This study investigates the knowledge flows among and between project managers and project management office (PMO) members in a pharmaceutical R&D company in China, using a mixed-methods approach. The results show that knowledge exchange happens in clusters, where each cluster forms around a PMO member. Contrary to expectations, PMO members were not identified as the most popular knowledge providers in these clusters; instead, knowledge was requested from earlier collaborators. A three-tiered model is developed for knowledge governance at the cluster level, across clusters and the link with corporate and project governance structures. Managerial and theoretical implications are discussed.
AbrilR., & MüllerR. (2009). Lessons learned as organizational project memories. In GirardJ. (Ed.), Building organizational memories: Will we know what we knew? (pp. 97–114). New York, NY: Information Science Reference.
2.
AlmeidaP., & KogutB. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.
3.
AnderssonA., & MüllerR. (2007). Containing transaction costs in ERP implementation through identification of strategic learning projects. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 84–92.
ArthurM. B., DeFillippiR. J., & JonesC. (2001). Project-based learning as the interplay of career and company non-financial capital. Management Learning, 32(1), 99–117.
6.
ArttoK., KulvikI., PoskelaJ., & TurkulainenV. (2011). The integrative role of the project management office in the front end of innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 408–421.
7.
AubryM., HobbsB., MüllerR., & BlomquistT. (2011). Identifying the forces driving the frequent changes in PMOs.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
8.
AubryM., HobbsB., & ThuillierD. (2007). A new framework for understanding organisational project management through PMO. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 328–336.
9.
AubryM., MüllerR., & GlücklerJ. (2011). Exploring PMOs through community of practice theory. Project Management Journal, 52(5), 42–56.
10.
BelliniE., & CanonicoP. (2008). Knowing communities in project driven organizations: Analysing the strategic impact of socially constructed HRM practices. International Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 44–50.
11.
BhaskarR. (1975). A realist theory of science.Leeds, UK: Leeds Books Ltd.
12.
BiedenbachT., & SöderholmA. (2008). The challenge of organizing change in hypercompetitive industries: A literature review. Journal of Change Management, 8(2), 123–145.
13.
Bosch-SijtsemaP., & PostmaT. (2010). Governance factors enabling knowledge transfer in interorganisational development projects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(5), 593–608.
14.
BredilletC. N. (2004). Projects: Learning at the edge of organization. In MorrisP.W. G., & PintoJ. K. (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 1112–1136). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
15.
BresnenM., EdelmanL., NewellS., ScarbroughH., & SwanJ. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157–166.
16.
BrookesN. J., MortonS. C., DaintyA. R. J., & BurnsN. D. (2006). Social processes, patterns and practices and project knowledge management: A theoretical framework and an empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 24(6), 474–482.
17.
BurnsT., & StalkerG. M. (1994). The management of innovation.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
18.
BurtR. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
ChenM.-J., & MillerD. (2010). West meets east: Toward an ambicultural approach to management. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 17–24.
20.
ClarkeT. (2004). The stakeholder corporation: A business philosophy for the information age. In ClarkeT. (Ed.), Theories of corporate governance: The philosophical foundations of corporate governance (pp. 189–202). London, UK: Routledge.
21.
CostenbaderE., & ValenteT. (2003). The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Social Networks, 25(4), 283–307.
22.
DaiC. X. Y., & WellsW. G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 523–532.
23.
DenisJ.-L., LangleyA., & RouleauL. (2007). Strategizing in pluralistic contexts: Rethinking theoretical frames. Human Relations, 60(1), 179–215.
24.
DinsmoreP. C., & Cooke-DaviesT. J. (2006). Right projects done right! From business strategy to successful project implementation.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
26.
FernieS., GreenS. D., WellerS. J., & NewcombeR. (2003). Knowledge sharing: Context, confusion and controversy. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 177–187.
27.
FossN. J. (2007). The emerging knowledge governance approach: Challenges and characteristics. Organization, 14(1), 29–52.
28.
