This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:
Sokhanvar, Shahram, Trigunarsyah, Bambang, & Yarlagadda, Prasad K.D.V.(2011) The role of knowledge in the project management office. In
25th International Project Management Association (IPMA) Conference,
9-13 October 2011, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, Brisbane, QLD. (In Press)
This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/46477/
c
Copyright 2011 [please consult the authors]
Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
The Role of Knowledge in
the Project Management Office
Shahram Sokhanvar1, Bambang Trigunarsyah2, Prasad KDV Yarlgadda3
Abstract
Both Knowledge Management (KM) and Project Management (PM) are known as crucial factors to develop competitive advantage (CA). PM Office (PMO) is recognized as a strong solution to institutionalize PM practices in organization. However, according to the literature there is a significant gap in addressing KM practices in the PMO. In other words, existing PMO maturity models has not been addressed from KM perceptive. This paper discusses undertaken investigations of both KM and PM as an initial part of PhD research on the role of knowledge in PMO.
Key words: Knowledge Management, Project Management, Project Management Office
1.
INTRODUCTION
The importance of the Knowledge and KM has been accentuated by number of authors through introducing this century as “Knowledge Society” , “Knowledge Era” or even “Knowledge Revolution” (Drucker F P, 1993; Porter M E, 1985; Wiig K M, 1997b). Moreover, the concept of “intellectual property” has been proposed by Drucker (1993) to advocates the role of individuals’ knowledge , as the non physical and intangible asset for organizations, for improving companies’ competitive advantages. In addition, Wiig (1997b) believes that substantial influence of human being’s knowledge on organizational performance have convinced decision makers to change their strategies from product-oriented to knowledge-driven. Hence, there is a strong consensus among researchers and practitioners that individuals’ knowledge significantly contributes to improvement of the quality of services and products by which companies compete through developing KM practices (Drucker F P, 1993; Wiig K M, 1997b).
PM as another critical factor in developing competitive advantages, is defined as the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to meet project requirements as well as objectives through employing appropriate processes as well as methods. The five generic stages of project lifecycle: initiating; planning; executing; controlling; and closing comprise of methods, procedures and processes to utilize project team member’s knowledge in order to deliver quality product or service in a given timeframe and determined budget. The integration of mentioned stages and their related processes has been a problematic challenge, especially in big and complex projects. The notion of the Project Management Office (PMO) has been recently proposed to tackle the recognized issues in order to institutionalizes project management practices through establishing and developing an organizational unit within companies structure (PRINCE2 Foundation, 2008; Project Management Institute, 2004).
This paper discusses undertaken investigations of both KM and PM in the existing literature as an initial part of PhD research on the role of knowledge in PMO. The paper starts with the discussion on the notion of knowledge management. It is then followed by the discussion on project management and project management office. Based on these, an attempt to integrate knowledge management practices to project management office is proposed.
1 PhD student at Engineering Systems school, Queensland University of Technology, [email protected] 2 A. Professor at School of Urban Development, Queensland University of Technology, bambang.
2.
THE NOTION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
There are a number of definitions in the literature which illustrated knowledge from different point of views. Some definitions have epistemological perspectives while some others present ontological side of knowledge. Basically, data and information are two main constituents of knowledge in which "Data is simple observation of states of the world" and "Information is data endowed with relevance and purpose"(Knight T & Howes T, 2003, p. 13). According to Knight T and Howes (2003) knowledge is a valuable information which comes from individual’s mind, while Davenport and Prusak (2000, p. 5) argue that Knowledge as "a fluid mix of experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insights that provides a framework for evaluation and incorporating new experiences and information."
From another perspectives, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) believe that knowledge is subjective, process-relational, and aesthetic which is created through human being interactions and it is similar to information in which there is no context. This means that Knowledge is interpretation or translation of information in particular context. In summary, knowledge entails followings characteristics (Alavi M & Leidner D E, 1999; Arora P, Owens D, & Khazanchi D, 2010; Davenport H T & Prusak L, 2000; Nonaka I, 1994; Wiig K M, 1997a):
A valuable information which comes from individual’s mind, belief or values; An individual’s ability to generate new knowledge or information from existing
information, experience, insight or knowledge; and
It creates value for organizations to develop competitive advantages
In general, knowledge has two main dimensions: tacit ; and explicit in which explicit knowledge is articulated and codified in organizational documents, forms and instructions while tacit knowledge is embedded in individual’s mind, beliefs and thoughts which could not been easily codified and it is hidden side of individual knowledge deeply rooted in his/her actions, ideals, and commitments (Nonaka I, 1994). Form project-base point of view Kasvi et al. (2003) propose three types of knowledge in project environments: technical; knowledge; and organizational knowledge. Given the novelty of this typology, limited studies have been investigated it, however, Wiewiora et al. (2010) have modified the last one, i.e. organizational knowledge, to “about customer requirement” in accordance to PMBOK. This replacement not only makes presented classification more solid but also emphasizes the critical role of “knowledge about customer requirement”.
