing

Task,problem

Subject’s OwnKnowledge

Performed task;Solved problem

KnowledgeRepository

External KnowledgeAcquisition

Identification andDocumentation of

Created Knowledge

Environment

Figure 1: Processes of knowledge elements management.






Task,problem



KnowledgeRepository



Created Knowledge

Environment

Process performed atgiven level

Process not performed atgiven level

Legend

Figure 2: Micro-knowledge life-cycle processes at the individual level.





Task,problem



KnowledgeRepository



Created Knowledge

Environment



Legend

Figure 3: Micro-knowledge life-cycle processes at the project level.



AP

ER

S

accordance with its strategy, points tothe knowledge, which must be pro-duced by a project. Knowledge acquisi-tion at the organization level is itstransfer from other organizations orfrom a project coperformed or per-formed by other organizations. Thistype of knowledge acquisition usuallycalls for agreements at the executivelevels of the organizations participatingin the knowledge transfer. Organizationsmay undertake special initiatives (ofproject types or other types of work)that aim to acquire knowledge fromtheir environments. The process ofknowledge transfer at the organizationlevel is its being sent to another organi-zation, in tandem with the process ofknowledge acquisition in the otherorganization. The processes of projectknowledge review should be recog-nized as those performed within theprocess of identifying and document-ing knowledge at the organization level,if they are performed by organizationalteams (e.g., those belonging to project

management offices). Knowledge shar-ing (i.e., its storage in organizationalrepositories) is performed under super-vision from the organization level inorder to assure knowledge uniquenessand proper classification and to guar-antee the consistency and integrity ofthe repository as a whole; hence, thefollowing processes are performed atthe organization level (see Figure 4):• identifying needed knowledge,• knowledge acquisition,• knowledge transfer,• identification and documentation of

created knowledge,• knowledge sharing, and• external knowledge acquisition.

Global LevelThe global level also takes part in theproject micro-knowledge life cycle.From this level, the process of knowl-edge sharing is performed—elementsof micro-knowledge necessary for proj-ect execution, contained in global bod-ies of knowledge, are passed to projects

and organizations. In order to makeknowledge sharing possible, the knowl-edge that may be potentially useful formany projects carried out in the area ofinterest of the organization creating theglobal bodies of knowledge, is identi-fied, classified, and edited at the globallevel. Knowledge transfer is also per-formed at the global level. Such trans-fers occur during conferences or at theforums of global communities of prac-tices (like PMI or IPMA);

Hence, the following processes areperformed at the global level (seeFigure 5):• knowledge transfer,• identification and documentation of

created knowledge, and• knowledge sharing.

Vertical Project KnowledgeFlowsIn order to carry out the full projectknowledge micro-cycle, it is necessaryto execute knowledge flows betweenorganizational levels.





Task,problem



KnowledgeRepository



Created Knowledge

Environment



Legend

Figure 4: Micro-knowledge life-cycle processes at the organization level.


For example, project knowledgecontained in global knowledge sourcesis passed from the global to the orga-nization level by issuing at the globallevel and implementing at the organi-zation level the project knowledgecontained in its global sources (bodiesof knowledge, standards, etc.). Organi-zations provide their projects with theknowledge needed for execution,which is also a process of verticalknowledge flow. If an organization hasa strategy of knowledge development,then specifications describing theknowledge that has to be acquired arepassed from the organization level tothe project level, even if this knowl-edge is not needed for the particularproject’s product development. A taskor problem, the execution or solutionof which requires some knowledge,may be passed from the project to theindividual level. A team member spec-ifies needed knowledge independently

in this case and decides about the ways it is to be created or acquired.Identification of the knowledge need-ed to perform some tasks may bepassed from the project to the individ-ual level, too; in such cases, the teammember has to plan ways of acquiringthis knowledge and carrying out theplanned activities.

In the opposite direction, step bystep, from the bottom to the top of thishierarchy, created knowledge is moved.The knowledge of project team mem-bers is passed to the project level inorder to make it possible to use it at thatlevel. The knowledge is passed from theproject level to the organization level inorder to distribute it to other projectsthat are implemented by the organiza-tion (or use it in line processes).Knowledge is passed from the organiza-tion level to the global level for the pur-pose of using it in global sources ofknowledge. Figure 6 schematically

presents the vertical project manage-ment knowledge flows.

While analyzing the existingapproaches to vertical knowledge flow,two research streams have been found.The first, which we call “top-down,”focuses on investigation of the utilizationof global knowledge sources at lower levels(e.g., Ahlemann et al., 2009; Crawford &Pollack, 2007). The second stream focus-es on the ways of implementing globalsources of knowledge at lower levels(organization, project) and is called by usthe “bottom-up” approach to verticalknowledge flows (e.g., Garcia, 2005).

Macro-Knowledge Life CyclesEach scale of macro-knowledge has itsown specific life cycle, which is fullyperformed inside a single subject pos-sessing project knowledge. The tem-poral extent of each macro-knowledge life cycle covers the whole period of the particular subject’s existence:





Task,problem



KnowledgeRepository



Created Knowledge

Environment



Legend

Figure 5: Micro-knowledge life-cycle processes at the global level.



AP

ER

S

participation of a team member in thework of a particular project, the periodduring which the project exists, theperiod during which the organizationexists, and—at the global level—theexistence of the profession of projectmanagement. The goal of the macro-knowledge life cycle is to extend a sub-ject’s capabilities of participation as awhole in effective project execution.Processes performed at particular lev-els do not have to provide results at thesame levels. For example, project

reviews performed at the project levelincrease not only the capabilities ofthe projects that perform thesereviews, but also the capabilities of thewhole organization. The influence ofthe macro-knowledge life cycle may beindirect, which is the case with theglobal macro-knowledge life cycle thathas no direct influence on any particu-lar project but whose ultimate aim is to increase global project knowledge in order to execute projects moreeffectively.

Individual-Level Macro-KnowledgeLife CycleKnowledge possessed by an individualproject team member and that is rele-vant to the project and the execution ofwhich involves that particular person isthe concern of the project knowledgemacro-cycle at the individual level.

There are the following projectmacro-knowledge life-cycle processesat the individual level (see Figure 7):• assignment to a project,• knowledge building, and• knowledge development.

A person assigned to a projectbrings the knowledge he or she pos-sesses at that time to the project team.This is the technical or managerialknowledge collected during all the for-mer education, training, and participa-tion in completed projects. If thisknowledge is not sufficient for partici-pation in the tasks of the project, thenthe team member is encouraged to par-ticipate in the process of knowledgebuilding. A project team member’sknowledge building may take on differ-ent forms. Training is probably themost popular of them, but reading rele-vant books, procedures, or manuals orcoaching may also be helpful. Aftergaining a sufficient level of knowledge,the team member uses this knowledgeto participate in the tasks of the projectwhile at the same time developing hisor her knowledge. After completing theproject, the team member attains a newlevel of knowledge.

