Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Knowledge and Project Management pp 157–179Cite as

Knowledge Management Selection Model for Project Management

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning ((IAKM,volume 5))

Abstract

This chapter proposes and empirically tests a contingency knowledge management (KM) selection model for project management (PM). Essentially, the proposed model posits a mediating role of project factors in the choice and impact of KM on project success. The evidence from two empirical studies provide full support for the contingency model and its proposition that the appropriate KM for PM depends upon project complexity. In particular, the empirical findings show that with increased project complexity, customer-related intellectual capital (IC) and personalization KM strategy tend to have greater importance for project success than team or process IC and codification KM strategy. These findings contribute valuable insights for researchers and provide useful guidance for project managers. The chapter also suggests plausible directions for further research to address current limitations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andersen, E. S. (2008). Rethinking project management: An organisational perspective. Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aurum, A., Ross, J., Wohlin, C., & Handzic, M. (Eds.). (2003). Managing software engineering knowledge. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzales, A., & Sabherwal, R. (2004). Knowledge management: Challenges, solutions, and technologies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratianu, C. (2011). Changing paradigm for knowledge metaphors from dynamics to thermodynamics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28, 160–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratianu, C. (2015). Organizational knowledge dynamics: Managing knowledge creation, acquisition, sharing, and transformation. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratianu, C., & Orzea, I. (2013). The entropic intellectual capital model. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 11(2), 133–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronte-Stewart, M. (2015). Beyond the iron triangle: Evaluating aspects of success and failure using a project status model. Computing and Information Systems, 19(2), 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 40–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. F. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L. (1997). Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 366–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Encyclopedia of Management. (2009). Contingency approach to management. Visited February 2, 2016, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3273100055.html

  • Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frese, R., & Sauter, V. (2003). Project success and failure: What is success, what is failure, and how can you improve your odds for success? Visited November 23, 2014, from http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/6840_f03_papers/frese/

  • Grant, R. (1996). Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handzic, M., & Durmic, N. (2015a, June 10–12). The role of project complexity in the impact of knowledge capital on project success. In Proceedings of the 10th International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics (IFKAD 2015), Bari, pp. 199–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handzic, M., & Durmic, N. (2015b). Knowledge management, intellectual capital and project management: Connecting the dots. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 51–61. Retrieved from http://www.ejkm.com

  • Handzic, M., Durmic, N., Kraljic, A., & Kraljic, T. (2016). The role of project complexity in the selection of knowledge management strategy for addressing project-related knowledge needs. Working Paper, International Burch University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 106–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasan, H. (2014). Complexity theory. In H. Hasan (Ed.), Being practical with theory: A window into business research (pp. 49–54). Wollongong: University of Wollongong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., Smith, E. R., & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social relations (6th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kianto, A., Ritala, P., Spender, J. C., & Vanhala, M. (2014). The interaction of intellectual capital assets and knowledge management practices in organisational value creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(3), 362–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. (2003). Survey shows common IT woes persist. Visited November 23, 2014, from http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/82404/Survey_shows_common_IT_woes_persist?taxonomyId=014

  • Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molodchik, M. A., Shakina, E. A., & Barajas, A. (2014). Metrics for the elements of intellectual capital in an economy driven by knowledge. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(2), 206–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • PMI. (2013). A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) (5th ed.). Newton Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2014). No excuses: Realizing promised benefits from digitization. USA: Legerity Digital Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savolainen, P., Verner, J. M., Land, L. P. W., & Low G. C. (2011). What happens before a project starts? Project start-up from the supplier perspective. In Information systems development—Business systems and services: Modeling and development. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-9790-6_52.

  • Shenhar, A. J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47(3), 394–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A. J. (2012). Why one size does not fit all. Hoboken, NJ: The SPL Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual capital: The new wealth of organizations. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sveiby, K. (1997). The new organization wealth: Managing and measuring knowledge-based assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 37(1), 60–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeong, A., & Lim, T. T. (2010). Integrating knowledge management with project management for project success. Journal of Project, Program and Portfolio Management, 1(2), 8–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, International Burch University, Francuske revolucije bb, Ilidza, 71000, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Meliha Handzic

Authors
  1. Meliha Handzic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meliha Handzic .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Management & InfoTech, International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

    Meliha Handzic

  2. SUPSI, Manno, Switzerland

    Antonio Bassi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Handzic, M. (2017). Knowledge Management Selection Model for Project Management. In: Handzic, M., Bassi, A. (eds) Knowledge and Project Management. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51067-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation