JPMA-01611; No of Pages 12

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx – xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

A conceptualization of knowledge governance in

project-based organizations
Sofia Pemsel a,b,⁎, Anna Wiewiora c , Ralf Müller d , Monique Aubry b , Kerry Brown e
a
Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
b
School of Management, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada
c
Queensland University of Technology, QUT Business School, School of Management, Australia
d
BI Norwegian Business School, Norway
e
School of Management, Curtin University, Western Australia

Received 6 August 2013; received in revised form 17 January 2014; accepted 23 January 2014

Abstract

This paper conceptualizes and defines knowledge governance (KG) in project-based organizations (PBOs). Two key contributions towards a
multi-faceted view of KG and an understanding of KG in PBOs are advanced, as distinguished from knowledge management and organizational
learning concepts. The conceptual framework addresses macro- and micro-level elements of KG and their interaction. Our definition of KG in
PBOs highlights the contingent nature of KG processes in relation to their organizational context. These contributions provide a novel platform for
understanding KG in PBOs.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Knowledge governance; Project-based organizations; Knowledge governance definition and conceptualization

1. Introduction
Knowledge and learning processes are vital for survival and
improved business performance in dynamic contexts (Connell
et al., 2001; Levitt and March, 1988). In order to improve the
understanding of the way in which knowledge is used
strategically to open up the way for novel developments and
innovations, a new research area of knowledge governance (KG)
has entered the research field. KG is an evolving concept which
focuses on organizational coordination of knowledge processes
of using, sharing, integrating and creating knowledge in
accordance with set objectives through governance initiatives
⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business
School, Kilen, Kilevej 14A, 4., 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark. Tel.: +45 38152825.
E-mail addresses: sp.ioa@cbs.dk (S. Pemsel), a.wiewiora@qut.edu.au
(A. Wiewiora), ralf.muller@bi.no (R. Müller), aubry.monique@uqam.ca
(M. Aubry), Kerry.Brown@curtin.edu.au (K. Brown).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
0263-7863/$36.00 © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
(Foss et al., 2010; Pemsel and Müller, 2012). However, while the
case has been put forward and defended that KG has relevance
and import for mainstream business organizations, the signifi-
cance and application for other types of business arrangements
have not been made conclusively. This research proposes a new
conceptualization of KG for project-based organizations (PBOs)
to determine the different considerations that need to be taken in
to account when sharing knowledge and undertaking organiza-
tional learning. PBOs are challenging business models particu-
larly for developing a comprehensive KG framework as these are
temporary configurations, fragmented, have differing values and
knowledge and learning processes and consequently are more
dynamic and flexible (Sydow et al., 2004) and, do not retain
organizational knowledge over the long term (Grabher, 2004).
Projects are a locus of attention for strategy implementation
(Morris and Jamieson, 2005) and organizational and project
learning (Kotnour, 1999; Newell et al., 2008). Knowledge
management processes have been utilized typically to explain
and interpret learning in PBOs and ensure effective planning
and implementation of projects. In this way knowledge

Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
2 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
sharing and creation have received much attention in the
project literature (Pemsel and Müller, 2012). Although
research has shown significant potential for improvement of
knowledge and learning processes between the PBOs'
sub-units in recent years, existing practices have been found
to be inappropriate or insufficient for these tasks (DeFillippi
and Arthur, 1998; Gann and Salter, 2000; Keegan and Turner,
2001; Swan et al., 2010). Yet, governance of these knowledge
management activities has been largely ignored (Heiman et al.,
2009). Only recently KG has emerged as a new and evolving
approach that addresses a number of central problems
concerning knowledge processes in organizations. These issues
have not yet been fully addressed, either in the field of knowledge
management or within governance theories (Wang et al., 2011).
KG was introduced to complement existing knowledge initiatives
that focus solely on organizational macro constructs such as
improving absorptive capacity, building capabilities (Davies and
Brady, 2000; Leonard-Baton, 1992; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990)
and creating communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991;
Wenger, 2003). The main criticism is that scholars neglect
individual micro-level conditions and behaviors, which results
in vague and imprecise ideas about macro-level organizational
constructs (Felin and Hesterly, 2007; Foss et al., 2010).
Therefore KG attempts to comprehend how micro- and
macro-level constructs interact and move organizations towards
desired levels and directions (i.e. reach set knowledge-based goals)
through the use of various KG mechanisms (Foss et al., 2010;
Michailova and Foss, 2009).
The current understanding of KG builds on the organiza-
tional and management studies of mainly Foss (2007), Foss
et al. (2010) and Grandori (2001). However, a coherent and
clear understanding of KG and its interpretation in the world of
projects requires further development. Projects differentiate
from regular operations and organizations dealing with multiple
projects face particular challenges that need to be further explored.
Previously, KG researchers have examined the subject mainly on
a broad, general level that does not account for the particularities
of organizations designed for and around projects. PBOs here
are used as a broad term including projectified, project-based,
project-led and project-oriented organizations (Huemann, 2010).
There is a large variety of PBOs and our aim in defining them
in this research is to include all possible forms. The common
and significant characteristic of these organizations is their use
of projects as a way of doing business (Whittington et al., 1999).
In this paper, the term PBO includes firms that acknowledge
project work and carry out most of their activities in projects
(Lindkvist, 2004), as well as organizations that use projects as a
strategic means for differentiation. The PBO may be a stand-
alone organization or a subsidiary of a larger corporation (Turner
and Keegan, 2000), or sometimes interwoven in complex post-
bureaucratic organizational structures (Josserand et al., 2006).
PBO-specific characteristics mainly stem from the temporality
of PBOs' building blocks of their business; that is, projects
and their impact on various organizational elements such as
structure, structural complexity, and difficulties in learning
(Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Lindkvist, 2004; Söderlund, 2008;
Wiewiora et al., 2009).
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
KG has only recently entered the realm of projects
(Bosch-Sijtsema and Postma, 2010; Pemsel and Müller, 2012;
Scarbrough and Amaeshi, 2009). The existing literature suggests
that the challenges faced by PBOs are insufficiently taken
into account within the existing KG approaches. Furthermore,
Peltokorpi and Tsuyuki (2006) warn that while project-based
structures facilitate knowledge creation, they can hinder knowl-
edge retention and sharing without adequate governance mecha-
nisms. Accordingly, the application of knowledge governance
mechanisms is argued to maximize the benefits of knowledge
processes in PBOs (Peltokorpi and Tsuyuki, 2006). The present
paper therefore aims to propose a conceptualization of KG and to
use this approach to define KG in PBOs that accounts for the
specific project-based context and characteristics (for example,
project orientation, project portfolios, programs, project manage-
ment offices, steering groups, boards of directors, and projects) in
order to allow for coordination of knowledge processes be-
tween projects as well as between project and parent organiza-
tion. KG provides a theoretical platform that systematically
captures interactions between macro (organizational antecedents
and constructs) and micro (individual conditions and behaviors)-
levels within the organization. We refer to knowledge processes
as an overarching term to describe knowledge capture, sharing,
integration and creation.
This study aims to examine KG in relation to the specific
nature of PBOs through a literature review. Our two research
questions are:
1. How can knowledge governance be conceptualized in project-
based organizations?
2. How is knowledge governance defined in relation to project-
based organizations?
The paper is organized as follows. The next section outlines
the methodological approach undertaken in this research. This is
followed by a section offering theoretical bases for KG, such as
its relation to governance, organizational learning and knowledge
management. We later discuss specific characteristics of PBOs
and provide a better understanding of the KG foundation in the
PBO context (i.e. our conceptualization of KG in PBOs). The
paper then offers a definition of KG in PBOs, concluding that the
specificity of PBOs requires a particular focus on KG practices
and mechanisms used in this context.
2. Methodology
The purpose of proposing a conceptualization and definition
of KG within PBO is to make future research on this subject
in a position to build on solid foundations. The initial step to
develop such conceptualization and definition is to acknowledge
and integrate into a coherent framework the results from previous
research of McCarthy et al. (2010) or Kim et al. (2009). Our
literature review focused upon two main subject areas, KG and
PBOs, and was undertaken in three steps.
First, we selected key papers relevant to KG in general and to
KG in a project context, in particular to search for elements of its
conceptualization. The selection criteria were: (1) selected papers
 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
needed to explicitly mention KG or the governance of knowledge;
(2) reference made to emergent seminal papers in the field; and/or
(3) investigate governance mechanisms for knowledge processes.
The key papers on KG were sourced from Organization Studies,
Organization, Journal of Management Studies, Research Policy,
Journal of Management and Governance, Journal of Knowledge
Management, International Journal of Project Management,
International Journal of Innovation Management, International
Journal Business, Management and Technology Analysis, and
Strategic Management as well as other seminal work for example,
Foss and Michailova (2009).
Second, we positioned KG in relation to the two close,
but still distinct, and rather well explored fields of knowledge
management and organizational studies to identify their borders
and overlaps. The selection criterion was: key seminal work from
the three knowledge-related fields taking a general organizational
approach.
Third, we conducted a literature review of PBOs to identify
potential characteristics essential for understanding what KG
means in PBOs. Selection required the studies to discuss and
address characteristics of PBOs, including a broad definition
of organizations that use projects in their operations. More
specifically, to get a comprehensive understanding of PBOs,
we followed Sydow et al.'s (2004) suggestion of incorporating
aspects related to four main dimensions of PBOs, which are the
organization, its units, its network and its field.
Finally, we conducted a comparative mapping followed by an
analysis of conceptual similarities between governance principles
and KG in the context of PBOs, which resulted in an extension of
the framework presented by Coleman (1990), Foss (2007) and
Foss et al. (2010). Together this leads to a definition, which can
be used as basis for further conceptualization and development of
variables, for a deeper and more structured research in this area.
3. Knowledge governance — theoretical underpinnings
Governance is defined and seen as a control system (Cadbury,
1992; Larcker and Tayan, 2011), or as a process according
to which organizations are directed and controlled (Demb and
Neubauer, 1992; OECD, 2001). Governance involves a set of
relationships between stakeholders, and the distribution of rights
and responsibilities among these various stakeholders (Monks
and Minow, 1995; OECD, 2001). It has been also defined as
a social phenomenon holding the balance between economic
and social goals and between individual and communal goals
(Cadbury, 1992). In this paper governance is referred to as a
combination of processes, responsibilities and mechanisms to
identify and reach a set of goals.
In terms of the governance of knowledge, one of the most
influential scholars is Grandori (2001) who began to outline
the benefits of combining two areas previously considered as
rival fields: transaction cost economics (TCE) (Williamson,
1985) and knowledge-based theory of the firm (KBF) (Grant,
1996; Nickerson and Zenger, 2004). The main idea proposed
by Grandori (2001) is that knowledge antecedents such as
the level of knowledge differentiation, conflicts of interest, and
knowledge complexity determine those KG mechanisms most
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
3
appropriate for a given context; that is, both motivational aspects
(from TCE) and knowledge-related aspects (from KBF) should
be combined to reach best effects. For instance, if a conflict
of interest is present, no amount of rational confrontation,
through team work (i.e. identity-based mechanisms), will be
sufficient and therefore motivational mechanisms are required
(Grandori, 2001). From these initial ideas the concept of KG
emerged and was further developed mainly by Foss (2007),
Foss and Michailova (2009), and Foss et al. (2010).
The concept of KG is closely related to that of knowledge
management (KM) and organizational learning (OL). Al-
though these concepts and disciplines overlap in many aspects,
mainly in relation to their common focus on achieving
knowledge process and learning outcomes, their scopes differ.
OL is the process of improving employees' as well as
organizations' outcomes by creating environments that help
employees, individually and collectively, to gain knowledge and
understanding in a specific area, and later use that knowledge to
improve actions (Fiol and Lyles, 1985). It thereby focuses on
mutual learning between organization and individuals (March,
1991), and organizational abilities to adapt according to the
changes in the environment.
KM, on the other hand focuses on the management of
knowledge. In the KM-related literature it is widely accepted
that KM forms a cycle of processes (Alavi and Leidner, 2001;
Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Liebowitz, 2005) to enable
knowledge identification, sharing, application, and creation
within the organization.
KG distinguishes from KM and OL mostly by its strategic
focus of coordinating knowledge processes through the use
of overarching governance mechanisms. While KM focuses on
the management of knowledge to enable its identification,
sharing, application, and creation within the organization, KG
goes a step further and focuses on the interrelation between
micro- and macro-levels of the organization in order to identify
suitable governance mechanisms that move the organization
towards desired knowledge-based goals.
The reason to provide this basic distinction between the
three concepts of KG, OL and KM is to position KG in the
knowledge-related research. All these three concepts of OL,
KM and KG deal with existing knowledge and potential for
knowledge creation within the organization. However, they
consider knowledge processes from different perspectives and
have different focuses in terms of their approach to knowledge.
OL is about individuals and group, and their abilities to learn
and adapt to changes. KM tends to focus on knowledge and
specific knowledge processes, whereas KG focuses on organiza-
tional capabilities to improve knowledge processes through the
application of suitable mechanisms. Furthermore, KG contrasts
with the notion of the embedded social employee who motivated
to share knowledge, in KM literature, and shifts towards con-
sidering individuals as making rational decisions taking into
account the costs and benefits of knowledge sharing (Peltokorpi
and Tsuyuki, 2006). The focus of our paper is on the concept of
knowledge governance.
Fig. 1 outlines key theories providing the foundation for
each discipline.
4 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
One of the prominent developments of KG was based on
Coleman's (1990) distinction between macro- and micro-levels
of analyses and the resulting four types of links between them
(macro–macro, macro–micro, micro–micro and micro–macro)
as a basis for a KG framework of analysis (see Fig. 2) (Foss et
al., 2010). The four nodes that connect the links are labeled
macro-organizational antecedents (i.e. organizational control,
integrative roles, leadership, organizational structure, reward
systems, organizational culture, institutional context) which set
the conditions for action of the second node micro conditions
(i.e. beliefs, interests, attitudes, values, knowledge preferences,
expectations). The micro conditions in turn impact micro behaviors
that involve individuals' behaviors and actions in knowledge
processes (i.e. learning-by-doing, learning-before-doing, ob-
serving, interacting, discussing, and recombining knowledge
with others), this in turn, impacts the achievement of macro-
knowledge-based goals and outcomes (i.e. capabilities, dynamic
capabilities, absorptive capacity and communities of practices).
The core idea is the necessity for understanding the micro levels
in order to identify true mechanisms that move the organization
towards desired knowledge-based goals (Foss et al., 2010). For
example, core capabilities are built-up by a number of knowledge
sets and are deeply founded in prevailing values and norms due
to the embedded and embodied natures of the knowledge sets
(Leonard-Barton, 1992). Individuals with particular knowledge
sets, skills and experiences need to be hired, socialized and
rewarded in certain ways (Coleman, 1990) so that they jointly
and concurrently repeat and explore new knowledge, which
builds organizational capabilities (Söderlund et al., 2008).
Fig. 1. Key foundations and theories in knowledge-related research.
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
Consequently, the core of KG is the exploration of mechanisms
to overcome various impediments to achieve knowledge
processes; that is, to share, transfer, integrate, create and
make use of knowledge in the organization. KG mechanisms
are referred to as a specific apparatus deployed to influence
organizational members' behaviors, particularly in relation to
their engagement in knowledge processes (Michailova and Foss,
2009). The views of what a mechanism can be and how
mechanisms interact differ among researchers, which reflect the
many theoretical perspectives from which KG has been studied.
Foss (2007) suggests KG intersects the fields of knowledge
management, organization theory and strategic management.
This multi-disciplinarity is also visible in the broader
literature in which KG is examined from perspectives such as
organizational economics (Antonelli, 2006; Gooderham et al.,
2011; Grandori, 2009; Hoetker and Mellewigt, 2009), strategic
management (Heiman et al., 2009; Nickerson and Zenger,
2004), organization theory (Christensen and Knudsen, 2009),
organizational behavior (Argote and Kane, 2009; Husted and
Michailova, 2009; Husted et al., 2012), and social psychology
and psychological economics (Osterloh and Weibel, 2009).
Research has investigated KG mechanisms related to the use of
incentives and high investments in the development of human
capital through training as enablers to integrate knowledge and
solve non-decomposable problems (Grandori, 2009) and the
impact of social capital on the goodwill to participate in internal
knowledge transfers (Gooderham et al., 2011). KG scholars have
further explored individual commitment, identity and motives
concerning the organization and individuals' career paths (Argote
 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. Framework of knowledge governance in PBOs, adapted from Coleman (1990), Foss (2007) and Foss et al. (2010).
and Kane, 2009; Husted and Michailova, 2009), interactions
between a knowledge-hostile environment and an individual's
behavior (Husted et al., 2012), and the impact of social dilemmas
and lack of motivation on generating exploration and exploitation
processes (Osterloh and Weibel, 2009). This multi-disciplinarity
of KG research is necessary to comprehensively understand its
complex nature (Grandori, 2001; Michailova and Foss, 2009).
KG mechanisms can manifest in many forms and combinations;
be formal or informal; and, include aspects such as projects and
organizational structures, work designs, training and development
programs, compensation systems, socialization techniques, iden-
tity and identification (Husted et al., 2012). Formal mechanisms
comprise goal setting, planning, directives, rules and regulations,
and residual rights of control (Grandori, 2001). Informal mech-
anisms include aspects such as trust, management styles,
organizational cultures, and communication flows and channels
(Michailova and Foss, 2009). Structures create the conditions for
micro-level behavior. Mechanisms are from this point of view
suggested to be used within the structure (Grandori, 2001). Yet,
depending on theoretical perspective addressed, a structure
can be viewed differently. From a TCE perspective the entire
organization may be seen as a structure and it may therefore
be tautological to state that is a mechanism. However, from a
knowledge-based view of a firm (Grant, 1996) or more interactional
perspectives, like sensemaking (Weick, 1995) or connectivity
(Charniskawska), structure may be viewed as a mechanism
enabling relationship building and interactions.
KG therefore seeks to maximize the benefits of project-
based organizing through incorporating soft and hard dimensions
(Peltokorpi and Tsuyuki, 2006), the formal and informal mech-
anisms. Bocquet and Mothe (2010) argued that governance of
small firm clusters can play an important role in identification,
acquisition and utilization of knowledge between the firms. This
finding has been generated in the context of small firm clusters,
which can be compared to project teams comprising various
decentralized entities, from various locations, representing differ-
ent cultures, and languages, thus posing challenges in achieving
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
5
knowledge and learning processes. According to Bocquet and
Mothe (2010) cluster governance played a direct role in preparing
the appropriate conditions for firms to identify, acquire and bridge
knowledge between them through the adaptation of formal and
informal governance mechanisms including establishing local
links, playing a brokering role supporting knowledge integration,
systems coordination and facilitating access to heterogeneous
sources of knowledge while reducing the cognitive distance
between firms belonging to different industries. Furthermore, in
a project-based context, Peltokorpi and Tsuyuki (2006) suggest
that KG mechanisms including consensus-based hierarchy,
shared human resource practices, and performance measures
and output control are those promoting knowledge processes in
PBOs. Authors proposed that shared norms and values, joint
decision-making, low-powered and group-based incentives,
job rotation, and training programs are most suitable gover-
nance mechanisms for project-based organizing (Peltokorpi
and Tsuyuki, 2006). Accordingly, the application of formal
and informal mechanisms complements each other reinforcing
development of knowledge processes.
Formal and informal mechanisms are often applied simulta-
neously to create optimal balance. Combining mechanisms have
a greater potential for reinforcing effect. This may involve for
example, combining motivational strategies with well-designed
processes for knowledge capture and use. Some authors suggest
that various types of mechanisms can either reinforce or substitute
each other (Foss and Michailova, 2009; Scarbrough and Amaeshi,
2009). A strong superordinate identity has been found to reinforce
motivation among the individuals, but when identity was weak
no such effect was visible (Argote and Kane, 2009). Furthermore,
the implementation of mechanisms requires a comprehension of
possible consequences; this is because people in various
organizational contexts have been shown to respond differ-
ently to the same mechanisms. For example, Husted and
colleagues (2012) demonstrated that in some contexts loyalty
and commitment to an organization may be destroyed with
careless implementation of economic incentives (Husted et al.,
6 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Overview of knowledge governance studies.
Macro–micro level interplays 1 Theoretical perspective Scope Authors
Macro organizational antecedents → macro knowledge Organizational Corporate Antonelli (2006), Grandori (2009)
process outcomes economics
Organizational theory Corporate Grandori (2001), Christensen and
Knudsen (2009)
Knowledge governance 2 Research and Scarbrough and Amaeshi (2009)
development systems
Strategic management Corporate Nickerson and Zenger (2004),
Heiman et al. (2009)
Macro-organizational antecedents → micro-conditions → Organizational behavior Project and corporate Husted and Michailova (2009),
micro-knowledge behavior → macro-knowledge Argote and Kane (2009),
process outcomes Husted et al. (2012)
Knowledge governance 2 Multi-project setting Grabher (2004), Van Buuren (2009),
Bosch-Sijtsema and Postma (2010),
Wang et al. (2011), Cao and Xiang
(2012), Pemsel and Müller (2012)
Organizational Corporate and Hoetker and Mellewigt (2009),
economics alliances Gooderham et al. (2011)
Social psychology and Corporate Osterloh and Weibel (2009)
psychology economics
1
This column refers to Coleman's (1990) notions of macro–macro, macro–micro, micro–micro and micro–macro level interplays that Foss et al. (2010) build their
KG argument around.
2
Knowledge governance here refers to a view of governance mechanisms and knowledge processes.

