Search results

This paper aims to examine how the different dimensions of project members’ intra-organizational social capital – cognitive, affective and relational – facilitate knowledge integration in project-based organizations, and how knowledge integration, in turn, impacts explorative and exploitative learning.

Based on an analysis of 129 R&D Spanish organizations, the study analyzes the interconnections between the different dimensions of social capital and how they affect to knowledge integration as antecedent of explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations.

Results confirm that knowledge integration is beneficial for both exploratory and exploitive learning and thus that R&D organizations may be thus ambidextrous in their knowledge management. Related to the three dimensions of social capital, only the cognitive dimension (shared vision) has a significant impact on knowledge integration. However, the analysis confirms the interconnections between the three dimensions of social capital: the relational dimension (social interaction ties) and the cognitive dimension (shared vision) have significant effect on the relational one (trust), and the relational dimension also has an influence on the cognitive dimension. The model proposed in this study thus shows an acceptable capacity to discern the different influence of the dimensions of internal social capital on knowledge integration and, subsequently, ambidextrous learning.

This paper examines the importance of intra-organizational social capital, in terms of their cognitive (shared vision), relational (trust) and structural (social interaction ties) dimensions, for explorative and exploitative learning in project-based organizations. The analysis takes the baton of previous literature where is suggested that the three dimensions of social capital are interlocked and not just need to be considered simultaneously.

This chapter develops a conceptual framework to help us position and understand the increasing importance of project-based innovation for industrial organization in the 21st century. It builds on and extends Joan Woodward's (1958 and 1965) pioneering research, which classifies industrial organizations according to the complexity of production technology and volume of output. We suggest that a radical revision of Woodward's framework is required to account for the extensive use of project-based organizations to gain competitive advantage through accelerated innovation and growth in new technologies and markets.

This chapter clarifies our understanding of the project-based firm (PBF) by sharpening the theoretical foundations of project capabilities. It emphasizes the differences between project capabilities that eliminate variance in project outcomes (to control costs and add value) and economies of scale that reduce costs across multiple projects. It also highlights how the different ways in which value is captured by project-based organizations can feedback to influence how these capabilities and scale economies are generated. This opens up new typologies of project-based organizations, with implications for theory and practice.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the expression of ambidexterity at the “between” projects level as well as the “within” project level in project-based information technology firms (PBITF). The research also provides a framework for the classification of specialised projects. This classification is essential to clarify the level of attention the project will receive with respect to the appropriation of resources and the requisite management bandwidth.

This paper draws on a nine-month long field-based qualitative study and ensures a rigorous triangulation of the findings through an analysis of archival data and actual project artefacts.

The authors bring forth three critical implications for practice. First, strategizing ambidexterity at the level of “between” projects and “within” projects is heavily dependent on the interaction among distributed actors and partners. Second, routines and actions to deal with manpower constraints are completely different at these two levels. Lastly, the classification framework of specialised projects proposed here should enable firms to appropriately apportion resources to engagements that are strategic in nature.

The study extends the concept of ambidexterity to the “within” project level and finds it relevant at the lowest level in the project-based structure. Also, the framework for the classification of specialised projects that is provided will assist decision makers in PBIT firms to decide the organisational response to such projects.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce project business as a research field. The project business view in this paper puts focus on the management of firms and their businesses, and this way the paper complements the existing project‐centric view of the role of projects and their management in various business contexts.

The paper proposes a conceptual framework for project business and identify relevant research areas and themes. These research areas and themes are derived by using the knowledge and experience obtained from scientific project business research conducted in Finland since the early 1990s.

This paper describes project business as a research field by introducing a project business framework and the four major research areas inherent in the framework: management of a project, management of a project‐based firm, management of a project network, and management of a business network. It also suggests specific research areas and themes within the framework that are relevant and contribute to new knowledge in the project business field.

The project business framework described in this paper, including the suggested research areas and themes, is important in focusing research and for development of practical application of project‐based business activities in firms and in public organizations.

The paper reveals avenues that lead towards the development of a new body of knowledge for project business that focuses on managing both firms and projects effectively in their networked business environments.

