Knowledge and Learning

2.6.3.1 Knowledge

Davenport and Prusak (1998, p. 5) defined knowledge as

a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insights that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in the documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practice and norms.

Their definition is comprehensive and is reflective of individual and organisational perspectives. Bredillet (2007) observed that organisations are influenced by individual learning. Davenport and Prusak (1998) argued that the increase in organisations' requirements for understanding knowledge is the result of businesses having to deliver more with fewer resources. It is argued that understanding the types of knowledge production is pertinent to considering the application of the Corpus.

The "mode 1" type of knowledge is regarded as a traditional method of knowledge production. Gibbons et al. (2004, p. 2 & 3) described "mode 1" and "mode 2" respectively, as

... hierarchical … disciplinary … problems are set and solved in a context governed by the, largely academic, interests of a specific community,

It is suggested that the recognition of mode 2 knowledge production is a natural progression in response to research problems that require a multidisciplinary contribution and those interested in commissioning knowledge production for their specific application. The Corpus acknowledges contributions from practitioners and academics and it is proffered that as a minimum it represents the mode 2 form of knowledge production.

Scott et al. (2004) identifies two additional modes of knowledge. "Mode 3" is dispositional and trans-disciplinary knowledge and mode 4 is critical knowledge. The features of "mode 3" knowledge are that it is

a non-prescriptive view of the relationships between disciplinary and practice based knowledges ... concerned with the development of the individual through reflection (Scott et al., 2004, p. 48).

Crawford et al. (2006) asserted that project managers should be encouraged to undertake reflection so that they continue to develop the appropriate level of skills and maturity to deal with complex projects. Scott et al. (2004, p. 51 & 53) asserted that the characteristics of "mode 4" knowledge

is understood as critical of the prevailing ethos, implicitly political and change orientated, ... undermine the conventional knowledge discourses ... and the legitimacy of the institutional life.

It is argued that modes 3 and 4 of knowledge production could have had subtle repercussions on the use of the Corpus, i.e. PSFs and clients can adopt a more critical and questioning approach to the knowledge contained in the Corpus. It is suggested that the decision of the Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards to produce its own global project management standards (Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards, 2017) could be seen as a mode 4 knowledge and an implicit criticism of the Corpus. It is suggested that the Global Alliance with its multi-national corporate members may be challenging the PPMAs to produce better project management guidance.

Gale (2005) concluded that the BoKs were a form of codified knowledge. Jackson (1986, cited in Kennedy, 1987, p. 143) argued that codified knowledge for professionals can be seen as "mimetic: independent of its owners, passed from one person to another". It is interpreted that this form of knowledge can be regarded as context-text free and that some of the Corpus can fall into this category i.e. universal guidance. The concerns of (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2006a) about Black boxing of knowledge can be seen in the context of mimetic and codified information, where it can appear that the Corpus (as a form of "mode 2" knowledge) does not

encourage practitioners to challenge long-held beliefs about the provision of project management services.

2.6.3.2 Learning

Schilling and Kluge (2009, p. 238) defined learning as, "a relatively permanent change in knowledge or skill resulting from experience". This definition highlights the dual nature of learning as a process and achieving a result, such as increased knowledge. Schimmel and Muntslag (2009) summarised the concepts of "single loop" and" double loop" learning. The former being seen as a change in strategy or assumption but effectively leaving the underlying theory unchanged. Single loop learning can be construed as relying on repetition and routine (Bredillet, 2007). The double loop form of learning includes changes in action and challenging the existing theory or dogma, and is regarded as being more important for organisational learning (Schimmel & Muntslag, 2009). Bredillet (2007) supported this view and noted that "double loop" learning takes place within a complex context and has a longer- term impact on organisations.

Organisational learning has been studied since the late 1950s and can be defined as "a process of improving organizational actions through better knowledge and understanding", and it takes place "when its actions have been modified as a result of reflection or new knowledge or insight" (Edmondson, 2002, p. 128). While organisational learning has been viewed from various perspectives, it is generally perceived as "the creation, use, transfer and retention of knowledge within organisations" (Bartsch, Ebers, & Maurer, 2012).

Matzdorf et al. (1999) proposed that learning can be seen as informal and formal. They suggested that formal learning is seen as predominately an individual matter that usually takes place at a specific event while informal learning is regarded as on-the-job training without being given due recognition. Eraut (2000) proposed a similar definition of formal and non-formal learning. It is suggested that the terms "training" and "learning" can be used interchangeably.

2.6.3.3 Learning from Projects

It is not clear whether organisations learn from projects (Swan, Scarbrough, & Newell, 2010). They studied six different large organisations that had each existed for more than 30 years and concluded that learning within a project "goes no further than the project itself" (Swan et al., 2010, p. 340). Bartsch et al. (2012) agreed with (Swan et al., 2010) that are many

difficulties associated with organisational learning due to project work often being autonomous, unique and short-lived.

Ayas (1998, p. 90) argued that "professional project management" is "building long term capability for learning and continuous improvement with every project undertaken" which project managers are focussed on short-term performance which is not sufficient for "professional" project management. She proposed that the following mechanisms or tools could be useful for learning from projects: a project audit, a generic work breakdown and a demonstration project. No reference was made to other project learning sources, e.g. the PPMPS or the project management office (PMO), which may be of value to practitioners. The emergence of the PMO was a relatively new idea that arose in 1998 (Hobbs, Aubry, & Thuillier, 2008). Pemsel and Wiewiora (2013, p. 31) defined the PMO as "a formal layer of control between top management and project management". They proposed that the emergence of the PMO was another response by organisations to remain competitive in a global market. The PMO's function will vary but its role can be regarded

as an organisational unit facilitating coordination of knowledge and other resources between the PBO [project-based organisation] and its projects, and can therefore act as a bridge over organisational and knowledge boundaries (Pemsel & Wiewiora, 2013, p. 32).

It is suggested that some of the reasons for the emergence of the PMO are that it is another way to capture knowledge and changes to workplace learning, and that employers have a vested interest in the long-term development of practitioners. The PMI has promoted and favoured the use of the PMO as an important aspect of knowledge transfer (PMI, 2015a). Boud and Garrick (1999b) asserted that work and learning are no longer separate. Workplace learning is defined as that which is

concerned with immediate and future competencies ... too important to be left to educational institutions and in-house training departments. (Boud & Garrick, 1999a, p. 5)

However, it is argued that while the PMO may be considered as a form of workplace learning, it can also be another potential barrier to learning.