Project-Level Macro-KnowledgeLife CycleThe total knowledge possessed by aproject is pertinent to the project-levelknowledge macro-cycle; this cycle ismuch more developed than the indi-vidual-level knowledge macro-cycleand consists of four main phases:• organization knowledge analysis,• knowledge management preparation,• execution of knowledge management,

and• knowledge summarization.

Project level

Organizational level

Global level

Knowledgeneeded by

project

Knowledgecreated in a

project

Definition ofknowledge

requiredfrom project

Element ofglobal

knowledge

Knowledgecreated in anorganization

Individual level

Task,problem

Knowledgeidentification

Createdknowledge

Figure 6: Vertical project knowledge flows.


There is only one knowledge man-agement process performed in thephase of organizational knowledgeanalysis. This process is also called“organizational knowledge analysis.”Knowledge about the internal andexternal environments in which theproject would be executed, as well asknowledge about resources possessedby the organization, is collected in thisprocess. The third element of knowl-edge processed by this process is theknowledge about organization strategythat primarily covers its business goals.These three knowledge componentstogether form the foundation for thedecision of project initiation.

Two processes are performed in theknowledge management preparationphases: project understanding andknowledge management planning. Thedefinition of the knowledge needed forproject execution is the intended resultof project understanding. Micro-knowledge needed for performing eachactivity is defined. The sum of knowl-edge needed for starting the executionof project activities constitutes a pro-ject’s initial macro-knowledge. Thisforms the basis for the process ofknowledge management planning,

which produces the project knowledgemanagement plan (PKM Plan). ThePKM Plan addresses all the topics relat-ed to project knowledge managementand covers both the personalized andcodifying techniques of knowledgemanagement (meetings, knowledgeexchanging teams, and using knowl-edge repositories) in alignment withproject type and needs. The PKM Plan explains how the initial macro-knowledge will be acquired. The projectmicro-knowledge life cycle is definedthere, too. The repositories used by theproject team, internal and externalknowledge sources, and ways of knowl-edge creation, transfer, and sharing arethe other elements described there.

The knowledge mobilization(Lampel et al., 2008) and knowledgedevelopment processes are performedin the phase of executing knowledgemanagement. Acquiring the universalknowledge, in codified as well as per-sonalized forms, that is necessary forproject execution is the content of theknowledge mobilization process. Peoplewith adequate knowledge are assignedto the project team. A group of the pro-ject’s external experts may be nominat-ed. Team members who do not have the

knowledge needed for performing theirroles are trained. Team membersacquire knowledge, which is containedin codified sources (manuals, instruc-tions, repositories, articles, books, etc.).The goal of the knowledge developmentprocess is creation of specific knowledge,which is needed for executing projectactivities and solving arising problems.These pieces of micro-knowledge maybe created by individuals as well as bygroups or the whole project team. Thenewly created knowledge may be storedin project or organization knowledgerepositories or directly transferred toother team members.

The process of knowledge summa-rization, which aims to collect theknowledge produced by a project, isperformed in all the other phases ofproject knowledge management. Newknowledge may be developed in everyproject action, but as the project pro-gresses, there is more and more knowl-edge to collect. Project review is themost frequent technique used to col-lect new knowledge. Project review is a technique oriented to macro-knowledge; it tries to collect all the newknowledge developed by a project. Thistechnique belongs to the codified

Assignment to aProject

KnowledgeBuilding

Knowledge Usageand Development

Processes

Knowledge InitialKnowledge

KnowledgeNeeded bya Project

FinalKnowledge

Figure 7: Individual-level macro-knowledge life cycle.



AP

ER

S

approach of knowledge management—lessons learned are documented.Please note that direct knowledgetransfer between two subjects usuallyoperates at the micro-knowledge andnot at the macro-knowledge level; teammembers obtain just the knowledgeneeded to solve a problem or to per-form a task based on the knowledgepossessed by a team member or thewhole team. Thus, the personalizedtechniques of knowledge managementare not mentioned as techniques ofknowledge summarization at the proj-ect level.

Project knowledge managementprocesses are intertwined with otherproject management processes andtheir groups. Organizational knowledgeanalysis should be part of the InitiatingProcess Group, as defined in thePMBOK ® Guide. Knowledge manage-ment preparation should be part of thePlanning Process Group, executingknowledge management should be partof the Executing Process Group, andknowledge summarization should bepart of the Closing Process Group.

Figure 8 schematically presents the proj-ect-level macro-knowledge life cycle.

Organization-Level Macro-Knowledge Life CycleThe total project knowledge possessedby the organization constitutes the sub-ject of the organization-level macro-knowledge life cycle. This knowledge isa subject of knowledge managementimplementation, its further expansionand development, and improvement ofthe methods of its management. Thereare three main phases of the organiza-tion-level knowledge macro-cycle:• informal phase,• implementation phase, and• exploitation and improvement phase.

From the moment an organizationexecutes its first project, it manages itsproject’s knowledge, because knowl-edge is one of the most importantresources needed by each project. It sel-dom happens, though, that a deliberatefull system of project knowledge man-agement—including formal processes,tools and repositories, and social

environment facilitating knowledgecreation and exchange—is ready at thattime. Rather, project knowledge man-agement practices are developed in aninformal way, often supported byemerging informal communities ofpractices, which is what we refer to asthe informal phase of project knowl-edge management.

The implementation phase startswhen an organization recognizes thevalue of project knowledge and itsmanagement. This phase consists ofthe following processes:• definition of the goals of project

knowledge management,• description of current practices,• definition of the target state of knowl-

edge management,• implementation plan development,

and• implementation plan execution.

The general approach to projectknowledge processing, knowledgerequirements at the general level, anddescriptions of methods of implemen-tation of the organization’s project

OrganizationalKnowledge

Analysis

OrganizationalKnowledge

Analysis

KnowledgeManagementPreparation

ExecutingKnowledge

Management

ProjectUnderstanding

KnowledgeManagement

Planning

KnowledgeMobilization

KnowledgeDevelopment

Processes

ProductsInitiatedProject

KnowledgeManagement

Plan

UsedKnowledge Obtained

Knowledge

KnowledgeSummarization

ProjectKnowledge

Review

Figure 8: Project-level macro-knowledge life cycle.


knowledge management system con-stitute the results of the definitionprocess for the goals of project knowl-edge management.

The descriptions of project knowl-edge practices provided at the momentof initiating the process of projectknowledge management implementa-tion constitute the output of theprocess of describing current practices.Later on, these practices may be con-verted into the final processes of proj-ect knowledge management.

The process of defining the targetstate of knowledge management takesas input the results of the processes ofdefinition of the goals of projectknowledge management and descrip-tion of current practices and definesthe target state of the organization’sproject knowledge management infra-structure, the roles and organizationalunits engaged in project knowledgemanagement, and the specific detailsof the processes of knowledge man-agement.

The process of implementationplan development is applied to devel-op a detailed plan of activities thataims to implement the organization’sproject knowledge management sys-tem. These activities are performedlater in order to implement this system.Implementation-plan execution usual-ly takes place in several phases and maytake from several months to severalyears to complete, depending mainlyon the organization’s size, initial projectknowledge management needs, prac-tices, and culture.

The project knowledge manage-ment system (PKM System) is the resultof implementation plan execution. Thissystem has two main components: thesocial component and the projectknowledge management processes.The social component is the sum of allthe organization’s human resources,their relationships, and the knowledgeavailable through these relationships(Kotnour & Landaeta, 2002).

The main organizational processesof knowledge management are:

• processes of micro-knowledge lifecycles at the organization level andlower management levels,

• processes of macro-knowledge lifecycles at the individual and projectlevels, and

• supporting organizational projectknowledge management processes like:

° knowledge repository maintenance,

° maintenance of organizationalstructures engaged in project knowl-edge management,

° social processes of project knowl-edge management,

° development and transfer of knowl-edge outside of project, and

° exploitation of IT applications sup-porting knowledge management.

Knowledge Repository MaintenanceActivities performed outside of the proj-ect knowledge micro-cycle, aimed atmaintaining consistent content that isuseful for project execution, make upthe process of knowledge repositorymaintenance. Verifying knowledge actu-ality, assessing knowledge usefulness,updating knowledge, and deletingknowledge no longer useful to an orga-nization are the main activities of thisprocess. The rights to knowledge repos-itory maintenance are restricted to peo-ple working at the organization level(Blessing et al., 2001; Petter & Vaishnavi,2008). This way of defining responsibili-ties supports the consistency of knowl-edge repository content. Unnecessaryknowledge is not placed in the reposito-ry, and the organization avoids redun-dant placement of the same knowledgein the repository by applying such anorganizational solution.

Maintenance of OrganizationalStructures Engaged in ProjectKnowledge ManagementActivities that aim to assure effectivefunctioning of organizational structuresof project management—the projectmanagement office (Desouza & Evaristo,2006; Hill, 2003), knowledge managers,knowledge facilitators, knowledge coor-dinators, and knowledge brokers(Hobday, 2000; Kivrak et al., 2008;

Prencipe & Tell, 2001) who are orienteddirectly or indirectly toward supplyingthe right knowledge to projects—comprise the basis of this process.Knowledge managers are the workersresponsible for knowledge manage-ment, including its creation, usage,retention, and other types of processes.Knowledge managers are responsible forall or part of the organizational knowl-edge assets: repositories and knowledgeworkers. Defining the strategy of knowl-edge management is one of their duties.Knowledge facilitator is a role responsi-ble for all the actions, making it easier toperform all the knowledge-related pro-cesses. For example, he or she may pre-pare an environment (social or physical)better suited for knowledge creation andmay capture knowledge from expertsand remove the barriers of knowledgecreation or sharing. Knowledge coordi-nator is a specialized role responsiblefor the integrity of an organization’sknowledge assets; he or she may beresponsible for knowledge classifica-tion, maintaining the knowledge repos-itory, or linking potential or actualknowledge sources with knowledgeareas. Knowledge brokers play a key rolein knowledge exchange; they know whoknows what and link demand withknowledge sources. They may operatebetween individuals, formal organiza-tional structures, or communities ofpractice (Garrety, Robertson, & Badham,2004). Organizations may create compe-tence centers (Keegan & Turner, 2001) ororganizational units grouping projectmanagers (Eskerod & Skriver, 2007). It ispossible to create organizational unitsresponsible for project knowledge man-agement in separate departments of acompany (Desouza & Evaristo, 2004).Organizational units taking part in projectmanagement are also involved in projectknowledge management; these unitsdevelop the specialized knowledge need-ed for functioning (Prencipe & Tell, 2001).

These structures, as elements of thecompany’s organizational structures,formulate and execute plans in the areaof project knowledge management.



AP

ER

S

Activities described in this article, likeknowledge repository maintenance,work that facilitates the organization’ssocial capital development or trainingmeasures, are components of suchplans. Project management offices doc-ument the processes and practices ofproject management (Keegan & Turner,2001) and analyze them in order toimprove their effectiveness (Landaeta,2008). Processes of project knowledgemanagement at the project and organi-zation levels are special kinds ofprocesses that are controlled by a proj-ect management office (Julian, 2008),and promoting project knowledgemanagement in the organization isamong these processes (Hill, 2003).

The Social Processes of ProjectKnowledge ManagementAccording to the community perspec-tive on knowledge management, thepresence of wide-ranging, positive rela-tionships among the organization’smembers are a basic prerequisite forknowledge transfer; so, conductingactivities that create and develop suchcontacts creates the optimal conditionsfor knowledge transfer. Team-buildingactivities, group integration, and activi-ties fostering interpersonal and com-munication skills are among thesetypes of activities. The organizationsupports the creation of communities ofpractice (Levin & Rad, 2007; Prencipe &Tell, 2001; Sankarasubramanian, 2009)that increase the knowledge level of theorganization as a whole (Ruuska &Vartiainen, 2005). Organizations createand maintain a directory of their com-munities of practice (Delisle & Rowe,2004). The development of social net-works of project team members,including project managers, may beconsidered an element of the develop-ment of conditions for knowledgetransfer (Grabher, 2004; Kotnour &Landaeta, 2002; Rus & Lindvall, 2002).Creating knowledge exchange arenas,knowledge cafés (Boh, 2007; Lam, 2009;Suikki et al., 2006), discussion forums(Boh, 2007; Sankarasubramanian,2009), organizing meetings, seminars,

and workshops for project managers(Duarte & Snyder, 1997; Eskerod &Skriver, 2007; Fong, 2005; Landaeta,2008; Prencipe & Tell, 2001; Suikki et al.,2006) are conducive to the develop-ment of conditions for knowledgetransfer. Organizations support culturalchanges in the area of project knowl-edge management by creating, forexample, organizational systems ofincentives for knowledge management(Ayas & Zeniuk, 2001).

Development and Transfer ofKnowledge Outside of the ProjectProject knowledge is created andprocessed in an organization not onlyas a result of a particular requirementfor it, but also during the course ofactivities performed at the organizationlevel that aim to develop not knowledgedirected toward the execution of partic-ular projects, but knowledge in areasdefined by the organization’s projectknowledge management strategy. Anorganization’s knowledge may beincreased through its transfer fromoutside of the organization. An organi-zation may hire people with knowledgethe organization lacks (Bellini &Canonico, 2008). The knowledge trans-ferred to an organization by newworkers is collected and distributedamong other workers who may poten-tially need it. The knowledge pos-sessed by workers is codified beforethey decide to quit the organization(Atkinson, 2006). Training programsthat aim to extend the knowledge ofthe organization’s members are car-ried out (Duarte & Snyder, 1997; Fong,2005; Rus & Lindvall, 2002; Suikki etal., 2006). Organizations may under-take projects with the goal of procur-ing or creating the knowledge neededby that organization (Söderquist,2006). Knowledge may be transferredto an organization through specializedmanuals and guidelines (Rus &Lindvall, 2002). An organizationstrives to make project managersfamiliar with the same materials(Eskerod & Skriver, 2007), and this is con-ducive to creating a common language

and mutual understanding amongproject managers. Implementation of a project management standard is also akind of knowledge acquisition outsideof projects.

