Knowledge Management in Large Project-based Organization:

A Biomimetic Perspective
Contents

1. Introduction 3
1.1. Background ..................................................................................... 3
1.2. The Meaning and Importance of Knowledge ................................... 3
1.3. The Problem of Knowledge Leakage ............................................... 4
1.4. Research Objectives ........................................................................ 5

2. Review of the Literature 6

2.1. The Importance of Knowledge Management ................................... 6
2.2. Motivational Factors to Influence Knowledge Sharing..................... 6
2.3. Approaches to Knowledge Management .......................................... 8

3. Research Methodology 10
3.1. Introduction ................................................................................... 10
3.2. Methodology ................................................................................. 10
3.3. Scope of Research Findings ........................................................... 10
3.4. Data Analysis and Synthesis .......................................................... 11

4. Research Findings 12
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................... 12
4.2. Analysis of Research Findings ....................................................... 12

5. Conclusion 13

6. Reference 14

Appendix A 15

Appendix B 16

2
 1. Introduction

1.1. Background

Business organizations are immensely dependant upon the skills, knowledge, and
experience of their employees, and therefore are constantly in the pursuit of ways and
methods through which knowledge can be created and shared amongst the various
constituencies of the organization. Knowledge management is therefore an important
aspect of businesses today, especially since organizations have to deal with not only the
problem of ageing work force and temporary employees, but also with knowledge
management issues that are involved in outsourced activities, which are also becoming an
important part of organizations today.
The problem of knowledge leakage or knowledge transfer can have significant
consequences for organizations. Knowledge management therefore becomes an important
aspect for consideration by management of large organizations. Project-based
organizations, in particular, face much graver problems since projects typically run for a
certain period of time and once it is completed, the staff for the project is free to pursue
work at other organizations. It becomes even more important, therefore, for such
organizations to have an appropriate knowledge management system in place so that they
are able to safeguard the knowledge of their employees even after the employees are not
part of the organization anymore.

1.2. The Meaning and Importance of Knowledge

Knowledge is often confused by people as being synonymous with information.

However, this is a huge misinterpretation. As explained by Hubert St. Onge of the Mutual
Group quoted in J. Liebowitz (2001), knowledge includes “the set of facts and rules of
thumb that experts may have acquired over many years of experience”. Y. Merali (2000)
classified knowledge under two distinctive dimensions: the communicability of
knowledge in terms of tacit/explicit dimension, and the knowing entity in terms of
individual and collective knowledge based on the concepts of „conscious collective‟.
Tacit knowledge is defined in terms of its incommunicability and refers to the knowledge
of the subconscious which is, according to Liebowitz (2001), done automatically and
does not require any effort. For the purpose of knowledge management discussed in this
paper, such tacit knowledge is difficult to extract and elicit because of the “knowledge
engineering paradox”: the more expert one is, the more compiled is the knowledge and
consequently, the harder it is for that knowledge to be extracted and formalized in a
knowledge repository (Liebowitz, J., 2001). Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is
defined in terms of its convenient communicability since it is the more obvious type of
knowledge that can easily be documented and formalized. Internalized knowledge refers
to the ways through which explicit knowledge is internalized, shaped and influenced by
an individual‟s own views and therefore takes a different form from one person to
another (Liebowitz, J., 2001).
The difference between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge is aligned with the
distinction between the procedural knowledge based on experience and practice, or

3
“know how”, and the theoretical, declarative knowledge which can be codified and
transmitted without loss of meaning, or “know what” (Merali, Y., 2000). Economists, on
the other hand, define knowledge in two basic forms (Mohamed, S., Mynors, D.,
Grantham, A., Walsh, K., & Chan, P., 2006): embodied and disembodied. Embodied
knowledge is incorporated in devices, equipment, machinery, materials, as well as in
human beings in the form of ideas, expertise, skills, and routine. It cannot be codified and
is therefore vulnerable to loss or neglect. In contrast to embodied knowledge,
disembodied knowledge is only accessible through databases, manuals, patents,
specifications, scientific books, and journals (Mohamed, S., Mynors, D., Grantham, A.,
Walsh, K., & Chan, P., 2006).