According to Alavi and Leidner (2001) five views of knowledge should be considered for defining knowledge management :1) a state of mind; 2) an object; 3) a process; 4) a condition of having access to proper information; or 5) a capability. For instance if knowledge is a process then KM is defined as process of creation, sharing, and distribution of knowledge, while, if knowledge is a capability then KM is considered as building core competencies and understanding organizational strategic know-how (Alavi M & Leidner D E, 2001). Apart from given views of knowledge, authors propose general definition of KM as “ A systemic and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing and communicating both tacit and explicit knowledge of employees so that other employees may make use of it to be more effective and productive in their work(1999, p. 6).”
Given the above-mentioned discussions, development of KM could be classified to technical and nontechnical enhancement in which technical section focuses on ICT aspect while nontechnical approach investigates social science and managerial side of KM.
From process point of view, few studies have been undertaken to integrate KM processes within a framework. Nissen et al. (2000) have investigated previous developed KM lifecycles, then proposed an “amalgamated KM framework”. A complementary work has been done by Lytras et al. (2002) to develop the mentioned model and propose a comprehensive model that it is applicable in both academic and business organizations. However, it has not been examined in project-base organization. On the other hand, Owen
and Burstein (2005) propose a framework to address KM processes in project-base environment. This model entails four major processes: Creation; Capture; Transfer; Reuse (Owen J & Burstein F, 2005). Lack of validity could be pointed out as weak-points of this framework. Table 1 has been provided in order to present major discussion of KM processes in two different contexts.
Table 1- KM processes frameworks
Proposed
Context Authors
Processes and their underpinnings
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Functional
Organizations
Nissen et
al (2000) Create Organize Formalize Distribute Apply Evolve Lytras et
al. (2002)
Relate/value
Acquire Organize Enable Reuse Transfer Use
Project –base Organization
Owen & Burstein (2005)
Create Capture Transfer Reuse **** **** Kasvi et al.
(2003) Creation Administration Retrieval Utilization **** ****
3.
THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO)
Project management is claimed as a critical approach to secure organizational competitive advantage (Grant K P & Pennypacker J S, 2006). The dramatic increasing attentions to PM necessitate appropriate PM methodologies. The PMO is recognized as a valid solution to establish and develop PM methodologies by which project management practices are institutionalized within organizations (Kerzner H, 2009; Project Management Institute, 2008). According to the existing literature, PMO has following major responsibilities (Desouza K C & Evaristo J R, 2006; Project Management Institute, 2004, 2008):
Aligning projects with organizational strategies;
Developing standards, processes, and methods of project management and improving organizational capacities to employ them;
Monitoring and controlling organizational project;
Training project stakeholders especially project team members and project manager;
Managing project and team members' knowledge, as one of the main
responsibilities the PMOs.
Anecdotal evidences report that organizations have shown meaningful interests to launch and improve the PMO. According to Liu and Yetton (2007), considerable number of companies has established their PMOs in 2003. Concerning the novelty of the PMO, it is advised to develop it through maturity models. This approach helps for both increasing capability of organization and delegating appropriate responsibilities to the PMO. However, it has caused a number of challenges for organizations (Desouza K C & Evaristo J R, 2006; Kerzner H, 2005). KM is one of the significant challenges in the PMO that has not been considered so far.
The establishment and development of PMO necessitates to be undertaken through appropriate methods which called PM maturity models (PMMM) (Kerzner H, 2005). According to Anderson et al. (2007, p. 101) basic idea of maturity model is that" you must learn to crawl before you can learn walk”. The PMMM is a framework to construct the PM practices through improving from immature level, i.e. initial or ad hoc, to mature level, i.e. optimized (Jugdev K & Thomas J, 2002; Kerzner H, 2005). There are number of PMMM models in the literature with different approaches (see table 2), and majority of them adopted process-oriented approach. A study by Gasik (2007, p. 15) compares more than twenty PMMMs and recommends subsequent factors for choosing appropriate one for
targeted organizations: Method independency; Public domain; Publication; Industry; independency; Transparency ;Years of existence; and Ease of use.