Analyzing information stemmingfrom sets of projects in search of regularities and templates that may beuseful for performing other projectsconstitutes a special kind of work of thistype (Rus & Lindvall, 2002). Such activi-ties are oriented toward an organiza-tion’s future projects (Julian, 2008).

Exploitation of ICT ApplicationsSupporting Knowledge ManagementThe exploitation of ICT applications isnecessary for the proper functioning ofan organization’s knowledge manage-ment system. The main types of ICTapplications that may be used for sup-porting project knowledge manage-ment are: project management systems(like MS Project, Oracle Primavera),knowledge repositories, groupwareapplications, expert seeking systems,modeling systems, project intelligencesystems, teaching systems, and knowl-edge portals. The detailed definitions ofeach of these types of systems extendbeyond the scope of this article.

In order to enable these systems totruly support project knowledge man-agement, several types of activities areperformed. The implementation ofsuch an application is the first elementin such a process. Implementation of anICT application supporting projectknowledge management may be con-sidered a part of implementation of theorganizational integrated system ofproject knowledge management, but itrequires specific activities. Implementa-tion of an ICT application is performedon the basis of specific requirements.Knowledge contained in an ICT appli-cation is classified according to a taxon-omy that is useful for achieving theorganization’s goals. The knowledgemanagement application must bealigned with the organization’s culture.The ICT application supports achieve-ment of the organization’s goals; there-fore, it has to have the support of its


highest-level executives. The shaping of such an application is determined by the reactions and opinions of itsusers (Liebovitz & Megbolugbe, 2003).Implementation of supporting toolsshould not change the natural workprocesses, habits, or roles performed byteam members. Integration of knowl-edge management and team collabora-tion should result from implementationof the ICT application. The implement-ed application supports work at differ-ent levels of granularity (general idea,architectural design, detailed solutions).First and foremost, an applicationshould support mundane, laboriousactivities (like searching large databas-es). Each application should providethe right knowledge at the right time(e.g., as it relates to project workprogress), and each application enablesits user to get contextual knowledge

(covering details of a situation in whichknowledge has been created).Applications support different ways ofthinking—for example, those of the pro-ducer (knowledge of product develop-ment) and the product user (knowledgeof the modes of product usage) (L. P.Cooper, 2003). After implementation,an application is exploited in accor-dance with its intended function. Theday-to-day utilization of the applica-tion is managed by its administrator,who is responsible for its adaptation tochanging needs and the security of con-tained knowledge.

The exploitation and continuousimprovement is the last phase of theorganization-level macro-knowledgelife cycle.

An implemented organizationalsystem of project knowledge manage-ment enables projects’ demands for

knowledge to be satisfied. Activitiesperformed after implementation planexecution that aim to improve efficien-cy and effectiveness constitute theprocess of continuous improvement tothe system of project knowledge man-agement (Levin & Rad, 2007). Thisphase may be seen as the exploitationphase of the project knowledge man-agement system. Continuous improve-ment may be seen as achieving higherlevels of maturity in project knowledgemanagement. There are two types oflearning performed in this phase: single-loop learning (aimed at masteringimplemented ways of project knowl-edge management) and double-looplearning (aimed at improving the sys-tem) (Brady & Davies, 2004).

Figure 9 schematically presents theorganization-level macro-knowledgelife cycle.

Defining the goals ofproject knowledge

management

Description ofcurrent practices

Defining of the targetstate of knowledge

management

Implementation plandevelopment

Implementation plan execution

Continuousimprovement to the

system

Organization’sStrategy

InitialPKM

Practices

RequirementsImplementation

Plan

PKMSystem

Knowledgemicro-cycleprocesses

Knowledgemacro-

cycles oflower levels

PKMSupportngProcesses

ImprovedPKM

System

Informal phase Implementation phase Exploitation and improvement phase

SocialComponent

Figure 9: Organization-level macro-knowledge life cycle.



AP

ER

S

Global-Level Macro-KnowledgeLife CycleWays of treating and processing proj-ect management knowledge by theglobal community of project managersdefine the global-level macro-knowl-edge life cycle. The output of theseprocesses—global project manage-ment knowledge—is more and moreadvanced and sophisticated in each ofthe phases; the later phases use outputfrom techniques and processes initiat-ed and performed in former phases.Therefore, we may say that globalknowledge is subject to a continuousprocess of development.

The global macro-knowledge lifecycle encompasses the following phas-es (some of which may be found inCrawford, 2007):• hidden phase,• initial phase,• investigation of topics of project man-

agement,• creation of bodies of knowledge,• creation of general standards,• creation of specialized standards, and• project management as an academic

discipline.

All of the phases mentioned aboveare important with respect to the waysthat project management knowledge is

processed. Some of the phases areespecially important for practitioners ofproject management (like the creationof bodies of knowledge or specializedstandards), whereas others are pri-marily important “internally” forresearchers working in the area of project knowledge management (likethe investigation of topics of projectmanagement or project managementas an academic discipline). Phases ofthe advanced global-level macro-knowledge life cycle are not performedsequentially (see Figure 10): the initia-tion of processes attributable to laterphases does not terminate the knowl-edge processing initiated in earlierphases.

The hidden phase was the period in which people managing a projectwere not cognizant of belonging to thisdiscipline. The knowledge needed forproject management was probablyconsidered to be a part of the knowl-edge needed for developing productprojects (e.g., construction).

The concept of “project” is intro-duced in the initial phase; the collectionof knowledge begins in this phase, oftenin the forms of stories and anecdotes(Wideman, 1995). Some subsequentprojects use experience from previousprojects in an unsystematic way.

The scientific investigation of selecttopics with the goal of gaining knowl-edge begins in the next phase of theinvestigation of project managementtopics. Models of operational modesand observations that generalizehypotheses begin to be created(Wideman, 1995). This phase started inthe 1950s, with the development andinvestigation of concepts like criticalpath method (CPM) or program evalua-tion and review technique (PERT)(Bredillet, Turner, & Anbari, 2007).

Documents describing the sum ofknowledge on project managementbegin to be drawn up in the creation of bodies of knowledge phase. Shortlythereafter, as a result of the develop-ment of knowledge, bodies of knowl-edge contain descriptions of the knowledge and not the knowledgeitself. The first document of this typewas published in 1983 by the ProjectManagement Institute (PMI, 1983). Thecreation of bodies of knowledge facili-tates vertical flows of knowledge.

