فرهنگ سازمانی و تمایل برای به اشتراک گذاشتن دانش : چشم انداز ارزش های رقابتی در زمینه استرالیا
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|4072||2013||12 صفحه PDF||25 صفحه WORD|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Available online 31 January 2013
اشتراک گذاری دانش در PBOs
مفهوم فرهنگ سازمانی
چارچوب رقابتی ارزشها
منابع مدارک و شواهد
فرایند تحلیل دادهها
تجزیه و تحلیل موردی
فرهنگ سازمانی و تمایل به اشتراک دانش
A considerable amount of research has confirmed the relationship between organizational culture and knowledge sharing behaviours. However, less research has been conducted on the impact of project sub-cultures in relation to the sharing of knowledge between projects, particularly in project based organizations (PBOs). The unique structures and contexts characterized by PBOs indicate the need to investigate further the impact of cultures present within PBOs and their effect on knowledge sharing. We report on a rich case study of four large Australian-based PBOs whereby the cultural values of these large organizations were seen to impact significantly on whether project teams were more or less likely to improve inter-project knowledge sharing. Furthermore, this research demonstrates the utility of using Cameron and Quinn's (2005) Competing Values Framework to evaluate culture in the context of PBOs.
Previous studies indicate that organizational culture (OC) can have a significant influence on the long-term success of organizations (Ajmal and Helo, 2010, Kendra and Taplin, 2004 and Yazici, 2010) as well as on project performance (Coffey, 2010), For instance Coffey (2010) found that various cultural traits appear to be closely linked to objectively measured organizational effectiveness. However, only recently has the research on project management explored the link between organizational culture and knowledge management outcomes (Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008, Eskerod and Skriver, 2007 and Polyaninova, 2011). The context surrounding the practice of knowledge management (KM) in PBOs is complex and multifaceted. Firstly, there are a number of knowledge sources available during different stages of a project, including experts, project teams, routines, repositories, communities of practice, knowledge gatekeepers and so on (Smyth, 2005). Secondly, there are many parties engaged in knowledge sharing including project team members, contractors, subcontractors, clients, community and other stakeholders. Finally, different types of knowledge – technical, procedural, know-what, know-how, know-why and know-when – are required during different stages of the project: planning, design, construction and closing. Nevertheless, the value contributed by knowledge in PBOs is extensive. The risk of knowledge loss at a project's end is a serious issue for organizations because accumulated knowledge throughout the project, if not effectively shared, can be irretrievably lost resulting in unnecessary reinvention, errors and time overruns (Carrillo, 2005, Fong, 2008, Landaeta, 2008 and Walker et al., 2004). Similarly, the notion of culture in a project management context is complex because a project involves a number of experts from various fields, backgrounds and professions, who typically have their own cultures and ways of working, which are not necessarily in harmony with one another or with the prevailing culture of the entire project (Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008). These cultural differences can either be a source of creativity and broad perspectives on organizational issues or they can be a source of difficulty and miscommunication (Anbari et al., 2010). It is therefore important that those within PBOs are aware of the type of cultures evident within various projects in order to better predict the potential consequences of cultural-related behaviours on knowledge sharing outcomes and arguably, on overall project performance. The concepts of OC and KM as foundations to understanding how organizations behave and gain competitive advantage both have strong theoretical and empirical support (Alavi et al., 2006, Davenport and Prusak, 1998, De Long and Fahey, 2000 and Sackmann, 1992). These two concepts are highly related and existing research suggests in the main that OC underpins KM activities (Gray and Densten, 2005). To be truly effective, KM requires an understanding of the culture in which it is embedded (De Long and Fahey, 2000 and Fong and Kwok, 2009) and this is imperative because OC shapes members' knowledge sharing behaviours and influences how they learn. Overall, some cultural values encourage and others impede KM activities (De Long and Fahey, 2000 and Janz and Prasarnphanich, 2003). However, examining the two concepts of OC and KM in PBOs is especially challenging due to their complexity, multidimensional nature and context dependency. Yazici (2010) highlights that in a project management context, OC is still largely under-examined. Currently very little is known about how OC contributes to the willingness for knowledge sharing between projects. The purpose of this research is to extend previous theory on organizational culture and knowledge management in project environment and explore which cultural values are more likely to drive inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours in the context of Australian PBOs.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper has examined how different cultural values drive inter-project knowledge sharing, in the context of Australian PBOs. Applying Cameron and Quinn's (2005) Competing Values Framework, findings from this research have demonstrated that different organizational culture types lead to different inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours. In particular, this research showed that cultures displaying Market-type values, such as competitiveness and achievement, are likely to show evidence of hesitancy to share knowledge. On the other hand, cultures with Clan-type characteristics, emphasizing a collaborative environment and friendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, are likely to openly share knowledge even related to project shortcomings. Overall, the results showed that Australian PBOs recognize the value of sharing knowledge between projects, nevertheless different cultures were seen to lead to different inter-project knowledge sharing outcomes. This research contributes to the project management literature by providing evidence that an awareness of the dominant culture type within a PBO is important for predicting inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours and the requisite structures needed for optimized knowledge sharing mechanisms around these behaviours. Accordingly, this paper emphasizes the need for awareness of the dominant culture type as being a determinant of different knowledge sharing outcomes. It is therefore suggested that PBOs evaluate their dominant culture characteristics. This will help identify knowledge sharing patterns specific for a given culture type. Applying Cameron and Quinn's (2005) CVF can be useful in determining the dominant culture. Furthermore, this research makes a significant contribution by providing rich empirical evidence of the relationships between OC and the willingness to share knowledge in Australian PBOs. The use of interviews and the OC Assessment Instrument in the cross examination of culture resulted in empirical contributions demonstrating which cultural values are more and which are less likely to improve inter-project knowledge sharing. Finally, this research contributes to the project management literature by introducing Cameron and Quinn's (2005) CVF to evaluate knowledge sharing in the inter-project context. Although this study offered interesting insights into the role of OC in inter-project knowledge sharing, further investigations are required to fully understand the complexity of this phenomenon. The somewhat limited number of cases, representing only two cultural dimensions – Clan and Market – means that more research is required to investigate inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours for the Adhocracy and Hierarchy culture types. Furthermore, this study was limited to the management level perspectives because of their key role in knowledge sharing. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that other project members play an important role in inter-project knowledge sharing. Accordingly, future studies could consider investigating the roles of other project members, taking into account project complexity and the varying backgrounds of these individuals.