Role of Project‐Level Context Variables

The members of a project team are involved in that project’s KM and, therefore, their familiarity with each other is an important project-level KM context variable. Project team members’ familiarity can be defined as the degree of prior interaction between team members. Gruenfeld et al. (1996) found empirically that team members who were familiar with each other were significantly more successful at sharing than a team of strangers. Janz et al. (1999) also highlighted the importance of the team environment in effective KM in which team members are familiar with each other.

In addition to team members’ familiarity, team-level studies have also noted the importance of team stability as regards effectively allowing the interchange of data, information, and knowledge in project teams. Research has found that project team’s stability has a positive impact on team learning and overall project success (Akgu¨n & Lynn, 2002). Blau (1964) highlighted reciprocity as a benefit for individuals who engage in social exchange. Several studies have empirically shown that individuals participating in online KM activities perceive reciprocity as a strong motivating factor (Kankanhalli et al., 2005). Based on the results of existing studies, we can infer that if a project team is stable and its team members are familiar with each other then there will be a higher sense

of reciprocity. This higher reciprocity will have a positive effect on team members’ participation in Web 2.0-based project-level KM, and this will, in turn, positively affect the different project-level outcome variables. Another context variable that plays a role in the effective sharing of information in a project team is a team leader’s ability to provide an open environment for communication Fedor et al., 2003). A team leader sets up a tone for the whole team by providing ongoing directions and guidance (Nemeth, 1992). A team leader is also the key person to establish the information sources both within and outside the team for his team. Moreover, a team’s leader essentially facilitates or

constraints free flow of information and ideas for his team’s KM, (Beer, 1999). Hence, in using Web 2.0 tools for a project team’s KM, it is important that the project team leader facilities an open environment where project team members participate in Web 2.0 based KM activities to share their knowledge. Therefore, we assert that a project team leader’s ability to provide an environment for communication and information sharing will increase team members’ participation in their team’s Web 2.0 based KM activities and that will, in turn, positively affect the different project-level outcome variables.

Based on this conjecture, we consider these context variables in the subsequent propositions as factors that positively affect the relationship between uses of Web 2.0 for KM and different project-level outcome variables.

6.2.2. Web 2.0 for KM and Transfer of Knowledge Between Projects

Knowledge management in projects includes the policies, tools, and knowledge processes that projects and project-based organizations can use to take advantage of the

knowledge that is available within and outside of projects (Kotnour, 1999). Throughout its life cycle, every project faces uncertainty and ambiguity due to lack of knowledge (Pavlak, 2004; Hallgreen & Maaninen-Olsson, 2005; Yang, 2005). Hence, transfer of knowledge from previous projects can help in predicting and facing the uncertain factors related to the current projects (Landaeta, 2008). Knowledge is shared and transferred from a source project to a project recipient through formal and informal networks contained within knowledge management systems (Hansen, 2002; Blackburn, 2002; Leenders et al., 2003; Sense, 2003; Bresnen et al., 2003). One of the major ways in which such knowledge transfer can occur is through documents (Grant & Gregory, 1997). Instead of using static pages to transfer knowledge between projects that have knowledge that is related to other projects, the use of Wiki for sharing knowledge has two major advantages.

First, as a project goes through different stages, the knowledge related to that project keeps on evolving (Landaeta, 2008). By its very nature, Wiki allows the

knowledge base to evolve through conversation since it is possible to keep track of how the knowledge has evolved (Wagner, 2006). Hence, we believe that through the use of Wiki, the evolution of knowledge in a project could be captured more efficiently. Second, instead of a project team representative being the only source of knowledge gathered in a project, through the use of Wiki, all team members get to share their knowledge based on the role that they have in the project (Brown et al., 2007).

In our exploratory study, we found that all three organizations use Wiki-like Web 2.0 technology in their projects’ internal KM. Along with Wiki for a project team’s internal use, it is company policy in organization C to create a Wiki page for each project (with a few exceptions). This page is available to all the people working in the

organization, and allows users to share different aspects of a project, especially lessons learned, which might help other teams with their projects. Even though it is not

mandatory, we found that companies A and B also use Wiki share project-related knowledge with others in their own organization. Apparently all three companies in our case study realize the importance of knowledge transfer from one project to another and perceive Web 2.0 technology, especially Wiki, as an effective tool to attain the required knowledge transfer. Therefore, based on the existing literature and the findings of our exploratory case study, we posit that:

P6: Use of Web 2.0 technology for KM at project level positively affects transfer of knowledge between projects.

P6a: Project team members’ familiarity with each other positively affects the relationship between use of Web 2.0 technology for KM at project level and transfer of knowledge between projects.

P6b: Stability of the project teams positively affects the relationship between use of Web 2.0 technology for KM at project level and transfer of knowledge between projects. P6c: Team leadership positively affects the relationship between use of Web 2.0 technology for KM at project level and transfer of knowledge between projects.