2012). This is because in some contexts individuals regard
incentives as a positive formal mechanism, while in others
using incentives may be regarded as a lack of trust from top
management (Husted et al., 2012).
From this forgoing discussion it can be concluded that
implementation of mechanisms has to be done carefully to
achieve desired goals as applying the same mechanism may
bring different outcomes in different environments, highlighting
the importance of adjustment for different situations.
Table 1 summarizes KG studies across different perspectives
and contexts. In summary, previous studies across different
theoretical perspectives and contexts have addressed various
knowledge-related topics, the effect of knowledge development
processes and related aspects of problem-solving, knowledge
complexity, knowledge differentiation, conflicts of interest,
knowledge hostile environments, social dilemmas, individ-
uals' motivations and motives, and suggested KG mechanisms
to overcome these impediments.
4. The nature of project-based organizations
There has been an evolution in the nature of organizations
caused by the rapid changes in the market and growing
customers' demands, creating a need to organize work on a
project basis (Taylor and Levitt, 2005). Since then, researchers
have also identified numerous pressures that organizations face in
efficiently and effectively managing knowledge processes and
development in this project-based setting1 in order to achieve
innovation, growth and competitive advantages (Glückler, 2008;
Mintzberg, 1983; Turner and Keegan, 2000), basing their
1
In this context project-based setting, multi-project setting, and PBOs are
referred interchangeably.
research in the theory of knowledge management (cf. Carrillo et
al., 2004; Fong and Kwok, 2009), organizational learning (cf.
Newell and Edelman, 2008; Newell et al., 2008; Söderlund,
2008; Söderlund et al., 2008) and knowledge governance (cf.
Bosch-Sijtsema and Postma, 2010; Pemsel and Müller, 2012;
Scarbrough and Amaeshi, 2009).
One of the main characteristics of PBOs is the “contextual
embeddedness of temporary systems in the more permanent”
contexts (Sydow, et al., 2004: 1477) which give rise to internal
tensions between the temporary projects and the permanent
organization. Due to this temporality PBOs are often consid-
ered to have dynamic boundaries and contexts (Huemann et al.,
2007) as the projects can involve one or many organizations,
projects can be co-located or spatially distributed, and they
can exist simultaneously or be distributed across time (Gareis,
1989; Newell et al., 2008; Turner and Keegan, 2000). Projects
are thereby often cross-functional and may both be internal and
external to an organization with various degrees of repeti-
tion and uniqueness which results in various managerial and
governance complexities for the PBO (Bredin and Söderlund,
2011; Davies et al., 2009; Gareis, 1989). This situation has
implications for the PBOs to be characterized by a high mobility
of staff (Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008), through a culture of
empowering its staff (Huemann et al., 2007), a high degree of
teamwork and, additionally by a close interaction with customers
(Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Lindkvist, 2004). These specific
characteristics of PBOs impose the need to consider specific
set of KG mechanisms suitable for PBO context.
Projects' temporary embeddedness in the permanent organiza-
tion generates various project ecologies (i.e. the extent of project
complexities and interdependencies between projects) (Grabher,
2004; Newel et al., 2008). These project ecologies shape dynamic
interactions among and between projects and thereby create
dynamic learning boundaries, which challenge knowledge

Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
processes (Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Lindkvist, 2004; Söderlund,
2008), such as sharing (Eskerod and Skriver, 2007; Newell et al.,
2008) and integrating (Bredin and Söderlund, 2011; Grabher,
2004; Scarbrough et al., 2004; Tell, 2011).
Not only has the temporary embeddedness of projects been
found to impact knowledge processes in PBOs, so too has the
type of organizational culture surrounding projects been found
to impact the integration of projects in PBOs (Gareis, 1989),
and with this the accumulated knowledge in PBOs. For instance,
Wiewiora et al. (2013) found that different cultural values present
in PBOs impact the willingness to share knowledge and the use of
knowledge sharing mechanisms. Cultures that focus on employee
involvement, collaboration and teamwork may tend to value
informal knowledge sharing. Thus, suitable KG mechanisms in
PBOs representing similar cultural values appear to be those
emphasizing network building and informal interactions. On the
other hand, cultures characterized by competitiveness, produc-
tivity, efficiency and accomplishment were found to value
explicit sources of knowledge captured in documents and reports
for proof and verification, and thus rely on codified knowledge
(Wiewiora, 2011).
From this we may conclude that the type of project and how
they interact with other projects and the surrounding culture has
a prominent impact upon what characterizes a PBO. Our focus
is thus not solely on projects, but also on the institutional
context in which the projects are embedded. Recently scholars
have emphasized an organizational theory perspective by
addressing the institutional level of organizations. Adopting
Table 2
Potential characteristics of PBOs influencing knowledge processes.
Dimensions Potential characteristics of PBOs influencing knowledge processes
Organization Degree of projectification
Subsidiary or standalone PBOs
Employee involvement, teamwork and socialization, collaboration
Temporary systems embedded in a permanent system
High mobility of staff often with different types
of employment
Tension between integration and differentiation
Difficulties in knowledge accumulation, sharing and integration
Organizational units Portfolios, programs, projects management offices, steering groups,
boards, projects
Organizational network Project ecologies
Interdependencies
Dynamic learning boundaries
Practice-based nature of learning
Organizational field Type of project
Output type (unique or standardized products)
Market conditions
System of production
Economic rational
Technology type
Nature of task
Dimensions of knowledge and problem character
Number of customers and their nature (internal or external)
Governance paradigm
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
7
this view allows the perspective of organizational project
management (OPM) in multi-project settings, where the focus
is upon functions and institutions for strategy implementation
(Aubry et al., 2012a, 2012b; Morris and Geraldi, 2011). PBOs
often employ a number of organizational institutions that work
along-side projects, such as portfolios, programs, project
management offices (PMOs) and a board of directors (Morris
and Geraldi, 2011; Müller, 2009). For instance, the governance
role of steering groups forms an important interface function
between the project and its parent organization (Crawford et al.,
2008). Morris and Geraldi (2011) suggest more research into
this stream by investigating PBOs at the institutional level. KG
allows connecting knowledge processes and institutional
context to provide a “support for projects to flourish and for
their management to prosper” (Morris and Geraldi, 2011: 20).
In summary, this discussion has identified several PBO
characteristics to be considered in order to understand what KG
means and how it can be defined in a PBO (see Table 2).
Table 2 is organized after Sydow et al.'s (2004) suggestion to
analyze PBOs from four dimensions – organization, organiza-
tional units, inter-organizational networks and organizational
fields – to fully comprehend its complexity.
The literature review shows that there are many studies
focusing on the macro-organizational antecedents (e.g., Hobday,
2000; Lindkvist, 2004; Müller, 2009; Turner and Keegan, 2000).
When it comes to studies focusing on reaching organizational
knowledge-based goals, most studies focus upon the macro–
macro relationship (e.g., Davies and Brady, 2000; Killen et al.,
Author
Hobday (2000), Prencipe and Tell (2001)
Turner and Keegan (2000)
Grabher (2004), Huemann et al. (2007), Wiewiora (2011),
Wiewiora et al. (2013)
Bredin and Söderlund (2011), Sydow et al. (2004)
Ajmal and Koskinen (2008), Bredin and Söderlund (2011),
Huemann et al. (2007)
Gareis (1989)
Eskerod and Skriver (2007), Dubois and Gadde (2002),
Grabher (2004), Lindkvist (2004), Newell et al. (2008),
Scarbrough et al. (2004), Söderlund (2008), Bredin and
Söderlund (2011), Tell (2011)
Aubry et al. (2012a), Müller (2009), Morris and Geraldi (2011)
Grabher (2004), Newell et al. (2008)
Newell et al. (2008), Söderlund and Tell, 2011()
Dubois and Gadde (2002), Lindkvist (2004), Newell et al.
(2008), Scarbrough et al. (2004), Söderlund (2008)
DeFillippi and Arthur (1998), Scarbrough et al. (2004)
Davies et al. (2009), Turner and Keegan (2000)
Davies et al. (2009), Söderlund and Tell (2011)
Söderlund and Tell (2011)
Söderlund and Tell (2011)
Lindkvist (2004), Söderlund and Tell (2011)
Söderlund and Tell (2011)
Söderlund and Tell (2011)
Prencipe and Tell (2001), Söderlund and Tell (2011)
Turner and Keegan (2000)
Müller (2009)
8 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx

2012; Söderlund and Tell, 2011). Fewer studies address the micro
behavior (e.g., DeFillippi and Arthur, 1998; Scarbrough et al.,
2004) and the micro conditions and micro–micro relationships
(Pemsel and Wiewiora, 2013) as an alternative explanation of
how macro constructs are built. Investigating knowledge gover-
nance mechanisms solely on the macro level establishes an
incomplete picture as knowledge processes can be also initiated on
micro level through individual actions and based on their intrinsic
motive. For instance, actors may share objectives, or agree on
actions because of complementary interests, or sustain exchange
by reciprocity, or can be driven by extrinsic rewards (Grandori,
2001). Research conducted by Pemsel and Muller (2012) begin
to highlight the role of individuals in impacting knowledge
governance practices. They found that executives use different
strategies, such as experience based and coaching efforts in
enabling knowledge creating processes in PBOs. The under-
standing of knowledge governance mechanisms in PBOs and
how they relate to individual actions still remains under-explored.
5. Conceptualizing and defining knowledge governance in
project-based organizations
Foss (2007), Foss et al. (2010) and Coleman (1990) provided
a two-level (macro- and micro-level) framework for knowledge
processes within organizations. We take this as a point of
departure for our conceptualization of KG in PBOs (see Fig. 2).
Mapping PBO characteristics (see Table 2) against the four
elements of the KG framework (Coleman, 1990; Foss, 2007)
revealed that although some aspects of the macro-level anteced-
ents overlap with those suggested by Foss et al. (2010) (see
Table 3 and Fig. 2), there are a number of aspects especially on the
macro-level, that are specific only for the project context. These
include temporary characteristics of projects, high mobility of
staff, difficulties in knowledge sharing and accumulation, as well
as the distinctive features of a PBO's organizational networks
such as different levels of interdependency between projects, and
dynamic learning boundaries. PBOs are also characterized
by specific institutional units including portfolios, project
management offices (PMOs), steering groups and boards. For
example, PMOs with proactive approaches to knowledge and
learning provide mechanisms that allow for active knowledge
search (Pemsel and Wiewiora, 2013). This is likely to influence
the willingness (i.e. attitudes) of project managers to engage in
knowledge related activities. In consequence, this may im-
pact knowledge behaviors and communication patterns among
individuals and project teams, which in the longer term
impact the PBOs' ability to build organizational capabilities
and communities of practice. These specific project-based
antecedents are part of KG processes related to the macro

Table 3
Selected PBO characteristics mapped to the KG framework.

Macro antecedents Macro constructs

4.
Degree of projectification* Capabilities
Specific project* and corporate Communities of practice Achieving

culture Absorptive capacity knowledge-

1.
Units and institutional contexts* Dynamic capabilities
Setting based goals
Size of projects*
Interdependency between projects* the