1.3. The Problem of Knowledge Leakage

The concept of knowledge leakage is discussed in the literature under a number of

different terms, including knowledge seepage, knowledge disclosure, knowledge leakage,
and the more commonly used, knowledge transfer (Mohamed, S., Mynors, D., Grantham,
A., Walsh, K., & Chan, P., 2006). Annansingh et al. quoted in Mohamed et al. (2006)
describes knowledge leakage as “the possibility of information or knowledge that is
critical to the organization being lost or leaked – whether deliberately or unintentionally
to a competitor or unauthorized personnel” (Mohamed, S., Mynors, D., Grantham, A.,
Walsh, K., & Chan, P., 2006). According to this definition, knowledge leakage is a
negative occurrence, because knowledge leaks from its origin and can therefore cause a
loss of competitive advantage. Other interpretations of knowledge leakage are provided
by Vohinger et al. quoted in Mohamed et al. (2006), who define it “in positive terms
when it occurs in the form of information spillovers” (Mohamed, S., Mynors, D.,
Grantham, A., Walsh, K., & Chan, P., 2006).
Based on these various forms and interpretations of knowledge leakage, it is evident that
knowledge leakage can be either positive or negative. For the purpose of this paper,
however, knowledge leakage is used to refer to the loss of knowledge that occurs when
individuals leave companies. Knowledge leakage can result from a variety of different
aspects, including the restructuring around an organization‟s management without
consideration to differential appraisal of worth which cause skilled practitioners to
become redundant and new management positions to be introduced. Knowledge leakage
is also a result of inter-firm learning that can lead to “unintended and undesirable skills
transfer and dilution of the tacit knowledge that develops the origin of the competitive
advantage to a partner” (Mohamed, S., Mynors, D., Grantham, A., Walsh, K., & Chan,
P., 2006). Another factor that causes knowledge leakage is the “networked world” and
how it brings about an early ageing in organizations and therefore starts to
“unintentionally leak knowledge at an increasingly alarming rate as their employee‟s
network outside the organization to attain insights to complete their jobs” (Mohamed, S.,
Mynors, D., Grantham, A., Walsh, K., & Chan, P., 2006).
When companies lose their treasured employees, either because of death, disability, or
other types of voluntary or involuntary resignations, they lose a large component of their
knowledge base. For the purpose of this research study, knowledge leakage is focused
around the loss of knowledge that results when individuals leave their companies.

4
 1.4. Research Objectives

The objectives of this research paper are to outline the most compelling factors that can
allow project-based organizations to retain knowledge that is embodied in their human
resource and intellectual capital even when its employees cease to remain a part of it. A
combination of primary and secondary data analysis will aim to provide a more concrete
analysis about the factors that lead to knowledge sharing/management, and thus allows
for these factors to be incorporated within the overall management dealing of large
project-based organizations.
In particular, this paper will aim to answer the following questions:
1) What type of organization environment and support encourages knowledge
sharing among employees at project-based organizations?
2) In what ways can project-based organizations effectively engage in knowledge
management?
3) What is/are the best knowledge management technique(s) that project-based
organizations can implement?
The answers to these questions have been obtained through collecting information from
employees of 5 project-based organizations through surveys made available to them,
details of which are mentioned in Appendix A. The survey comprised of 8 questions,
each oriented towards assessing either one of the questions specified above. A total of 24
surveys were answered by employees from each organization. The organizations
consulted for the purpose of this survey included three development sector companies,
one engineering firm, and one marketing research company. The results of these surveys
will be analyzed in subsequent sections.