Table 2-PMMMs Models
Maturity Level
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Maturity Model
OPM3
(2008) Standardize Measure Control
Continuously
improve ****** P3M3
(PRINCE2 Foundation, 2008) Awareness Repeatable Defined Managed Optimized Kerzner’s Model (2005) Common
Language Common Process Singular Methodology Benchmarking Continues Improvement CMMI- based model
(Jugdev K & Thomas J, 2002) Initial Repeatable Refined Managed Optimized
Despite the usefulness of the existing PMMMs, they are no perfect solutions from some aspects (Aubry M, Hobbs B, & Thuillier D, 2008). Knowledge management is one of the problematic challenges which not only has been extensively discussed in project environment but also it has not been addressed in the current PM maturity models. This gap is identified as a problem in project context and discussed in the nest section.
4.
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT
In early 2000s, it has been realized that there are differences between project and organization’s operation from KM point of view. This issue has lead number of studies to investigate KM in project environment. Despite the increasing attentions of KM studies in project environment, the existing literature is not rich enough, in comparison to KM studies in functional organization, to address current challenges (Bresnen M, Edelman L, Newell S, Scarbrough H, & Swan J, 2003; Koskinen K U & Pihlanto P, 2008; Owen J, Burstein F, & Mitchell Steven, 2004). Having said that, the proposed KM practices in functional environments are not considered as appropriate benchmarks for project-base companies. Temporary nature of the project is one of the main reasons of the mentioned differences in which necessitate appropriate solution to tackle KM issues within project context. According to Bresnen et al. (2003) KM in project environment is problematic and challenging because of followings:
Projects are finite and their personnel disband or leave after project termination therefore created knowledge are not utilized in similar project if:
There are difficulties to develop and disseminate knowledge within and between projects (inter and intra project).
Fragmentation of project team members into different groups, separate them and it makes difficult to flow knowledge among groups.
KM and organizational learning across the projects and between individuals have lots of difficulties.
From Km point of view, Koskinen et al. (2003) claim that there is strong correlation between knowledge management and project success/failure. Appropriate KM practices in projects contribute to exploration of proper knowledge/experience in right time by which improve performance of activities and, ultimately, it secures success of project (Davidson P & Jillian R, 2009; Kasvi J J J, et al., 2003; Owen J, et al., 2004). In other words, managing knowledge of project significantly contributes to deliver quality products/services in order for achieving project objectives. A number of studies have been undertaken to investigate this subject from different perspectives. Some authors have just focused on KM in single projects such as Brown and Duguid (1998) while another group have
investigated intra and inter project such as Kotnour (2000). A list of undertaken studies and their recognized gaps has been provided as below:
Repetitive works or rework because of lack of effective knowledge reuse and transferring system (Desouza K C & Evaristo J R, 2006; Love P E D, Irani Z, & Edwards D J, 2003; Owen J, et al., 2004);
Lack of collaboration because of unsystematic KM in project environment (Davidson P & Jillian R, 2009);
Lack of appropriate knowledge sharing and acquisition systems (Koskinen K U, et al., 2003);
Knowledge leakiness & stickiness in projects (Brown A E & Duguid P, 1998); Poor system to collect and assimilate Lesson learned between and within
projects (Goffin K, Koners U, Baxter D, & Van der Hoven C, 2010; Newell S, Bresnen M, Edelman L, Scarbrough H, & Swan J, 2006); and
Lack of wisdom in projects because of inappropriate knowledge management system in project environment (Walker D H T & Christenson D, 2005);
5.
DISCUSSIONS
According to Standish Group (1995) in 1994, only 16% out of 175,000 Information Technology(IT) projects in the United State were successfully closed, in addition 31% of them failed and remained 53% struggled with about 190% overrun cost. The investigations have indicated that lack of application of Project Management (PM) practices is one of the main causes of project failure (Anbari F T, 2005; Desouza K C & Evaristo J R, 2006; The Standish Group, 1995; Whittaker B, 1999). These reports, alongside the other efforts, have led both academics/practitioners to develop PM methodologies and organizations to employ appropriate project management methods.