The phase of general standards cre-ation is the period in which standardsare created on the basis of bodies ofknowledge. Standards are the docu-ments used to assess the level of accept-ance of the ways of managing a project.With the first edition of the PMBOK ®

Hidden phase

Creation of bodies of knowledge

Creation of general standards

Creation of specialized standards

Project management as academic discipline

Investigation of topics of project managementInitial phase

Figure 10: Global-level macro-knowledge life cycle.


Guide, which was later adopted by theAmerican National Standards Instituteas a national standard, PMI initiatedthis phase (PMI, 1996).

The phase of specialized standardsis the developmental period of projectmanagement knowledge in which notonly general standards and bodies ofknowledge applicable to all projectsexecuted all over the world are created,but also publications on matters thatare relevant to select sets of projects(construction, government, etc.). ThePMBOK ® Guide extension for the con-struction sector (PMI, 2003) initiatedthis phase.

The most advanced level of knowl-edge development is that in which proj-ect management is considered to be anacademic discipline. An academic disci-pline has its own various theories andschools of thought that relate to the discipline as a whole. A particular disci-pline has its own methodology of performing scientific research; it is anopen-ended question as to whether ornot project management has enteredthis stage. The works of Bredillet and hiscollaborators (Bredillet et al., 2007) makeimportant contributions to this subject.

Summary and ConclusionsThere are many papers that deal withthe various issues of project knowledgemanagement. Some authors describeways of procuring particular knowledgeelements; and some are interested inthe whole knowledge possessed byproject teams, whole organizations, orthe global community of peopleengaged in project management. Ourarticle proposes a model linking all ofthese perspectives for viewing projectknowledge management. By introducingthe concepts of the project micro-knowledge life cycle and project macro-knowledge life cycle and usingthe concept of vertical knowledge flow,we illustrate how all of the processesfrom the area of project knowledgemanagement are mutually linked.

Many researchers (e.g., Basili &Caldiera, 1995; Boddie, 1987; Kotnour,

1999) explore the cognitive view of proj-ect knowledge and project knowledgemanagement processes, in which proj-ect knowledge is seen as a resource thatmay be created and stored on externalmedia. All types of repositories are thecentral constructs of this approach.Historically, this was the first approachto project knowledge management andis sometimes called “first generationknowledge management” (Delisle &Rowe, 2004; McElroy, 2000). A newstream of the community view of projectknowledge, sometimes called “secondgeneration knowledge management,”emerged later on. The works of Sense(2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2008), Scarbroughand his co-workers (Bresnen, Edelman,Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan, 2003;Scarbrough, Swan, Laurent, Bresnen,Edelman, & Newell, 2004; Swan et al.,1999), and Jackson and Klobas (2008) areexamples given here. The concept ofcommunities of practice and socialinteractions as engines for knowledgecreation and sharing are perhaps themost important for this approach. Ourmodel combines both views of projectknowledge management; for example, atthe organization level it covers processesof knowledge repository maintenance aswell as developing conditions of projectknowledge management that coverscommunity project knowledge manage-ment techniques. At the individual level,it refers to Nonaka’s socialization processas well as to processes of documentedknowledge storage and retrieval; thus,the model shows that both approachesto project knowledge coexist and com-plement one another. The balancedapplication of techniques from bothgroups provides the optimal effects ofproject knowledge management.

From the epistemological point ofview, this article introduces two con-cepts related specifically to the domainof project knowledge management:project micro-knowledge and projectmacro-knowledge. It is impossible toprecisely understand the domain ofproject knowledge management with-out the conscious use of these concepts.

The sets of processes operating onmicro-knowledge and those operatingon macro-knowledge are different.Solving problems with the use of micro-knowledge is quite different than, forexample, implementation of projectknowledge management in an organi-zation, working on an organization’smacro-knowledge. Nonetheless, pro-cessing both types of project knowledgebelongs to the same area of projectknowledge management—our modelshows the roles of both of these groupsof processes; moreover, it systematicallydefines all the processes of projectknowledge management and their rela-tionships. The proposed classificationof knowledge types enables us to sys-tematically define all the processesoperating on both these types of knowledge—you may not define properprocesses unless their subjects are sys-tematically defined. So, the proposedknowledge classification has very prac-tical implications: showing the way toconsistent, systemic, and completeproject knowledge management.

The proposed model shows how tosystematically combine processes exe-cuted at all the organizational levels.The model shows how project micro-knowledge is processed at the lowestindividual level and how this processcooperates with processes performed atother organizational levels. Accordingto our model, such knowledge is passedalong a vertical organizational axis, tothe project, organizational, or globallevel. Conversely, knowledge needed bya project may be generated at the proj-ect level or acquired from another level:global, organization, or individual. Thisarticle shows that all the processes deal-ing with project micro-knowledge, infact, constitute one consistent approachto micro-knowledge processing. Orga-nizations and projects will profit fromproject knowledge management onlywhen they will be able to effectivelyimplement such a process.

On the other hand, project macro-knowledge processes are different ateach organizational level; there are



AP

ER

S

specific goals for project macro-knowledge management at these levels.Project knowledge creation is the maingoal of the individual level and animportant goal of the project level. Themain, final goal of project knowledgemanagement lies at the project level;this is its application for executingactivities and solving problems. Theorganization as a whole facilitates proj-ect knowledge management and pro-vides it to its projects. The highest,global level of project knowledge man-agement is responsible for document-ing and distributing project knowledgeto its final users: projects (performed inorganizations).

There is a specific level of projectknowledge management—the globalone—and it is not managed in the wayin which the lower levels are managed.Project knowledge is not managed atthat level by any single governing bodylike it is at any local level; there are sev-eral of them, and PMI and IPMA are theleading organizations in this field.Project knowledge at the global level isprocessed by communities of practice;these global organizations collect,structure, and distribute project knowl-edge to local levels. Although the way ofdeveloping and processing global-levelmacro-knowledge (i.e., all the bodies ofknowledge of project management; wedo not mention here any particularBody of Knowledge, like PMBOK ®

Guide) may not be called “manage-ment” in a classic sense, the impor-tance of these activities is crucial forproviding the right knowledge to organ-izations and projects in which it may beused for their purposes. Thus, in orderto understand all aspects of the area ofproject knowledge management, theglobal level must be seamlessly incor-porated into a full model of this domainof activity.

Defining the levels of projectknowledge management and the typesof knowledge life cycles enables us toprovide the general definition of theconcept of project knowledge manage-ment:

Project knowledge managementcomprises processes that aim togenerate, utilize, and distribute themicro-knowledge necessary forproject execution and processesthat are performed on the macro-knowledge of people at all organiza-tional levels and that aim to increasethe capabilities of direct or indirectparticipation of people in effectiveproject execution or to increasetheir possibilities for influencingproject execution.