5
 2. Review of the Literature

2.1. The Importance of Knowledge Management

Knowledge management refers to the “conscious strategy of getting the right knowledge
to the right people at the right time” (Calo, T. J., 2008). Top management recognizes that
their competitive advantage is typically in their people, who are the brainpower and the
intellectual capital of the organization. It is therefore obvious that top executives want to
capture, secure, and share the knowledge among their employees and their customers
(Liebowitz, J., 2001). It is only through this only can organizations maintain their
competitive edge.
The importance of knowledge management is hence highlighted from the fact that
organizations can potentially face negative consequences from knowledge leakage that
results from individuals leaving their organizations. The importance attached to
knowledge management implies that further research is required to formulate appropriate
strategies that can assist organizations in sharing and safeguarding knowledge among all
members of organizations, in particular their employees.
Organizations that rely on knowledge management are also actively involved in
knowledge sharing, because knowledge sharing is an important prerequisite of a
successful knowledge management function. As explained by Sheng Wang and Raymond
A. Noe (2009), knowledge sharing refers to “the provision of task information and know-
how to help others and to collaborate with others to solve problems, develop new ideas,
or implement policies or procedures” and can occur through various types of exchanges
including written correspondence, face-to-face communications through networking with
other experts, or through the documentation and organization of other people‟s
knowledge (Noe, R. A., 2009). Of course, the distinction between knowledge sharing and
information sharing must be remembered so that the two terms are not understood to
mean the same thing, especially since information sharing refers to sharing that occurs
through “experimental studies in which participants are given lists of information,
manuals, or program” (Noe, R. A., 2009).

2.2. Motivational Factors to Influence Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge management is influenced by a number of influential factors. Approaches to

knowledge management emphasize the role of motivation for employees to be involved
in knowledge sharing. These factors are influenced by organizational support and
managements‟ encouragement towards this practice. Some of these motivational factors
are outlined here:

6
 2.2.1 Supervisory Control

Supervisory control has the most important impact on the willingness of an employee to
share knowledge through a knowledge management structure. It is defined as “efforts by
management to increase the likelihood that individuals will act in ways that will result in
the achievement of organizational objectives” (King, W. R., & Marks Jr., P. V., 2008).
The perceived influence of supervisors over the knowledge management system
encourages employees to share their knowledge with others in the organization. Research
shows that supervisory control is a strong determinant of individual efforts for knowledge
sharing (Wang, S., & Noe, R. A., 2009). This shows that the most reliable way that
organizations can indulge in knowledge sharing is through the top management‟s
involvement in knowledge management systems and by showing to employees that their
goals and objectives are the same as those of the top management when it comes to
knowledge sharing. Management support for knowledge sharing is also regarded as being
highly influential in promoting knowledge sharing at organizations through the
promotion of employee trust and willingness of management to help others and share
knowledge (Wang, S., & Noe, R. A., 2009). Empirical research by Yung-Ming Li and
Jhih-Hua Jhang-Li (2010) further shows that practitioners should encourage supervisory
control mechanisms in order to motivate knowledge sharing at organizations.

2.2.2 Social Exchange among Individuals

The social exchange theory asserts that “people contribute to others commensurate with
the contributions that they perceive are being made by others to them” (Wang, S., & Noe,
R. A., 2009). Individuals who therefore involve in sharing knowledge with others within
the organization perceive that this action will be reciprocated to them by others at some
time in the future. Behavior in the social exchange relationship results based on the trust
that the relationship will proceed in the future the same way as it did in past exchanges.
Therefore, social exchange theory becomes an important motivational factor for
knowledge sharing because it allows employees to share knowledge based on the belief
that others will similarly share knowledge with them in the future. Social exchange
theory therefore allows individuals to have trust in others in the organization and
therefore share knowledge with others based on this trust (Wang, S., & Noe, R. A.,
2009).

2.2.3 Rewards and Incentives

The above two factors emphasize the management support-knowledge sharing

relationship and hence show that management support is most likely to influence
knowledge sharing. It is, however, important to note that rewards and incentives can also
prove to be important motivational factors for effective knowledge management (Wang,
S., & Noe, R. A., 2009). Since knowledge sharing can contribute to an organization‟s
competitive advantage and may hence diminish the individual‟s competitiveness,
appropriate rewards and incentives are essential for the individuals to share (Li, Y-M., &
Jhang-Li, J-H., 2010).

7
 2.2.4 Organizational Structure

Knowledge sharing is hampered by functionally segmented organizational structure.

Research shows that knowledge sharing can be facilitated by have a less centralized
organizational structure and thereby create an environment that fosters interaction among
employees through an open work space, use of well defined job descriptions, and
frequent job rotations (Wang, S., & Noe, R. A., 2009).