Studies have confirmed significant role of PM methodologies and their underpinnings (Anbari F T, 2005; The Standish Group, 2003). In 2002, Standish Group conducted similar study and found that project success rate has significantly raised to 34 % (was 16% in 1994) while failure rate reduced to 16 % (was 31% in 1994), which both indicate more than 100% improvement (The Standish Group, 2003). Project Management Office (PMO) has been proposed as the successful solution to improve quality of project management, in the continuum of PM methods development (Kerzner H, 2009; Project Management Institute, 2004). According to Santosus (2003) PMO has significant role for improving the rate of project success. Apart from academic efforts, organizations have shown meaningful interests to launch and improve the PMO within their structure(2007).
On the other hand, Knowledge Management(KM) has been reported as a critical issue for both functional and project organizations (Alavi M & Leidner D E, 1999; Kotnour T, 2000). Discussions on KM in project have been evolved since early 2000 due to revealed differences between project task and functional activity (task is temporary but activity is part of routine job). With regards to nature of project, team members leave after undertaking assigned tasks, accordingly, leaking of project knowledge is, potentially, one of major challenges in projects. A comprehensive survey assert that cost of reworks in Australian construction projects is about 35% of total cost of projects and, 50% of total overrun cost(Love P E D, et al., 2003). It could be concluded that issues such as “reworks”, “leakiness or stickiness of knowledge” and “reparative works” are constituents of major problem, i.e. poor Knowledge Management. Consistently, number of authors have considered KM as problematic issue in the project and project environments which should be significantly investigated (Kasvi J J J, et al., 2003; Koskinen K U & Pihlanto P, 2008; Kotnour T, 2000; Owen J, et al., 2004).
With regards to current literature, KM issues in project-base environment have been recently conducted, however, little studies have been undertaken to discuss KM in the PMO. In other words, there is a significant gap in the existing literature to discuss KM
practices in the PMO not only from processes point of view but also from the existing PMO maturity models perspective. Therefore, an attempt to integrate KM practices into the PMO will contribute to both improving efficiency of project management and developing organizational competitive advantages through improvement of knowledge management practices in project management environment. In addition, it can provide original insightful information of KM role in the PMO, for not only improving performance of project environment, but also reducing inappropriate KM in projects. Figure 1 illustrates major previous attempts for developing the PMO follows by significances of the proposed research. Prvoius attempts to develop the PMO matuirty model The Siginifcances and Contributions of the proposed Research
Figure 1- Significance of Propsoed Research
6.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
In order to address mentioned gap of KM in PMO, a comprehensive literature review has been undertaken then, appropriate links have been established among research questions and research methods. The Case study and Focus group have been chosen as research methods and Grounded theory approach will be employed for analytical as well as theory making purposes. In the next stage, case study method will be carried out in the selected PMOs, for collecting data through interview, observation, questionnaire and document analysis methods. Alongside the data collection period, Grounded theory will be utilized for analyzing and categorizing data, then, creating theory in order to achieve research objectives. Ultimately, a framework will be developed based upon both collected data and proposed theory(s) to address appropriate KM practices for each level of PMO maturity model. For validation purposes, the framework will be examined through focus group method. In this stage PMO experts and consultant as well as KM experts will be gathered in a group and appropriate questionnaires will be provided to be answered. Based upon their answers the developed framework might be refined and, eventually, it is expected a consensus among participants to obtained at the end of focus group.
It is expected that findings of this research both shall address required KM practices for each level of the PMO maturity and will propose accurate criteria to assess the PMO maturity from a KM point of view. We anticipate that outcomes of this study shall assist a number of following organizations as well as individuals:
Functional Organizations that intend to establish their PMO; Project-base Organizations;
The established PMOs that seek to improve their KM practices;
The PMO and PM consultants;
The PMO Maturity Model Organizational Structures Project Management Methods Maturity Model Approach Process-based model Lack of KM Practices
New Criteria to assess the maturity of the PMO from
KM perspective
The framework to address KM practices for each
7.
REFERENCES
Alavi M, & Leidner D E. (1999). Knowledge management systems: issues, challenges, and benefits. Commun. AIS, 1(2es), 1.
Alavi M, & Leidner D E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge
Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1),
107-136.
Anbari F T. (2005). Innovation, project management, and Six Sigma method. Current topics in Management, 10, 101–116.
Andersen B, Henriksen B, & Aarseth W. (2007). Benchmarking of Project Management Office Establishment: Extracting Best Practices. Journal of Management in Engineering, 23, 97.
Arora P, Owens D, & Khazanchi D. (2010). A Pattern-Based Tool for Knowledge Management in Virtual Projects The IUP Journal of Knowledge Management, VIII(3), 60-80.
Aubry M, Hobbs B, & Thuillier D. (2008). Organisational project management: An historical approach to the study of PMOs. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 38-43.
