دفتر مدیریت پروژه یک کارگزار دانش در سازمان های پروژه محور
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|3324||2013||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9450 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 31, Issue 1, January 2013, Pages 31–42
Current research into project management offices (PMOs) has stressed the PMOs' potential to act as knowledge brokers between projects, and between project and top management. Nonetheless, the literature does not provide sufficient evidence of the brokering role of PMOs. The research reported here aims to examine PMO's functions from a knowledge sharing perspective and explore whether or not these functions reflect the knowledge sharing needs of project managers (PMs). These issues are investigated through a cross-case analysis of seven organisations. The main contribution is insight into how PMs share knowledge and awareness of the need to structure PMOs to align with PMs' nature, needs and expectations in order to improve knowledge sharing in PBOs. Finally, some practical steps for helping PMOs to better adapt their functions to the needs of PMs and their learning and knowledge sharing style are proposed.
Projects are temporary organisations, with an intentional death, purposefully designed to provide benefits for a permanent organisation or certain stakeholders through complex problem-solving processes (Söderlund, 2011). Projects are often regarded as an efficient means for combining knowledge and thereby optimising value from investments. Although projects are considered temporary organisations, they exist within the boundary of a project-based organisation (PBO). PBOs have no standard form and previous researchers have discussed project-based firms (Lindkvist, 2004 and Whitley, 2006), other project-based organisations (Turner and Keegan, 2000) or project-based companies (Huemann et al., 2007). PBOs are here defined as organisations in which the majority of products or services are produced through projects for either internal or external customers. The PBO may be a standalone organisation or a subsidiary of a larger organisation (Turner and Keegan, 2000), but characteristically for both types, it's an organisation that is capable of handling many projects (Artto et al., 2011). The expected benefits of establishing a PBO are that the temporary project organisation and the PBO should work jointly. Moreover, new ideas, challenges and learning gained in projects should be transferred to the PBO (Söderlund and Tell, 2011). Therefore, PBO has to ensure effective knowledge sharing (KS) and integration within and between projects to avoid the risk of reinventing the wheel and so repeating the same mistakes (Schindler and Eppler, 2003). Nevertheless, although PBOs have knowledge transfer processes in place, these are often ineffective (Swan et al., 2010). This is mostly because PBOs are fragmented and have a high degree of autonomy between PBO's sub-units, as suggested by Lindkvist (2004) and Orton and Weick (1990). A project management office (PMO) is a formal layer of control between top management and project management within a PBO (Kerzner, 2003 and Liu and Yetton, 2007) that is, an institutionalisation of governance strategies (Müller, 2009). The shapes and roles of PMO's functions vary according to the context within which they are incorporated (Aubry et al., 2010, Hobbs and Aubry, 2007 and Hobbs and Aubry, 2008) and although many PBOs do not have an explicit PMOs, the PMO functions are often incorporated within the parent organisation (Dietrich et al., 2010). The complexity and variety of PMOs have evidently resulted in a number of interpretations of what a PMO actually is and should do, both in practice and in research terms. For instance, Aubry et al. (2010) found that many organisations implement PMOs without a clear direction and vision of what role they want the PMO to play; they simply adopt existing PMO archetypes without considering organisational needs. From a knowledge perspective, the PMO can be regarded as an organisational unit facilitating coordination of knowledge and other resources between the PBO and its projects, and can therefore act as a bridge over organisational and knowledge boundaries. This perspective of a PMO as a knowledge broker was investigated in two studies (Desouza and Evaristo, 2006 and Julian, 2008). These studies provided an insight into PMO's knowledge brokering role from the perspective of a PMO's personnel, but lacked insights into PMs' knowledge needs and expectations. Accordingly, the research conducted so far on PMOs as knowledge brokers is limited and requires further investigation. There are areas in need for further investigation, which brings the nature and knowledge needs of PMs into the picture. From the above, we have identified the following research question: what capabilities do the PMO have to possess to become a knowledge-broker and meet PMs' knowledge sharing needs? More specifically, the research reported here aims to examine PMO's functions from a knowledge sharing perspective and to explore whether or not these functions reflect the knowledge sharing needs of PMs. Scarbrough et al. (2004) noted that in existing studies on organisational learning and knowledge sharing in the project environment, the level of analysis tends to be the project itself (e.g. Lindkvist et al., 1998 and Prencipe and Tell, 2001). Relatively less attention is paid to project-to-organisation or inter-project KS behaviours. In this research, the unit of analysis is the relationship between PMO's knowledge brokering activities and PMs' knowledge sharing behaviours. The research is set in Sweden and Australia and includes subsidiary PBOs. The paper begins with a discussion on knowledge sharing in PBOs, which includes PMs' knowledge sharing and integrating behaviours, and the role of a PMO as a knowledge broker. It then continues with a description of the methods used in the study. A cross-case analysis is then presented followed by a discussion on the results and their implications.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The aim of this research was to examine PMO functions from a knowledge sharing perspective and to determine whether or not these functions reflect the knowledge sharing behaviours of PMs. This was investigated in a cross-case study of seven organisations. This research found that the PMO needs to possess multiple knowledge brokering capabilities in order to support and meet PMs' knowledge sharing behaviours. The suggested capabilities are: (a) facilitating and promoting the strategic development of PMs' relationships with diverse stakeholder groups, strategic use of boundary objects and endeavours when interacting with PMs. Moreover, the PMOs need capabilities in educating PMs to strategically use similar boundary objects and endeavours in their operations; (b) govern, control and support PMs in their operation to ensure efficient knowledge flows; (c) adopt coaching, negotiating and training roles to ensure competence development, which were found to require an interplay of commanding and enabling strategies. PMs were found to be people-oriented, free-thinkers, passionate, autocratic, conservative and pragmatic. Even so, in some cases, these traits hampered cross-project sharing of expertise and knowledge integration. The findings from this research demonstrate that PMO functions are not fully aligned with the PMs' KS behaviour or the PMs' exceptions of the PMO. Accordingly, this research extends early studies on the brokering role of the PMO (Desouza and Evaristo, 2006 and Julian, 2008) and PMO functions (Aubry et al., 2010) by focusing on relationships between PMs' knowledge sharing behaviour and PMOs' capabilities as knowledge brokers. The contribution of the research is an improved understanding of the connection between PMs' knowledge sharing behaviours and how these align with PMO functions. The overall conclusion is that PBOs and PMOs do not truly understand PMs' knowledge sharing needs and expectations and that might explain why KS endeavours are often ineffective in PBOs.