2.2.5 Beliefs of Knowledge Ownership

Research shows that when employees feel that they own knowledge as opposed to
knowledge being owned by their organization, they are more likely to report that they
would engage in knowledge sharing. This can result from the internal satisfaction that
employees derive from sharing “their” knowledge with others. Therefore, it can also be
asserted that one of the motivational factors for knowledge sharing is beliefs regarding
knowledge ownership (Wang, S., & Noe, R. A., 2009).

2.2.6 Individual Attitudes

Individual behaviors describe that individuals‟ expectations of how useful their

knowledge is and how sharing knowledge can improve relationships with others has been
a major contributor towards knowledge sharing at organizations (Wang, S., & Noe, R. A.,
2009).

2.3. Approaches to Knowledge Management

Many theories exist already on knowledge management at organizations. The paper will
provide a more detailed analysis of these theories and attempt to link these theories to
management-style functions of large project-based organizations. Most theories of
knowledge management are insights into the factors that can allow for effective
knowledge sharing at organizations. The ideal type of knowledge management system for
an organization depends on the type, business, and culture of the organization. Two
approaches are discussed in this section that can effectively be used for knowledge
management. These are the centralized and decentralized approaches to knowledge
management.

2.3.1 Centralized, Top-Down Approach to Knowledge Management

The centralized, top-down approach to knowledge management is based on information

technology, and calls for the implementation of a central information system that can
serve as the focal point for knowledge sharing by all employees. Knowledge is gathered
in this system by all employees who are required to feed in their specific knowledge
which can then be centrally shared amongst everyone. Such a system requires all
employees to share knowledge by the rules of the organization, and provides
“generalizable” solutions instead of providing unique solutions based on circumstances
and environment. However, the central, top-down approach to knowledge management is

8
extremely expensive because of its sole reliance and development in information
technology (Hellström, T., Malmquist, U., & Mikaelsson, J., 2000).

2.3.2 Decentralized, Bottom-Up Approach to Knowledge Management

The decentralized, bottom-up approach to knowledge sharing focuses on the interaction

between the employees working within an organization instead of focusing on a central
system that ensures that all knowledge is gathered and shared amongst everyone. By
focusing on people‟s interaction, this decentralized, bottom-up approach allows for
unique solutions to be proposed instead of generalized solutions that are provided by a
centralized system. This type of a knowledge management approach is reactive and
adaptive, and allows knowledge to be gathered and shared in an “open market”
(Hellström, T., Malmquist, U., & Mikaelsson, J., 2000). Moreover, a decentralized
approach only focuses on creating an environment that promotes knowledge management
and does not require any additional systems to be implemented, and hence it is extremely
cheap as compared to a centralized, top-down approach to knowledge management
(Hellström, T., Malmquist, U., & Mikaelsson, J., 2000).

2.3.3 Other Approaches to Knowledge Management

Other approaches to knowledge management include the integration model, the

collaboration model, the transaction model, and the expert model. These methods are
defined as part of the two approaches mentioned above, but are worth being mentioned
separately. The integration and transaction models are used for systematic, repeated work
and are reliant on formal processes and methodologies. The former is dependent on
integration across functional boundaries, while the former is dependant on low-discretion
workforce of information. The collaboration model is used for improvisational work and
is highly reliant on deep expertise across functions. The expert model is used for
judgment-oriented work and is highly reliant on individual expertise and experiences
(Dave, B., & Koskela, L., 2009).

9
 3. Research Methodology

3.1. Introduction

Although there is a plethora of research already conducted on knowledge management,

the extent of research conducted on knowledge management at large, project-based
organizations is still largely limited. Through the analysis of literature on the subject as
well as primary data analysis pertaining to project-based organizations, it is able to
develop a complete study of how project-based organizations can effectively engage in
knowledge management. Research on knowledge management has been done
extensively, and this paper relies on this research for the purpose of its analysis. In order
to gather more substantial data on knowledge management, primary research has been
conducted.