FossN. J. (2010). The emerging knowledge governance approach: Challenges and characteristics. DRUID Working Paper No. 06–10, Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics. Retrieved from http://www.druid.dk
29.
FossN. J., HustedK., & MichailovaS. (2010). Governing knowledge sharing in organizations: Levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research directions. Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 455–482.
30.
GlücklerJ. (2008). Die Chancen der Standortspaltung: Wissensnetze im globalen Unternehmen (The fortunes of dispersed locations: Knowledge networks in the global firm). Geographische Zeitschrift, 96, 125–139.
31.
GlücklerJ. (2011). Islands of expertise: Global knowledge transfer in a technology service firm. In BatheltH., FeldmanM., & KoglerD.-F. (Eds.), Beyond territory: Dynamic geographies of innovation and knowledge creation (pp. 207–226). London, UK: Routledge.
32.
GrabherG. (2004). Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1491–1514. doi: 10.1177/0170840604047996
33.
GranovetterM. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.
34.
GrantR. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109–123.
35.
GreenwoodR., & MillerD. (2010). Tackling design anew: Getting back to the heart of organizational theory. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(4), 78–88.
36.
HagströmP., SölvellÖ., & HedlundG. (1999). A three-dimensional model of changing internal structure in the firm. In ChandlerA. D.Jr., HagströmP., & SolvellO. (Eds.), The dynamic firm: The role of technology, strategy, organization, and regions (pp. 166–191). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
37.
HansenM. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(2), 232–248.
38.
HobbsB., & AubryM. (2010). The project management office: A quest for understanding.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
39.
HobbsB., & AubryM. (2011). A typology of PMOs derived using cluster analysis and the relationship with performance. In Proceedings of the IRNOP Conference, June 10–22, 2011, Montreal, Canada.
40.
HobdayM. (2000). The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?Research Policy, 29(7-8), 871–893.
41.
HurtM., & ThomasJ. L. (2009). Building value through sustainable project management offices. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 55–72.
42.
JensenM. C. (2000). A theory of the firm: Governance, residual claims, and organizational forms.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
JensenM. C., & MecklingW. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.94043
44.
JonesC., HesterlyW. S., & BorgattiS. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–945.
45.
KeeganA., & TurnerR. J. (2001). Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices. Management Learning, 32(1), 77–98.
46.
KilduffM., & TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations.London, England: SAGE.
47.
KotnourT. (2000). Organizational learning practices in the project management environment. The International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(4/5), 393–406.
48.
KrackhardtD. (1990). Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(2), 342–369.
LazegaE. (2001). The collegial phenomenon: The social mechanisms of cooperation among peers in a corporate law partnership.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
51.
LindkvistL. (2004). Governing project-based firms: Promoting market-like processes within hierarchies. Journal of Management & Governance, 8(1), 3–25.
52.
LundinR. A., & SöderholmA. (1995). A theory of the temporary organization. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 437–455.
53.
MaqsoodT., FineganA. D., & WalkerD. H. T. (2003). A conceptual model for exploring knowledge channelization from sources of innovation in construction organizations: Extending the role of knowledge management. In GreenwoodD. J. (Ed.), 19th Annual ARCOM Conference, September 3–5, 2003 (Vol. 2, pp. 3–5). Brighton, England: Association of Researchers in Construction Management.
54.
McPheeR. D., & PooleM. S. (2000). Organizational structures and configurations. In JablinF. M., & PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 503–543). London, England: SAGE.
55.
MeadS. P. (2001). Using social network analysis to visualize project teams. Project Management Journal, 32(4), 32–38.
56.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
57.
MitchellJ. C. (1969). The concept and use of social network. In MitchellJ. C. (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations: Analysis of personal relationships in central African towns (pp. 1–50). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
MüllerR. (2011). Project governance. In MorrisP., PintoJ. K., & SöderlundJ. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of project management (pp. 297–320). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
60.
NickersonJ. A., & ZengerT. R. (2004). A knowledge-based theory of the firm? The problem-solving perspective. Organization Science, 15(6), 617–632. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0093
61.
