The role played by project management offices (PMOs) in the transfer of knowledge between projects

Abstract

Knowledge transfer (KT) between projects is increasingly becoming a decisive competitive factor for Project-Based Organizations (PBOs). Although many PBOs find the management of KT very challenging, successful KT management leads to competitive advantage. The obstacles to successful KT management result from the high volumes of knowledge produced by projects. Furthermore, the unique and temporary nature of projects causes project team members to focus on the short-term goals of the project. This often results in them not seeing the capturing and transferring of project knowledge across projects as a priority, or as important for long-term benefits to the organisation. Projects produce knowledge with different levels of articulability – ranging from explicit to tacit knowledge. Although both these types of knowledge are important for competitive advantage, their transfer requires different Knowledge Management (KM) infrastructure and processes. The moderating (supporting) and mediating (facilitating) roles of Project Management Offices (PMOs) assist in the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge between projects. This helps to improve the usability of knowledge which, in turn, leads to a competitive advantage for PBOs. This study aims to, (a) investigate the PMO’s moderation and mediation roles in the transfer of knowledge (with different levels of articulability) between projects to improve its usability, and (b) develop a model depicting the PMO’s moderation and mediation roles in the transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge between projects, so that the usability of the transferred knowledge can be improved. Therefore, the overarching research question is: “To what extent do PMOs moderate (support) and mediate (facilitate) the transfer of knowledge (with different levels of articulability) between projects to improve its usability?” To assist in answering this research question, a case study method was used to investigate KT in five divisional PMOs within a multinational engineering PBO. A pilot case study was conducted to, (a) sharpen the focus of the study, (b) test the effectiveness of the case study procedures, and (c) fine-tune the case study protocol. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the results were analysed using ATLAS.Ti – a computer-aided qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) application. Data collection overlapped with data analysis to speed up analysis and to adjust data collection techniques where necessary. Each case was analysed separately before a comparative analysis of all cases was conducted. Thereafter, an iterative process of comparing the emergent theories with the initial study propositions commenced. The analysis of the enfolding literature paved the way for further studies on the development of the moderation and mediation model and presentations of its limitations and opportunities. The study findings on the PMO’s moderation role identified three KT enablers namely; (a) creation of awareness and importance of KT, (b) establishment of trust amongst project personnel, and (c) creation of an organizational KT culture. The embedment of these KT enablers into organizational routines does not only ensure a sustainable KT process, but also warrants a seamless KT process through a systematic interaction, integration, alignment, and management of knowledge management (KM) infrastructure and process capabilities. This improves the transfer of knowledge (with different levels of articulability) between projects, and the usability of the transferred knowledge. On the mediation role of the PMO, the findings show that the PMO aligns the KM infrastructure and processes with the personalization and codification KT strategies to ensure that tacit and explicit knowledge is successfully transferred between projects to improve its usability. Furthermore, the study shows that the KM infrastructure strategies employed by the PMO in facilitating the transfer of knowledge (with different levels of articulability) between projects to improve its usability are embedded in organizational routines, relationship strategies, and standardized and formal strategies. The articulability of knowledge influences the PMO’s mediation role and the PMO’s mediation role in turn improves the usability of knowledge, thereby creating a competitive advantage. A model depicting the PMO’s moderation and mediation roles in the transfer of knowledge (with different levels of articulability) between projects to improve its usability has been developed. The integration of moderation and mediation roles of the PMO in KT between projects increases the advancement in theory testing. The study shows that the PMO can be used as an instrument for KT between projects, a theme that was not found in literature. It therefore offers new empirical knowledge. The study shows that PMOs moderate (support) and mediate (facilitate) the flow of knowledge between projects to a large extent. The model will assist scholars and practitioners to better understand the PMO’s moderation and mediation roles in the transfer of knowledge (with different levels of articulability) between projects to improve its usability. This will in turn lead to competitive advantage. The model shows that knowledge with different levels of articulability requires different KM infrastructure and processes for its usability to be improved. Furthermore, the study will assist PBOs in making knowledge – generated from lessons learnt and other sources – more articulate and available to other projects, which will increase the usability of such knowledge. Detailed theoretical and practical implications of the study are outlined in the report. The study has certain limitations: it only focusses on PMOs that are mandated to manage many projects i.e., “multi-project PMOs”, rather than “single-project PMOs” or “project offices”. It also does not investigate KT within PBOs without a PMO. The PMO is usually seen as an overhead cost which most small and upcoming PBOs cannot afford. Therefore, a future study to compare KT between projects in PBOs with and without PMOs could be useful to both theory and practice. Moreover, a future study investigating the nature, artifacts and types of knowledge generated and received within the investigated cases would assist in the assignment and alignment of KM infrastructure and processes to improve the usability of knowledge. The impact of knowledge received and used as a dimension for KT success could be another avenue to be explored in future research.