3.2. Methodology

A set of eight questions has been formulated which was shared by the employees of 5
project-based companies. 24 replies were gathered from employees of each of the 5
organizations that were consulted for the purpose of this survey. The questions included
in the survey were qualitative in nature and focused on knowledge sharing approaches as
well as motivating factors for effective knowledge management. The survey template is
mentioned in Appendix B. The responses received from these companies allow for a
more concrete approach towards knowledge sharing at large, project-based organizations.
The findings of the primary data are useful for the formulation of a general approach that
large, project-based organizations can implement for effective knowledge management.

3.3. Scope of Research Findings

This research analysis has a very wide scope. This research and its findings have
important implications for many project-based organizations around the world. There are
far reaching positive effects of the research presented in this analysis. The norm at
project-based organizations is that there is a specific team hired for each specific project,
and once the project finishes, the team generally moves out of the organization. Since the
problem of knowledge leakage is especially grave in such situations, the research
findings will be especially beneficial for Human Resource Managers, Directors, and
personnel at such organizations in developing appropriate policies for knowledge sharing
so that knowledge is not lost when individuals leave. However, the findings of this
research study can also be used by any other organization. The primary benefit of this
research will be its contribution to project-based organizations for analyzing, developing,
and implementing the best approach for effective knowledge management.

10
 3.4. Data Analysis and Synthesis

Scores can be interpreted as follows: A score of 90% is better than 85%, which is better
than 80%, and so forth. The maximum possible score of “100%” represents “with perfect
consistency” and the minimum possible score of “0%” means that the behavior or action
does not happen at all.
The index scores will be calculated first by converting each respondent‟s answers from
the 1-to-7 scale to a percentage of the total responses for that question from the total
population sampled in the survey as it relates to the 1-to-7 scale. The scores for each
question will provide an accurate percentile representation of survey population‟s overall
response reaction to each question as to how they perceive their work environment using
the 1-to-7 rate on a Likert scale, 1 corresponding to „Never‟ through to the ending value
of 7 representing „Always‟ on the scale. In calculating scores, there is no case-weighting
of any responses; in other words, each employee‟s responses count for the same amount,
for instance, they are not weighted.
This is a simple transformation, i.e., that weighs the percentile of all the respondents‟
answers with the corresponding number from 1 to 7. For example if a total of 24
respondents answered question 1; the corresponding number of responses that related to
the 1-to-7 scale will be divided by the total responses for that number in reaching a
percentage breakdown of the question between each of the seven possible values. So, for
instance if a data set for a survey question that received 24 total responses from the
sample population being surveyed was broken down in response percentages and
response counts provided data that respondents answered 0 times for a “1” is converted to
0%, 0 times for a “2” is converted to 0%, 2 times for a “3” is converted to a 8.33%, 2
times for a “4” is converted to a 8.33%, 7 times for a “5” is converted to a 29.2%, 9 times
for a “6” is converted to a 37.5%, and 4 times for a “7” is converted to a 16.7%.

11
 4. Research Findings

4.1. Introduction

The findings of this research study attempt to provide a qualitative analysis of the
different measures that can be used to allow for effective knowledge management at large
project-based organizations. Combining this analysis with a review of existing literature
surrounding knowledge management techniques, it is possible to establish a framework
that allows project-based organizations to retain their employees‟ knowledge even after
the employees are not a part of the organization anymore.