NohriaN. (1992). Is a network perspective a useful way of studying organizations? In NohriaN., & EcclesR. G. (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 1–22). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
62.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2004). OECD principles of corporate governance. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org
63.
PellegrinelliS., & GaragnaL. (2009). Towards a conceptualisation of PMOs as agents and subjects of change and renewal. International Journal of Project Management, 27(7), 649–656.
64.
PemselS., & MüllerR. (2012). The governance of knowledge in project-based organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 30(8), 865–876.
65.
PemselS., & WiewioraA. (2013). Project management office a knowledge broker in project-based organisations. International Journal of Project Management.31(1), 31–42.
66.
PenroseE. (1959). The theory of growth of the firm.New York, NY: Wiley.
67.
PettigrewA. M., & MassiniS. (2003). Innovative forms of organizing: Trends in Europe, Japan and the USA in the 1990s. In PettigrewA. M., WhittingtonR., MelinL., Sanchez-RundeC., Van den BoschF. A. J., RuigrokW., & NumagamiT. (Eds.), Innovative forms of organizing (pp. 1–33). London, England: SAGE.
68.
PowellW.W., KoputK.W., & Smith-DoerrL. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.
69.
PrencipeA., & TellF. (2001). Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30(9), 1373–1394.
70.
ProvanK. G., & KenisP. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
71.
PrykeS., & PearsonS. (2006). Project governance: Case studies on financial incentives. Research and Information, 34(6), 534–545.
72.
RankO. N., RobinsG. L., & PattisonP. E. (2010). Structural logic of intraorgani-zational networks. Organization Science, 21(3), 745–764.
73.
ReagansR., & McEvilyB. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
74.
ReichB. H. (2007). Managing knowledge and learning in IT projects: A conceptual framework and guidelines for practice. Project Management Journal, 38(2), 5–17.
ScarbroughH., & AmaeshiK. (2009). Knowledge governance for open innovation: Evidence from an EU R&D collaboration. In FossN. J., & MichailovaS. (Eds.), Knowledge governance (pp. 220–246). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
77.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
78.
SenseA. J., & BadhamR. J. (2008). Cultivating situated learning within project management practice. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(3), 432–438.
79.
ShobhaC. S., & PottaB. K. (2010). Knowledge management in software service projects ecosystem. In SrikantaiahT. K., KoenigM. E. D., & HawamdehB. S. (Eds.), Convergence of project management and knowledge management (pp. 297–307). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
80.
SorensonO., & WaguespackD. M. (2006). Social structure and exchange: Self-confirming dynamics in Hollywood. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(4), 560–589.
81.
SrikantaiahT. K., KoenigM. E. D., & HawamdehS. (Eds.). (2010). Convergence of project management and knowledge management.Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
82.
SzymczakC. C., & WalkerD. H. T. (2003). Boeing—A case study example of enterprise project management from a learning organisation perspective. The Learning Organization, 10(3), 125–137.
TeddlieC., & TashakkoriA. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In TeddlieC., & TashakkoriA. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
85.
TsaiW. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraogranizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.
86.
TurnerJ. R., & MüllerR. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1–7.
87.
Van den BoschF. A. J., VolberdaH.W., & de BoerM. (1999). Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science, 10(5), 551–568.
88.
WalkerD. H. T., & ChristensonD. (2005). Knowledge wisdom and networks: A project management centre of excellence example. The Learning Organization, 12(3), 275–291.
89.
WassermanS., & FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
90.
WhittingtonR., & MelinL. (2003). The challenge of organizing/strategizing. In PettigrewA. M., WhittingtonR., MelinL., Sanchez-RundeC., Van den BoschF. A. J., RuigrokW., & NumagamiT. (Eds.), Innovative forms of organizing (pp. 35–48). London, England: SAGE.
91.
WilliamsT. (2007). Post-project reviews to gain effective lessons learned.Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
92.
WilliamsonO. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications.New York, NY: Collier Macmillan.
93.
WilliamsonO. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism.New York, NY: The Free Press.
94.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