The holistic, consistent model ofproject knowledge management,which covers cognitive and communi-ty views, project micro- and macro-knowledge, and all the levels of projectknowledge processing—from the indi-vidual to the global level—that arepresented, enable researchers to situate their works in a well-definedlocation and thus may contribute tosystematizing all works and researchon project management and, indirect-ly, to the systematized development ofthe area of project knowledge man-agement. In particular, the macro-knowledge life cycle of the projectlevel may be a basis for defining thearea of project knowledge manage-ment in the same manner as otherareas (e.g., cost management, pro-curement management) are defined inthe project management standardsand bodies of knowledge. ■

ReferencesAbdul Rahman, H., Yahya, I. A., Beravi,M. A., & Wah, L. W. (2008). Conceptualdelay mitigation model using a projectlearning approach in practice.Construction Management andEconomic, 26, 15–27.

Ahlemann, F., Teuteberg, F., &Vogelsang, K. (2009). Project manage-ment standards: Diffusion and applica-tion in Germany and Switzerland.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 27, 292–303.

Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008).Knowledge transfer in project basedorganizations: An organizational

culture perspective. ProjectManagement Journal, 39(1), 7–15.

Alavi, M. D., & Leidner, D. E. (2001).Knowledge management and knowl-edge management systems:Conceptual foundations and researchissues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–113.

Arkell, D. H. (2007). Knowledge man-agement: Get our heads into it. BoeingFrontiers. Boeing Corporation.Retrieved from http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2007/october/cover.pdf

Arthur, M. B., DeFillippi, R. J., & Jones, C.(2001). Project-based learning as theinterplay of career and company non-financial capital. ManagementLearning, 32(1), 99–117.

Association for Project Management(APM). (2006). APM body of knowledge (5th ed.). High Wycombe,UK: Author.

Atkinson, J. (2006). The age ofAquarius: Project and knowledge man-agement. Project and knowledge man-agement in selected Irish companies.Project Perspectives. AnnualPublication of International ProjectManagement Association, 28, 56–63.

Ayas, K., & Zeniuk, N. (2001). Projectbased learning: Building communitiesof reflective practitioners. ManagementLearning, 32(1), 61–76.

Basili, V. R., & Caldiera, G. (1995).Improve software quality by reusingknowledge and experience. SloanManagement Review, 37(1), 55–64.

Bellini, E., & Canonico, P. (2008).Knowing communities in project driv-en organizations: Analyzing the strate-gic impact of socially constructedHRM practices. International Journalof Project Management, 26, 44–50.

Blessing, D., Goerk, M., & Bach, V.(2001). Management of customer andproject knowledge: Solutions andexperience at SAP. Knowledge andProcess Management, 8(2), 75–90.

Boddie, J. (1987). The project post-mortem. Computerworld, 21(49),77–81.


Boh, W. F. (2007). Mechanisms forsharing knowledge in project-basedorganizations. Information andOrganization, 17(1), 27–58.

Bower, D. C., & Walker, D. H. T. (2007).Planning knowledge for phased rolloutprojects. Project Management Journal,38(3), 45–60.

Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2004). Buildingproject capabilities: From exploratoryto exploitative learning. OrganizationStudies, 25, 1601–1621.

Bredillet, C. N., Turner, R., & Anbari,F. T. (2007). Schools of thought in proj-ect management research. In J. A.Kisielnicki & S. Sroka (Eds.), Projectmanagement essential reality for busi-ness and government (pp. 389–396).Kraków, Poland: Wydawnictwo Akapit.

Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S.,Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003).Social practices and the managementof knowledge in project environments.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 21, 157–166.

Carbonell, J. G., Michalski, R. S., &Mitchell, T. M. (1983). An overview ofmachine learning. In R. S. Michalski, J. G. Carbonell, & T. M. Mitchell (Eds.),Machine learning: An artificial intelli-gence approach (pp. 3–23). Palo Alto,CA: TIOGA Publishing.

Chen, S. (2005). Task partitioning innew product development teams: Aknowledge and learning perspective.Journal of Engineering and TechnologyManagement, 22, 291–314.

Cooper, K. G., Lyneis, J. M., & Bryant, B. J.(2002). Learning to learn, from past tofuture. International Journal of ProjectManagement, 20, 213–219.

Cooper, L. P. (2003). A research agendato reduce risk in new product develop-ment through knowledge manage-ment: A practitioner perspective.Journal of Engineering TechnologyManagement, 20(1–2), 117–140.

Cope, R. F., III, Cope, R. F., & Hotard, D. G.(2006). Enhancing project manage-ment with knowledge management

principles. Proceedings of the Academyof Information and ManagementSciences, 10(1), 41–45.

Crawford, L. (2007). Global body ofproject management knowledge andstandards. In P. W. G. Morris & J. K.Pinto (Eds.), The Wiley guide to projectorganization & project managementcompetencies (pp. 206–252). New York:Wiley.

Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2007). Howgeneric are project managementknowledge and practice? ProjectManagement Journal, 38(1), 87–96.

Cuel, R., & Manfredi, F. (2006). Towarda project learning organization: A mul-tifaceted view. Journal of UniversalKnowledge Management, 1, 255–270.

Damm, D., & Schindler, M. (2002).Security issues of a knowledge mediumfor distributed project work.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 20, 30–47.

Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998).Working knowledge: How organizationsmanage what they know. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

DeFillippi, R. J. (2001). Introduction:Project-based learning, reflective prac-tices and learning outcomes.Management Learning, 32(1), 5–10.

Delisle, C. L., & Rowe, K. (2004).Communities of practice and projectmanagement. In P. Dinsmore & J.Cabanis-Brewin (Eds.), AMA handbookof project management (pp. 395–406).New York: AMACOM.

Desouza, K. C., & Evaristo, J. R. (2004).Managing knowledge in distributedprojects. Communications of the ACM,47(4), 87–91.

Desouza, K. C., & Evaristo, J. R. (2006).Project management offices: A case ofknowledge-based archetypes.International Journal of InformationManagement, 26, 414–423.

Dickinson, A. (2000). Enhancingknowledge management in enterprises(ENKE) IST project, IST-2000-29482.Retrieved from http://www.ist-enke.com

Disterer, G. (2002). Management ofproject knowledge and experience.Journal of Knowledge Management,6, 512–520.

Duarte, D., & Snyder, N. (1997). Fromexperience: Facilitating global organi-zational learning in product develop-ment at Whirlpool corporation. Journalof Product Innovation Management,14(1), 48–55.

Enberg, C., Lindkvist, L., & Tell, F.(2006). Exploring the dynamics ofknowledge integration: Acting andinteracting in project teams.Management Learning, 37(2), 143–165.

Eskerod, P., & Skriver, H. J. (2007).Organizational culture restraining in-house knowledge transfer betweenproject managers: A case study.Project Management Journal, 38(1),110–122.

Fong, P. S. W. (2005). Managing knowl-edge in project-based professionalservices firms: An international com-parison. In P. Love, P. S. W. Fong, & Z. Irani (Eds.), Management of knowl-edge in project environments(pp. 103–131). Amsterdam:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2000).Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: The construction ofcomplex products and systems.Research Policy, 29, 955–972.