Recent reforms to higher education systems in many OECD countries have focused on making universities more effective organisations in competing for resources and reputations. This has often involved increasing their internal cohesion and external autonomy from the state to make them more similar to private companies. However, pre-reform universities differed so greatly in their governance and capabilities that the impact of institutional changes has varied considerably between three ideal types: Hollow, State-chartered, and Autarkic. Furthermore, the combination of: (a) the inherent uncertainty of scientific research undertaken for publication, (b) limited managerial control over work processes and reputations, and (c) the contradictory effects of some funding and governance changes has greatly restricted the ability of universities to function as authoritatively integrated organisations capable of developing distinctive competitive competences.

The purpose of this paper is to develop different kinds of organizational learning mechanisms based on various types of strategic intents (proactive- and reactive-orientation) and organizational environments (stable and unstable).

The authors utilized a grounded theory approach, and corroborated the results using multiple interviews and documents related to various cases. The authors determined the inter-judge agreement and performed a composite reliability analysis to ensure the robustness of the research.

Successful organization learning is contingent upon managerial strategic intent and the organizational environment in which the organization operates. Proactive strategic intent will cultivate a group-oriented learning system, whereas reactive strategic intent emphasizes the effectiveness of personal learning. Firms in an environment marked by radical change utilize experiential learning mechanisms (participation- and experience-orientation), whereas firms in a stable environment use a specialist-knowledge-oriented approach to learning (benchmarking- and specializing-orientation).

The authors offer a theoretical framework two-by-two matrix that has practical implications in providing managers with guidance in selecting the appropriate organizational learning mechanism to implement in their firms.

According to the traditional “stable‐process” problem, the project‐based company's memory and project implementation cannot interact. They remain conceptually distinctly different entities, the differences stemming from epistemologically different theoretical projects. However, the idea of recursivity within autopoiesis theory and autopoietic epistemology might enable an approach to this problem by bridging the gap. A recursive view of the project‐based company assumes that the memory of the company and the project implementation processes within the company exist at different levels of analysis. They remain analytically distinct from each other, yet they interact in such a way that they are both modified through interaction. Therefore, this paper aims to show that, with the help of a recursive view, it can shed new light on the problem of knowledge production in project‐based companies.

Knowledge production in project‐based companies is conceptualized with the help of autopoiesis theory and autopoietic epistemology, in that the focus is on the recursivity.

The idea of recursivity seems to represent explanatory potential by bringing new light to relationships between the project‐based company's memory and project implementations.

Current theories about knowledge production in project‐based companies are largely based on the idea of transferability of knowledge between people and across borders. These theories are challenged by the implications of autopoiesis theory and autopoietic epistemology, which suggest transition from these theories to the theory of knowledge production as a creational matter. That is, autopoietic epistemology and the recursive view within it provide a lens through which individuals may advance their understanding of the dynamics of project‐based companies' knowledge production.

The purpose of this paper is to describe project‐based companies' knowledge production and memory development with the help of autopoietic epistemology.

The discussion first defines the concept of a project‐based company. Then the discussion deals with the two epistemological assumptions, namely cognitivist and autopoietic epistemological assumptions. After that there follows an illustration of the concept of organisational memory. The main content of this article follows – namely the study on the autopoietic knowledge production and organisational memory development in the context of project‐based companies.

Knowledge production in a project‐based company means that an individual team member, a project team and a project‐based company itself produce knowledge consistent with currently shared knowledge. That is, a project‐based company's accumulation of organisational memory at various organisational levels is an expression of change in knowledge that always maintains compatibility between the autopoietic system (i.e. team member, project team or project‐based company) and its environment.

The current theories about knowledge production and organisational memory development in project‐based companies are largely based on the idea of codability and transferability of knowledge between the people and across the borders. This type of thinking is based on the traditional cognitivist epistemology that means that knowledge represents external reality. The new autopoietic approach suggests transition from these theories to the theory of knowledge production as a creational matter, which type of thinking can potentially provide a new explanation for project‐based company's organisational memory.

In this chapter we put projects at the centre stage of firms' activities – i.e. product and process innovation, strategy formulation and implementation, capability building and learning, organizational structure and design, and systems integration (the capability to combine diverse knowledge bases and physical components into functioning systems). Based on the findings of a 10-year research programme into firms producing high-value capital goods – known as complex products and systems (CoPS) – we draw out conceptual insights about project organizing that can inform and contribute to the development and reformulation of more universally applicable formal theories of strategic management and organization.