Dynamic learning boundaries* goals

HR practices
Job characteristics and mobility*

Micro conditions Micro behaviors

3.
Beliefs Knowledge behaviors
2.
Attitudes Knowledge sharing decisions Controlling

Knowledge expectations Providing Communication patterns progress

Individual values means
Preferences

*Characteristics specific to PBOs

Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
organizational level and, suggest that KG approaches for PBOs
cannot be simply ‘borrowed’ from those of functional organiza-
tions and moreover different KG mechanisms may be used to
account for the project-based context.
Finally, as the key purpose of this paper is to conceptualize
KG in project-based context, the understanding of critical elements
in governance is important to elaborate a suitable definition of
KG in PBOs. Jessop (1998) suggests that governance resolves
co-ordination issues, provides the underpinning framework for the
authority to set and undertake activities and, discerns requisite
deployment of institutional modes of market, bureaucratic and
networks. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development's (OECD) (2004) definition of governance refers
to three elements: setting goals, providing the means to achieve
those goals and controlling progress. We discuss those elements
from the knowledge-based perspective and add one element:
achieving knowledge-based goals, to make the implicit assump-
tion of actually achieving set goals in OECD's definition explicit
and illustrate our discussion in the proposed framework
(see Table 3 and Fig. 2):
1. Setting knowledge-based goals: where particular combina-
tions of organizational antecedents identify appropriate goals
for the organization. For example, the PBO's structure,
institutional context and the integrative role of PMOs
serve, among others, as the context for achieving knowledge
goals for the organization.
2. Providing means to achieve those goals: the antecedents
influence the interests, values, preference, knowledge, etc.,
which collectively form the micro conditions for individuals
to act in certain ways. For example, the intensity of knowledge
sharing in PBOs may vary from one context to the next based
on differences in incentive systems, which sets the stage for
interests, beliefs, values, etc.
3. Controlling progress: the former step leads to particular
behaviors, which can be controlled through organizational
control mechanisms such as behavior control, clan control or
outcome control (Ouchi, 1980). For example, the frequency
of knowledge sharing activities such as internal conferences,
workshops, collaborations with universities and other institu-
tions, or the amount of knowledge elements in databases
required to achieve the knowledge goals.
4. Achieving knowledge-based goals: the knowledge process
initiatives aim to result in achieving organizational knowledge-
based goals, that is, generation of macro-level constructs,
such as, building capabilities, establishment of communities
of practice and improvement of absorptive capabilities.
Based on the understanding of KG discussed from the
perspective of PBOs and their specific characteristics taking
into account the macro- and micro-level frameworks for
knowledge processes and governance elements we derive the
following definition of KG in PBOs:
Knowledge governance in a project-based organization is
a strategic combination of knowledge processes and their
enabling formal and informal mechanisms that allows
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
9
moving the organization to set knowledge-based goals. This
requires a balancing and flexible act of integration and
differentiation among its temporal and permanent config-
urations and interdependencies set by the dynamic context.
It further requires capability in combining mechanisms to
the individuals' willingness and ability to accept and adopt
them and so engage in desired knowledge processes.
Knowledge governance comprises defining knowledge-based
goals in accordance with the organizational values that the
organization's individuals are carrying as well as implementing
required policies and processes to allow knowledge manage-
ment to happen, and to control its achievements.
Foss et al. (2010) identify KG as “choosing organizational
structures and mechanisms that can influence the processes of
using, sharing, integrating and creating knowledge in preferred
directions and towards preferred levels” (Foss et al., 2010: 456).
Our definition implies a closer relationship to corporate
governance and thus a stronger integration to existing manage-
ment theory. Our literature review found similarities with the
general management literature, which is dominated by macro-
level research and publications (Foss et al., 2010; Jarzabkowski,
2004). Our definition further addresses the specific characteristics
of PBOs, such as its dynamic learning boundaries, project
ecologies, interactions and interdependencies.
6. Conclusions and managerial implications
This study aimed to develop a conceptualization and definition
of knowledge governance (KG) in project-based organizations
(PBOs). The paper outlined several contributions towards a
multi-faceted view and understanding of KG in PBOs. These
include mapping KG in relation to knowledge management
and organizational learning, developing a conceptual framework
for investigations of KG in PBOs as well as a definition of KG
in PBOs.
Our first research question aimed to conceptualize KG in
PBOs. Review and examination of relevant literature revealed
that KG has a potential to steer the sharing, integration and
creation of knowledge through the combination of mechanisms
best suited to a given organizational context. The organizational
context of interest here are PBOs. This organizational context is
characterized by specific organizational antecedents influencing
the micro-level conditions and behaviors. These micro-levels
need to be comprehended and strategically govern to achieve set
knowledge-based goals, which result in special challenges due
to the characteristics of PBOs. We position KG as a separate
field of enquiry, but acknowledge that it is part of the larger
concept of corporate governance, related to knowledge manage-
ment and organizational learning theories. The organizational
form of PBOs has been chosen to further develop understanding
and application of KG.
From our conceptualization we derived a definition of KG in
PBOs and thereby a response to our second research question.
The definition is aligned with the OECD definition of governance
and additionally highlights the contingent nature of KG processes
10 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
on their organizational context, including important elements of
for example temporal and permanent organizational configura-
tions, interdependencies and interactions at the micro-level and
macro-level. The nature and characteristics of PBOs create a
particular KG environment in which the temporary organization
plays a key role in setting the preconditions and antecedents
for learning and knowledge development through, for instance,
various degrees of projectification and specific institutional
context. KG in PBOs thereby means finding strategies that take
into account mechanisms suitable for a specific context, which
requires knowledge of the project ecology's history, presence and
future consequences.
Managerial implications of our research relate to the managers'
and leaders' opportunity in affecting patterns and influencing
knowledge processes to achieve knowledge-based goals. Through
incorporating KG into the corporate governance agenda PBOs
have opportunity, in an informed way, to make a difference
when it comes to reaching set knowledge-based goals. Managers
and leaders have the prospect of improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of KM and OL initiatives through setting appropri-
ate KG strategies and make these happen though implementing
appropriate combinations of KG mechanisms. These initiatives
need careful analysis in order to find appropriate KG mechanisms
matching the interplays between macro- and micro-levels as
well as taking into account the specific characteristics of the
present PBO.
Grandori (2001) early on advocated the necessity of analyzing
the level of knowledge differentiation, conflicts of interest, and
knowledge complexity to comprehend what KG mechanisms are
most appropriate for a given context. Our theoretical contribution
builds on these thoughts by conceptualizing the context of PBOs.
We do not propose that every PBO benefits from the same
combination of KG mechanisms — on the contrary our con-
ceptualization and definition emphasize the need to analyze the
specific characteristic of each organization to find the right mix
of KG mechanisms that will enable the organization to reach
set knowledge-based goals. Our research contributes by giving
some clues on what KG means in a PBO context and how to
analyze and comprehend the specific common characteristics
that PBOs possess from a KG perspective.
Despite the value of this contribution the paper also has
a number of limitations; foremost being the lack of empirical
validation of its claims. Orientations for future research include
empirical evidence for making the KG framework in action in
PBO. In particular, more research is needed to explore which
specific combinations of KG mechanisms are best suited to a
given PBO context. More empirical studies using methodological
triangulation are required to provide a more holistic understand-
ing of the complex phenomenon of KG is encouraged.
The most important contributions of this paper are in the
theoretical aspects and contributions of conceptualizing KG in
a PBO setting and positioning KG in relation to knowledge
management and organizational fields. Further, Morris and
Geraldi's (2011) statement of the importance of creating
environments that allow “for projects to flourish and for their
management to prosper” (Morris and Geraldi, 2011: 20) provides
a key insight into creating a favorable context as a critical success
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
factor for PBOs. In line with these findings, our study has shown
the importance of PBO's long term competitive survival to create
project-based environments that allow for knowledge to flourish
and prosper towards set organizational knowledge-based goals
through informed KG initiatives.
References
Ajmal, M.M., Koskinen, K.U., 2008. Knowledge transfer in project-based
organizations: an organizational culture perspective. Proj. Manag. J. 39
(1), 7–15.
Alavi, M., Leidner, D.E., 2001. Review: knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q. 25
(1), 107–136.
Antonelli, C., 2006. The business governance of localized knowledge: an
information economics approach for the economics of knowledge. Innovation
13 (3), 227–261.
Argote, L., Kane, A., 2009. Superordinate identity and knowledge creation and
transfer in organizations. In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.), Knowledge
Governance — Processes and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 166–190.
Aubry, M., Müller, R., Glücker, J., 2012a. Governance and Communities of
PMOs. Project Management Institute, USA.
Aubry, M., Sicotte, H., Drouin, N., Vidot-Delerue, H., Besner, C., 2012b.
Organisational project management as a function within the organisation.
Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 5 (2), 180–194.
Bocquet, R., Mothe, C., 2010. Knowledge governance within clusters: the case
of small firms. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 8 (3), 229–239.
Bosch-Sijtsema, P., Postma, T., 2010. Governance factors enabling knowledge
transfer in interorganisational development projects. Tech. Anal. Strateg.
Manag. 22 (5), 593–608.
Bredin, K., Söderlund, J., 2011. Human Resource Management in Project-Based
Organizations — The HR Quadriad Framework. Palgrave Macmillan,
Hampshire.
Cadbury, A., 1992. The financial aspect of corporate governance. The
Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance and Gee and
Co. Ltd. London, UK (http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/cadbury.pdf.
Accessed 5 May 2013).
Cao, Y., Xiang, Y., 2012. The impact of knowledge governance on knowledge
sharing. Manag. Decis. 50 (4), 591–610.
Carrillo, P., Robinson, H., Al-Ghassani, A., Anumba, C., 2004. Knowledge
management in UK construction: strategies, resources and barriers. Proj.
Manag. J. 35 (1), 46.
Christensen, M., Knudsen, T., 2009. The architecture of knowledge organization.
In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.), Knowledge Governance — Processes and
Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 47–80.
Coleman, J.S., 1990. Foundations of social theory. The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Connell, C., Klein, J.H., Loebbecke, C., Powell, P., 2001. Towards a
knowledge management consultation system. Knowl. Process. Manag. 8
(1), 48–54.
Crawford, L., Cooke-Davies, T., Hobbs, B., Labuschagne, L., Remington, K.,
Chen, P., 2008. Governance and support in the sponsoring of projects and
programs. Proj. Manag. J. 39 (S1), 43–55.
Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L., 1998. Working Knowledge. Harward Business
School Press.