Bresnen M, Edelman L, Newell S, Scarbrough H, & Swan J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157-166.
Brown A E, & Duguid P. (1998). Organizing Knowledge. California Management Review, 40(3), 90-111.
Davenport H T, & Prusak L. (2000). Working Knowledge: how organizations manages what the know. Boston-USA: Harvard Business School Press.
Davidson P, & Jillian R. (2009). Systematising knowledge management in projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(4), 561 - 576.
Desouza K C, & Evaristo J R. (2006). Project management offices: A case of knowledge-based archetypes. International Journal of Information Management, 26(5), 414-423.
Drucker F P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Paperbacks. Gasik S. (2007). A Model of Project Knowledge Management. Utrecht University.
Goffin K, Koners U, Baxter D, & Van der Hoven C. (2010). Managing Lessons Learned
and Tacit Knowledge in New Product Development Research-Technology Management,
53(4), 39-51.
Grant K P, & Pennypacker J S. (2006). Project management maturity: an assessment of project management capabilities among and between selected industries. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 53(1), 59-68.
Jugdev K, & Thomas J. (2002). Project management maturity models: The silver bullets of competitive advantage: Project Management Institute.
Kasvi J J J, Vartiainen M, & Hailikari M. (2003). Managing knowledge and knowledge competences in projects and project organisations. International Journal of Project Management, 21(8), 571-582.
Kerzner H. (2005). Using the Project Management Maturity Model Hobokon- New Jersey: John Wiley& Sons
Kerzner H. (2009). Project management , As system approach to planning, scheduling and controling. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Kitzinger J. (1995). Introducing Focus Groups. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299-302.
Knight T, & Howes T. (2003). Knowledge management: a blueprint for delivery: a programme for mobilizing knowledge and building the learning organization. Burlington -MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Koskinen K U, & Pihlanto P. (2008). Knowledge Management in Project-Based Companies Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koskinen K U, Pihlanto P, & Vanharanta H. (2003). Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal of Project Management, 21(4), 281-290.
Kotnour T. (2000). Organizational learning practices in the project management environment. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17( 4/5), 393 - 406.
Liu L, & Yetton P. (2007). The Contingent Effects on Project Performance of Conducting Project Reviews and Deploying Project Management Offices. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 54(4), 789-799.
Love P E D, Irani Z, & Edwards D J, 34 (3), 13. (2003). Learning to reduce rework in projects: analysis of firm's organisational learning and quality practices. Project Management Journal, 34(3).
Lytras M D, Pouloudi A, & Poulymenakou A. (2002). Knowledge management convergence - expanding learning frontiers. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), .40 - 51.
Newell S, Bresnen M, Edelman L, Scarbrough H, & Swan J. (2006). Sharing Knowledge Across Projects: Limits to ICT-led Project Review Practices. Management Learning, 37(2), 167.
Nissen M, Kamel M, & Sengupta K. (2000). Integrated analysis and design of knowledge systems and processes. Inf. Resour. Manage. J., 13(1), 24-42.
Nonaka I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37.
Nonaka I, & Takeuchi H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York Oxford University Press, USA.
Owen J, & Burstein F. (2005). Where knowledge management resides within project
management. Case Studies in Knowledge Management, 138.
Owen J, Burstein F, & Mitchell Steven. (2004). Knowledge reuse and transfer in a project management environment.
Porter M E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior
performance. New York: Free Press.
PRINCE2 Foundation. (2008). Portfolio, Program and Project Office Norwich: TSO. Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge : PMBOK Guide. Newtown Square, PA, USA: Project Management Institute
Project Management Institute. (2008). Organizational project managment maturity model. Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.
Santosus M. (2003). Office discipline: why you need a project management office. CIO Magazine, July, 1.
The Standish Group. (1995). The CHAOS Report. West Yarmouth, MA. The Standish Group. (2003). The CHAOS Report. West Yarmouth, MA.
Walker D H T, & Christenson D. (2005). Knowledge wisdom and networks: a project management centre of excellence example. Learning Organization, 12(3), 275 - 291.
Whittaker B. (1999). What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects. Information Management & Computer Security, 7(1), 23-30.
Wiewiora A, Liang C, & Trigunarsyah B. (2010). Inter- and intra- project knowledge transfer : analysis of knowledge transfer techniques. Paper presented at the PMI Research and Education Conference.
Wiig K M. (1997a). Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 399-405.
Wiig K M. (1997b). Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective. Journal