4.2. Analysis of Research Findings

The findings of the survey are reported in this section. Question 1 deals primarily with
the importance attached to knowledge management at project-based organizations. The
Likert scale data for question 1 ranged from 3 to 7 with the majority of responses scoring
between 5 and 7. The median of the scale is 4 most employees, implying that 37.5% of
employees feel that knowledge management is an explicit goal of large, project0based
organizations while 16.7% employees feeling that it is a goal of project-based
organizations, albeit not an entirely explicit one.
Questions 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 aims to analyze what kind of organizational environment
supports knowledge sharing among employees. The examination of the data results
shows that employees agree at a rate of 47.7% and 12.5% rate that an open environment
and encouragement from top management is a critical factor for effective knowledge
sharing. Question 6 further analyzes the importance of rewards and incentives as
encouragement for employees to engage in knowledge sharing. The Likert scores
received for this question vary between 5 and 7, emphasizing that project-based
organizations place a high value to knowledge sharing by providing appropriate
incentives, monetary or non-monetary, to employees who follow organizational
objectives of effective knowledge sharing. These scores translate into 25%, 33.3%, and
33.3% respectively which is representative of a majority of population which feels that
rewards and incentives are an extremely effective motivational factor to encourage
knowledge sharing.
Questions 3 and 6 emphasize the various methods that large, project-based organizations
use for the purpose of knowledge management. The results obtained from the survey data
show an interesting trend. Although in theory it is typically believed that the top-down
approach and bottom-up approach to knowledge management are mutually exclusive
because of a variety of reasons as mentioned in previous sections, the data findings show
an overlap between the two approaches at the organizations consulted for the purpose of
this study. 71.4% of respondents revealed that their organizations maintain knowledge in
some form of centralized database, that is, the organizations maintain some central
location where all of the organizations knowledge is stored. 58.3% of employees report

12
that at their organizations, peers promote knowledge sharing with one another. For
question 3, results on the Likert scale between 5 and 7, with the majority being either 6 or
7. For question 6, the scores on the Likert scale range between 5 and 7, with the majority
being between 5 and 6.

5. Conclusion

What is/are the Best Knowledge Management Technique(s) that Project-Based

Organizations can implement?

The results from the data analysis show that for large, knowledge-based organizations,
the best technique to implement is a central, knowledge-based database which can
contain all knowledge that is embodied within all employees at the organization, while at
the same time fostering an environment of management support for knowledge sharing.
Such a knowledge management technique will assist organizations in applying the best of
both the centralized and decentralized approaches to knowledge management, and can
ensure that they develop and implement the best knowledge management technique.

13
 6. Reference

Calo, T. J. (2008). Talent management in the era of the aging workforce: The critical role
of knowledge transfer. Public Personnel Management. Retrieved from:
<http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/192352085.html>.

Dave, B., & Koskela, L. (2009). Collaborative knowledge management: A construction

case study. Automation in Construction, 18: 894-902.

Hellström, T., Malmquist, U., & Mikaelsson, J. (2000). Decentralizing knowledge:

Managing knowledge work in a software engineering firm. Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 12: 25-38.

King, W. R., & Marks Jr., P. V. (2008). Motivating knowledge sharing through a
knowledge management system. Omega, 36: 131 – 146.

Li, Y-M., & Jhang-Li, J-H. (2010). Knowledge sharing in communities of practice: A
game theoretical analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 207: 1052-1064.

Liebowitz, J. (2001). Knowledge management and its link to artificial intelligence.

Expert Systems Applications, 20: 1-6.

Merali, Y. (2000). Individual and collective congruence in the knowledge management

process. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9: 213-234.

Mohamed, S., Mynors, D., Grantham, A., Walsh, K., & Chan, P. (2006). Understanding
one aspect of the knowledge leakage problem: People. Proceedings from EMCIS‟06:
European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems. Spain.

Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2009). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 20: 115-131.

14
Appendix A

1) Business Support Fund

Provides small and medium enterprises with financial resources and
expertise to enable them to expand their resource base and progress further

2) Rafi Peer Theater Workshop

Develops projects with international donor agencies like USAID, CIDA,
DFID for the promotion of cultural awareness and performing arts

3) Competitive Support Fund

Operates under the umbrella of USAID and promotes management skills
and competitiveness of local companies

4) AXIS Engineering
Provides engineering solutions for construction businesses

5) Gallup Pakistan
Performs marketing research for other companies and third parties

15
Appendix B

Please indicate how important each of the items mentioned below is to your organization,
using the scale from 1 – 7: “Not at all important/relevant” – “Very important/relevant”.

1. Knowledge management is clearly described in company‟s overall objectives.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Organization encourages knowledge sharing among employees.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Information systems are available for sharing knowledge in a central database.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Employees are provided with encouragement on knowledge sharing by management.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. Peers promote knowledge sharing with one another.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Organization provides rewards for knowledge-sharing behavior.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I am recognized for my contributions to the organization‟s knowledge base.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Organization provides an open environment for everyone to share knowledge.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16