Davies, A., Brady, T., 2000. Organisational capabilities and learning in
complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions. Res. Policy 29
(7), 931–953.
Davies, A., Gann, D., Douglas, T., 2009. Innovation in megaprojects: systems
integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5. Calif. Manag. Rev. 51 (2),
101–125.
DeFillippi, R.J., Arthur, M.B., 1998. Paradox in project-based enterprise: the
case of film making. Calif. Manag. Rev. 40 (2), 125–139.
Demb, A., Neubauer, F., 1992. The Corporate Board: Confronting the Paradoxes.
Oxford University Press, New York.
 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
Dubois, A., Gadde, L.E., 2002. The construction industry as a loosely coupled
system: implications for productivity and innovation. Constr. Manag. Econ.
20 (7), 621–631.
Eskerod, P., Skriver, H.J., 2007. Organizational culture restraining in-house
knowledge transfer between project managers — a case study. Proj. Manag.
J. 38 (1), 110–122.
Felin, T., Hesterley, W.S., 2007. The knowledge-based view, nested heterogenity,
and new value creation: philosophical considerations on the locus of
knowledge. Acad. Manag. Rev. 32 (1), 195–218.
Fiol, C.M., Lyles, M.A., 1985. Organizational learning. Acad. Manag. Rev. 17
(5), 808–813.
Fong, P., Kwok, C., 2009. Organizational culture and knowledge management
success at project and organizational levels in contracting firms. J. Constr.
Eng. Manag. 135 (12), 1348–1356.
Foss, N., 2007. The emerging knowledge governance approach: challenges and
characteristics. Organization 14 (1), 29–52.
Foss, N., Michailova, S., 2009. Knowledge governance: what have we learned?
and where are we heading? In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.), Knowledge
Governance — Processes and Perspectives. Oxford University Press,
New York, pp. 272–288.
Foss, N.J., Husted, K., Michailova, S., 2010. Governing knowledge sharing in
organizations: levels of analysis, governance mechanisms, and research
directions. J. Manag. Stud. 47 (3), 455–482.
Gann, D.M., Salter, A.J., 2000. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced
firms: the construction of complex products and systems. Res. Policy 29
(7–8), 955–972.
Gareis, R., 1989. “Management by project”: the management approach of the
future. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 4 (7), 243–249.
Glückler, J., 2008. Islands of expertise — global knowledge transfer in a
technology service firm. SPACES Online 6 (03).
Gooderham, P., Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., 2011. Governance mechanisms
for the promotion of social capital for knowledge transfer in multinational
corporations. J. Manag. Stud. 48 (1), 123–150.
Grabher, G., 2004. Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge governance
in project ecologies. Organ. Stud. 25 (9), 1491–1514.
Grandori, A., 2001. Neither hierarchy nor identity: knowledge-governance
mechanisms and the theory of the firm. J. Manag. Gov. 5 (3), 381–399.
Grandori, A., 2009. Poliarchic governance and the growth of knowledge. In:
Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.), Knowledge Governance — Processes and
Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 81–107.
Grant, R.M., 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg.
Manag. J. 17, 109–122 (Winter special issue).
Heiman, B., Nickerson, J., Zenger, T., 2009. Governing knowledge creation:
a problem-finding and problem-solving perspective. In: Foss, N., Michailova,
S. (Eds.), Knowledge Governance — Processes and Perspectives. Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 25–46.
Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing
complex products and systems? Res. Policy 29 (7–8), 871–893.
Hoetker, G., Mellewigt, T., 2009. Choice and performance of governance
mechanisms, matching alliance governance to asset type. Strateg. Manag. J.
30 (10), 1025–1044.
Huemann, M., 2010. Considering human resource management when developing
a project-oriented company: case study of a telecommunication company. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 28 (4), 361–369.
Huemann, M., Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2007. Human resource management
in the project-oriented company: a review. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 25 (3),
315–323.
Husted, K., Michailova, S., 2009. Socialization tactics as a governance
mechanism in R&D collaborations. In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.),
Knowledge Governance — Processes and Perspectives. Oxford University
Press, New York, pp. 191–219.
Husted, K., Michailova, S., Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., 2012. Knowledge-
sharing hostility and governance mechanisms: an empirical test. J. Knowl.
Manag. 16 (5), 754–773.
Jarzabkowski, P., 2004. Strategy as practice: recursiveness, adaptation, and
practices-in-use. Organ. Stud. 25 (4), 529–560.
Jessop, B., 1998. The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of
economic development. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 155, 29–46.
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
11
Josserand, E., Teo, S., Clegg, S., 2006. From bureaucratic to post-bureaucratic:
the difficulties of transition. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 19 (1), 54–64.
Keegan, A., Turner, J.R., 2001. Quantity versus quality in project-based learning
practices. Manag. Learn. 32 (1), 77–98.
Killen, C.P., Jugdev, K., Drouin, N., Petit, Y., 2012. Advancing project and
portfolio management research: applying strategic management theories.
Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (5), 525–538.
Kim, P.H., Dirks, K.T., Cooper, C.D., 2009. The repair of trust: a dynamic
bilateral perspective and multilevel conceptualization. Acad. Manag. Rev.
34 (3), 401–422.
Kotnour, T., 1999. A learning framework for project management. Proj. Manag.
J. 30 (2), 32–38.
Larcker, D., Tayan, B., 2011. Corporate Governance Matters. Pearson
Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lave, J., Wenger, E., 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Liebowitz, J., 2005. Conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management.
In: Love, P., Fong, P., Irani, Z. (Eds.), Management of Knowledge in Project
Environments. Elsviser/Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 1–18.
Leonard-Baton, D., 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in
managing new product development. Strateg. Manag. J. 13, 111–125 (summer
special issue).
Levitt, B., March, J.G., 1988. Organizational learning. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 14,
319–340.
Lindkvist, L., 2004. Governing project-based firms: promoting market-like
processes within hierarchies. J. Manag. Gov. 8 (1), 3–25.
McCarthy, I.P., Lawrence, T.B., Wixted, B., 2010. A multidimensional conceptu-
alization of environmental velocity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35 (4), 604–626.
Michailova, S., Foss, N., 2009. Knowledge governance: themes and questions.
In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.), Knowledge Governance — Processes
and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 1–24.
Mintzberg, H., 1983. Structure in Fives. Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
Monks, A.A.G., Minow, N., 1995. Corporate Governance, fourth ed. Wiley &
Sons Ltd, Chichester.
Morris, P.W.G., Geraldi, J., 2011. Managing the institutional context for
projects. Proj. Manag. J. 42 (6), 20–32.
Morris, P.W.G., Jamieson, A., 2005. Moving from corporate strategy to project
strategy. Proj. Manag. J. 36 (4), 5.
Müller, R., 2009. Project Governance. Gower Publishing Ltd., Farnham.
Newell, S., Edelman, L.F., 2008. Developing a dynamic project learning and
cross project learning capability: synthesizing two perspectives. Inf. Syst. J.
18 (6), 567–591.
Newell, S., Goussevskaia, A., Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Obembe, A., 2008.
Interdependencies in complex project ecologies: the case of biomedical
innovation. Long Range Plan. 41 (1), 33–54.
Nickerson, J., Zenger, T., 2004. A knowledge-based theory of the firm: the
problem-solving perspective. Organ. Sci. 15 (6), 617–632.
OECD, 2001. Governance in the 21st Century. Paris, France. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/futures/17394484.pdf (Accessed 5 May 2013).
OECD, 2004. OECD Principles of Corporate Governance. Retrieved from
www.oecd.org (Accessed 10 January 2005).
Osterloh, M., Weibel, A., 2009. The governance of explorative knowledge
production. In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.), Knowledge Governance —
Processes and Perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 138–165.
Ouchi, W.G., 1980. Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Adm. Sci. Q. 25, 129–141.
Peltokorpi, V., Tsuyuki, E., 2006. Knowledge governance in a Japanese project-
based organization. Knowl. Manag. Res. Pract. 4 (1), 36–45.
Pemsel, S., Müller, R., 2012. The governance of knowledge in project-based
organizations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (8), 865–876.
Pemsel, S., Wiewiora, A., 2013. Project management office a knowledge broker
in project based organisations. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 31 (1), 31–42.
Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G., 1990. The core competence of the corporation.
Harv. Bus. Rev. 68 (3), 79–91.
Prencipe, A., Tell, F., 2001. Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of
knowledge codification in project-based firms. Res. Policy 30 (9),
1373–1394.
Scarbrough, H., Amaeshi, K., 2009. Knowledge governance for open innovation:
evidence from an EU R&D collaboration. In: Foss, N., Michailova, S. (Eds.),
12 S. Pemsel et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2014) xxx–xxx
Knowledge Governance — Processes and Perspectives. Oxford University
Press, New York, pp. 191–219.
Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresen, M., 2004. Project-based learning
and the role of learning boundaries. Organ. Stud. 25 (9), 1579–1600.
Söderlund, J., 2008. Competence dynamics and learning processes in project-
based firms: shifting, adapting and leveraging. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 12 (01),
41–67.
Söderlund, J., Tell, F., 2011. The P-form corporation — contingencies,
characteristics, challenges. In: Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., Söderlund, J.
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford University
Press, New York, pp. 201–223.
Söderlund, J., Vaagaasar, A.L., Andersen, E.S., 2008. Relating, reflecting and
routinizing: developing project competence in cooperation with others. Int.
J. Proj. Manag. 26 (5), 517–526.
Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., Newell, S., 2010. Why don't (or do) organizations
learn from projects? Manag. Learn. 41 (3), 325–344.
Sydow, J., Lindkvist, L., DeFillippi, R., 2004. Project-based organizations,
embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: editorial. Organ. Stud. 25 (9),
1475–1489.
Taylor, J., Levitt, R., 2005. Inter-organisational knowledge flow and innovation
diffusion in project-based industries. Paper Presented at the 38th Hawaii
International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA.
Tell, F., 2011. Knowledge Integration and Innovation: A Survey of the Field.
In: Berggren, C., Bengtsson, L., Bergek, A., Hobday, M., Söderlund, J.
(Eds.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 20–58.
Turner, R.J., Keegan, A., 2000. The management of operations in the project-
based organisation. J. Chang. Manag. 1 (2), 131–148.
Please cite this article as: S. Pemsel, et al., 2014. A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations, Int. J. Proj. Manag. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010
van Buuren, A., 2009. Knowledge for governance, governance of knowledge:
inclusive knowledge management in collaborative governance processes.
Int. Public Manag. J. 12 (2), 208–235.
Wang, H., Peng, Z., Gu, F., 2011. The emerging knowledge governance
approach within open innovation: its antecedent factors and interior
mechanism. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 6 (8), 94–104.
Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage, Thousland Oaks, CA.
Wenger, E., 2003. Communities of Practice — Learning. Cambridge University
Press, New York, Meaning and Identity.
Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E., Conyon, M., 1999. Change
and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: a European panel
study, 1992–1996. Organ. Sci. 10 (5), 583–600.
Wiewiora, A., 2011. The role of organisational culture. Trust and Mechanisms
in Inter-Project Knowledge SharingQueensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia (PhD Thesis).
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G.D., Gable, G., Liang, C., 2009. The
impact of unique characteristics of projects and project-based organisations
on knowledge transfer. Paper Presented at the 10th European Conference on
Knowledge Management.
Wiewiora, A., Trigunarsyah, B., Murphy, G., Coffey, V., 2013. Organizational
culture and willingness to share knowledge: a competing values perspective
in Australian context. International Journal of Project Management 31 (8),
1163–1174.
Williamson, O.E., 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. The Free
Press, New York, USA.