Garcia, S. (2005). How standards enableadoption of project management prac-tice. IEEE Software, 22(5), 22–29.

Garrety, K., Robertson, P. L., &Badham, R. (2004). Integrating com-munities of practice in technologydevelopment project. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 22,351–358.

Grabher, G. (2004). Temporary archi-tectures of learning: Knowledge gover-nance in project ecologies.Organization Studies, 25, 1491–1514.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 17,109–122.



AP

ER

S

Gulliver, F. R. (1987). Post-projectappraisals pay. Harvard BusinessReview, 65(2), 128–132.

Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Muller, A., &Wald, A. (2008). Project knowledgemanagement: Status quo, organization-al design, and success factor. Paper pre-sented at PMI Research Conference2008, Warsaw, Poland.

Hill, G. M. (2003). The complete projectmanagement office handbook. BocaRaton, FL: Auerbach.

Hobday, M. (2000). The project-basedorganization: An ideal form for manag-ing complex products and systems?Research Policy, 29, 871–893.

International Organization forStandardization (ISO). (2003). ISO10006: Quality management:Guidelines to quality in project man-agement. Geneva: InternationalOrganization for Standardization.

International Project ManagementAssociation (IPMA). (2006). ICB—IPMA competence baseline version 3.0.Nijkerk, The Netherlands: Author.

Jackson, P., & Klobas, J. (2008).Building knowledge in projects: Apractical application of social con-structivism to information systemsdevelopment. International Journal of Project Management, 26,329–337.

Jemielniak, D., & Kozminski, A. K.(2008). Zarzadzanie wiedza. Warszawa,Poland: Wydawnictwo AkademickieiProfesjonalne (in Polish).

Julian, J. (2008). How project manage-ment office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and continuousimprovement. Project ManagementJournal, 39(3), 43–58.

Kamara, J. M., Anumba, C. J., Carrillo,P. M., & Bouchlaghem, N. M. (2003).Conceptual framework for live captureof project knowledge. Proceedings ofthe CIB W078 International Conferenceon Information Technology forConstruction—Construction IT:Bridging the Distance (pp. 178–185).

Karlsen, J. T., & Gottschalk, P. (2004).Factors affecting knowledge transfer in

IT projects. Engineering ManagementJournal, 16(1), 3–10.

Kasvi, J. J., Vartiainen, M., & Hailikari,M. (2003). Managing knowledge andknowledge competences in projectsand project organizations.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 21, 571–582.

Keegan, A. J., & Turner, R. (2001).Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices. ManagementLearning, 32(1), 77–98.

King, W. R., Chung, T. R., & Haney,M. H. (2008). Knowledge managementand organizational learning. Editorial.Omega, 36, 167–172.

Kivrak, S., Arslan, G., Dikmen, I., &Birgonul, M. T. (2008). Capturingknowledge in construction projects:Knowledge platform for contractors.Journal of Management in Engineering,24(2), 87–95.

Kotnour, T. (1999). A learning frame-work for project management. ProjectManagement Journal, 30(2), 32–38.

Kotnour, T. (2000). Organizationallearning practices in the project man-agement environment. InternationalJournal of Quality and ReliabilityManagement, 17, 393–406.

Kotnour, T., & Landaeta, R. (2002).Developing a theory of knowledge management across projects. Paper presented at IIE Annual Conference,Orlando, FL.

Lam, T. K. Y. (2009). A knowledge cafe:The intangibles of project management.Paper presented at PMI 2009 AsiaWorld Congress, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.

Lampel, J., Scarbrough, H., &Macmillan, S. (2008). Managingthrough projects in knowledge-basedenvironments. Long Range Planning,41(1), 7–16.

Landaeta, R. E. (2008). Evaluating ben-efits and challenges of knowledgetransfer across projects. EngineeringManagement Journal, 20(1), 29–38.

Laudon, K. C., & Laudon, P. L. (1998).Management information systems (4thed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lesseure, M. J., & Brookes, N. J. (2004).Knowledge management benchmarksfor project management. Journal ofKnowledge Management, 8(1), 103–116.

Levin, G., & Rad, P. F. (2007). Movingforward with project management: Aknowledge management methodology.Paper presented at 2007 PMI GlobalCongress, Atlanta, Georgia.

Liebovitz, J. (2005). Conceptualizingand implementing knowledge man-agement. In P. Love, P. S. W. Fong, & Z. Irani (Eds.), Management of knowl-edge in project environments (pp. 1–18).Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Liebovitz, J., & Megbolugbe, I. (2003).A set of frameworks to aid the projectmanager in conceptualizing andimplementing knowledge manage-ment initiatives. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 21,189–198.

Love, P., Fong, P. W. S., & Irani, Z.(Eds.). (2005). Management of knowl-edge in project environments. Oxford,UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.

McElroy, M. W. (2000). Integratingcomplexity theory, knowledge man-agement and organizational learning.Journal of Knowledge Management, 4,195–203.

Milton, N. (2005). Knowledge manage-ment for teams and projects. Oxford,UK: Chandos Publishing.

Mohrman, S. A., Finegold, D., &Mohrman, A. M., Jr. (2003). An empiricalmodel of the organization knowledgesystem in new product developmentfirms. Journal of Engineering andTechnology Management, 20, 7–38.

Morris, P. W. G. (2004). Science, objec-tive knowledge, and the theory of proj-ect management. ICE James ForrestLecture. Retrieved from http://www.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/research/management/ ICEpaperFinal.pdf

Newell, S., & Edelman, L. F. (2008).Developing a dynamic project learningand cross-project learning capability:Synthesizing two perspectives.Information Systems Journal, 18,567–591.


Nissen, M., Kamel, M., & Segupta, K.(2000). Integrated analysis and designof knowledge systems and processes.Information Resources ManagementJournal, 13(1), 24–43.

Nissen, M. E., & Snider, K. F. (2002).Lessons learned to guide project man-agement theory and research:Pragmatism and knowledge flow. Paperpresented at PMI ResearchConference, Seattle, WA.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). Theknowledge creating company: HowJapanese companies create the dynam-ics of innovation. New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Office of Government Commerce(OGC). (2005). Managing successfulprojects with PRINCE2. London: TheStationery Office.

Petter, S., & Vaishnavi, V. (2008).Facilitating experience reuse amongsoftware project managers.Information Sciences, 178, 1783–1802.

Prencipe, A., Brady, T., Marshall, N., &Tell, F. (2005). Making sense of learn-ing landscapes in project-based orga-nizations. In P. Love, P. S. W. Fong, &Z. Irani (Eds.), Management ofknowledge in project environments(pp. 197–218). Oxford, UK:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Prencipe, A., & Tell, F. (2001). Inter-project learning: Process and out-comes of knowledge codification inproject-based firms. Research Policy,30, 1373–1394.

Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhard, K.(2003). Wissen managen (5th ed.).Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler Verlag.

Project Management Association ofJapan (PMAJ). (2005a). A guidebook ofproject & program management forenterprise innovation. Volume I.Revision 3. Tokyo, Japan: Author.

Project Management Association ofJapan (PMAJ). (2005b). A guidebook ofproject & program management forenterprise innovation. Volume II.Revision 1. Tokyo, Japan: Author.

Project Management Institute (PMI).(1983). Special report: Ethics, stan-

dards, accreditation. ProjectManagement Quarterly, 14(3).

Project Management Institute (PMI).(1996). A guide to project managementbody of knowledge (PMBOK ® guide).Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Project Management Institute (PMI).(2003). Construction extension to a guide to the project managementbody of knowledge (PMBOK ® guide;2000 ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Project Management Institute (PMI).(2008a). A guide to project manage-ment body of knowledge (PMBOK ®

guide; 4th ed.). Newtown Square, PA:Author.

Project Management Institute (PMI).(2008b). Organizational project man-agement maturity model (2nd ed.).Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Ramaprasad, A., & Prakash, A. N.(2003). Emergent project management:How foreign managers can leveragelocal knowledge. International Journalof Project Management, 21, 199–205.

Reich, B. H., Gemino, A., & Sauer, C.(2008). Modelling the knowledge per-spective of IT projects. Paper presentedat PMI Research Conference, Warsaw,Poland.

Reifer, D. J. (2002, May/June). A littlebit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.IEEE Software, pp. 14–15.

Rus, I., & Lindvall, M. (2002). Knowledgemanagement in software engineering.IEEE Software, 19(3), 26–38.

Ruuska, I., & Vartiainen, M. (2005).Characteristics of knowledge sharingcommunities in project organizations.International Journal of ProjectManagement, 23, 374–379.

Sankarasubramanian, S. (2009).Knowledge management meet projectmanagement. Paper presented at PMI2009 Asia World Congress, KualaLumpur, Malaysia.

Sauer, C., & Reich, B. H. (2009).Rethinking IT project management:Evidence of a new mindset and itsimplications. International Journal ofProject Management, 27, 182–193.

Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S.,Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., & Newell, S.(2004). Project-based learning and therole of learning boundaries.Organization Studies, 25, 1579–1600.

Schindler, M., & Eppler, M. J. (2003).Harvesting project knowledge: Areview of project learning methodsand success factors. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 21,219–228.

Sense, A. J. (2004). An architecture forlearning in projects? Journal ofWorkplace Learning, 16(3/4), 123–145.

Sense, A. J. (2005). Facilitating conver-sational learning in a project teampractice. Journal of WorkplaceLearning, 17(3/4), 178–193.

Sense, A. J. (2007a). Cultivating thelearning within projects. Basingstoke,UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sense, A. J. (2007b). Learning withinproject practice: Cognitive stylesexpose. International Journal of ProjectManagement, 25, 33–40.

Sense, A. J. (2008). The conditioning ofproject participants’ authority to learnwithin projects. International Journalof Project Management, 26, 105–111.

Smith, P. A. C. (2001). Action learningand reflective practice in project envi-ronments that are related to leadershipdevelopment. Management Learning,32(1), 31–48.

Snider, K. F., & Nissen, M. E. (2003).Beyond the body of knowledge: Aknowledge-flow approach to projectmanagement theory and practice.Project Management Journal, 34(2),4–12.

Söderlund, J. (2004). Building theoriesof project management: Past research,questions for the future. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 22,183–191.

Söderquist, K. E. (2006). Organizingknowledge management and dissemi-nation in new product development:Lessons from 12 global corporations.Long Range Planning, 39, 497–523.

Software Engineering Institute (SEI).(2006). CMMI (SM) for development



AP

ER

S

version 1.2. CMU/SEI-2006-TR-008ESC-TR-2006-008. Pittsburgh, PA:Author.

Suikki, R., Tromstedt, R., & Haapasalo,H. (2006). Project management com-petence development framework inturbulent business environment.Technovation, 26, 723–738.

Susman, G. I., & Majchrzak, A. (2003).Editorial: Research issues in knowl-edge management and virtual collabo-ration in new product development:An introductory essay. Journal ofEngineering and TechnologyManagement, 20, 1–5.

Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., &Hislop, D. (1999). Knowledge manage-ment and innovation: Networks andnetworking. Journal of KnowledgeManagement, 3, 262–275.

Sydow, J., Lindqvist, L., & DeFillippi, R.(2004). Project-based organizations,embeddedness and repositories ofknowledge: Editorial. OrganizationStudies, 25, 1475–1489.

Tan, H. C., Carrillo, P. M., Anumba,C. J., Bouchlaghem, N., Kamara, J. M., &Udeaja, C. E. (2007). Development of amethodology for live capture and reuseof project knowledge in construction.Journal of Management in Engineering,23(1), 18–26.

Tiwana, A. (2000). The knowledge man-agement toolkit: Practical techniquesfor building a knowledge managementsystem. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

van Donk, D. P., & Riezebos, J. (2004).Exploring the knowledge inventory inproject-based organizations: A casestudy. International Journal of ProjectManagement, 23, 75–83.

Walta, H. (1995). Dutch project-management body-of-knowledge policy. International Journal of ProjectManagement, 13(2), 101–108.

Ward, J., & Aurum, A. (2004).Knowledge management in softwareengineering: Describing the process.Paper presented at the 15th AustralianSoftware Engineering Conference(ASWEC 2004), Melbourne, Australia.

Whyte, J., Ewenstein, B., Hales, M., &Tidd, J. (2008). Visualizing knowledgein project-based work. Long RangePlanning, 41, 74–92.

Wideman, R. M. (1995). Criteria for aproject management body of knowl-edge. International Journal of ProjectManagement, 13(2), 71–75.

Zhang, M. J. (2007). An empiricalassessment of the performanceimpacts of IS support for knowledge

transfer. International Journal ofKnowledge Management, 3(1), 66–85.

Zhu, Z. (2008). Knowledge, knowing,knower: What is to be managed anddoes it matter? KnowledgeManagement Research & Practice, 6,112–123.

Stanislaw Gasik holds an MSc in mathematicsand a PhD in organization sciences (with a spe-cialty in project management), both from theUniversity of Warsaw, Poland. He entered theproject management field after working as asoftware engineer, analyst, and consultant inthe IT sector. Currently he works as a projectmanagement consultant, manages the PMO in a large IT organization, and performs his ownindependent research activities. He is a lecturerin software engineering and project manage-ment at several educational institutions. He haslectured at global PMI and IPMA congresses andother conferences. He was engaged in PMI stan-dardization projects (PMBOK® Guide and OPM3®and other projects). He is a member of the boardof the PMI Warsaw Chapter. His professional andresearch interests include portfolio manage-ment, project families, project managementmaturity and meta-maturity models, knowledgemanagement, and supplier-customer relation-ships in project management. He may be con-tacted at [email protected].