Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

PowerPoint und die Einkapselung von Prozessualität im projektübergreifenden Lernen

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Organisation von Temporalität und Temporärem

Part of the book series: Managementforschung ((MGTF,volume 23))

  • 1655 Accesses

Zusammenfassung

Die bestehende Literatur zum „projektübergreifenden Lernen“ kann bislang nur unzureichend erklären, was den Austausch von Erfahrungswissen in projektbasierten Organisationen erschwert. In diesem Beitrag schlage ich daher eine Neubetrachtung des projektübergreifenden Lernens vor. Eine kommunikationszentrierte Perspektive erlaubt es, bestehende Herausforderungen des projektübergreifenden Lernens als Problem der Verknüpfung zwischen Kommunikationsereignissen zu rekonstruieren. In einer empirischen Fallstudie bei einer multinationalen Unternehmensberatung habe ich untersucht, inwieweit die Anschlussfähigkeit an vergangene Projekte durch Praktiken der Projektdokumentierung ermöglicht wird. Die Untersuchung zeigt zum einen die Dominanz der Präsentationssoftware PowerPoint im Anwendungskontext der Projektdokumentation. Zum anderen schränkt die Verknappung von Inhalten in PowerPoint-Dokumenten die Möglichkeiten zur Rekontextualisierung durch Mitarbeiter ein, die nicht direkt am Projekt beteiligt waren. Die Studie trägt zur bestehenden Forschung bei, indem sie aufzeigt, wie PowerPoint im alternativen Anwendungskontext der Projektdokumentation eingesetzt wird, hierbei die Prozesshaftigkeit vergangener Projekte tendenziell „einkapselt“ und damit das projektübergreifende Lernen erschwert.

Abstract

The existing literature on “cross-project learning” can only insufficiently explain what impedes the exchange of knowledge within project-based organizations. Hence, in this article, I aim to shed light on cross-project learning from a communication-centered perspective. This view allows for reconstructing existing challenges in cross-project learning as problems of connectivity between communication events. In line with this view, I have conducted an empirical case study at a multinational business consulting firm. This study examines to what extent existing practices of project documentation facilitate the visibility of past project processes and thus any connectivity to future projects. The study shows the predominance of the presentation software Microsoft PowerPoint in the project documentation practices at the case firm. Furthermore, the established practices of reducing the content of PowerPoint slides (e.g. in the form of bullet point lists) constrained the possibilities for recontextualization by organizational members that were not directly involved in the project process. Taken together, the study contributes to the existing literature by showing how a medium and genre of organizational communication (i.e. PowerPoint) becomes established in the alternate application context of project documentation but tends to “encapsulate” the processual nature of projects, which, in effect, can impede cross-project learning.

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

Access this chapter

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 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturverzeichnis

  • Argyris, C./Schön, D. (1978): Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashcraft, K.L./Kuhn, T.R./Cooren, F. (2009): Constitutional amendments: ‚Materializing’ organizational communication. In: Academy of Management Annals 3 (1), S. 1–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayas, K./Zeniuk, N. (2001): Project-based learning: Building communities of reflective practitioners. In: Management Learning 32 (1), S. 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axley, S.R. (1984): Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. In: Academy of Management Review 9 (3), S. 428–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R.M. (2010): Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. In: International Journal of Management Reviews 12 (4), S. 466–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barad, K. (2007): Meeting the university halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G. (1972): Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, V.K. (1993): Analysing genre: Language in use in professional settings. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatia, V.K. (2004): Worlds of written discourse. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boh, W.F. (2007): Mechanisms for sharing knowledge in project-based organizations. In: Information and Organization 17 (1), S. 27–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, T./Davies, A. (2004): Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning. In: Organization Studies 25 (9), S. 1601–1621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brummans, B./Cooren, F./Robichaud, D./Taylor, J.R. (im Druck): Approaches in research on the communicative constitution of organizations. In: Putnam, L.L./Mumby, D. (Hrsg.): Sage handbook of organizational communication. 3. Aufl. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S./Courpasson, D. (2004): Political hybrids, Tocquevillean views on project organizations. In: Journal of Management Studies 41 (4), S. 525–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooren, F. (2004): Textual agency: How texts do things in organizational settings. In: Organization 11 (3), S. 373–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooren, F. (2012): Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. In: Journal of Communication 62 (1), S. 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooren, F./Fairhurst, G.T. (2009): Dislocation and stabilization: How to scale up from interactions to organization. In: Putnam, L.L./Nicotera, A.M. (Hrsg.): Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York, NY, S. 117–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooren, F./Kuhn, T.R./Cornelissen, J.P./Clark, T. (2011): Communication, organizing, and organization. In: Organization Studies 32 (9), S. 1149–1170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooren , F./Taylor , J.R./van Every, E.J. (Hrsg.)(2006): Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversations. Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett-Etchevers, I./Mounoud, E. (2011): A narrative framework for management ideas: Disclosing the plots of knowledge management in a multinational company. In: Management Learning 42 (2), S. 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currie, G./Kerrin, M. (2004): The limits of a technological fix to knowledge management: Epistemological, political and cultural issues in the case of intranet implementation. In: Management Learning 35 (1), S. 9–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A.C. (1996): Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. In: Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 32 (1), S. 5–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, P./Runde, J. (2009): On the identity of technological objects and user innovations in function. In: Academy of Management Review 34 (3), S. 442–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fayard, A./Weeks, J. (2007): Photocopiers and water-coolers: The affordances of informal interaction. In: Organization Studies 28(5), S. 605–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Früh, W. (2007): Inhaltsanalyse: Theorie und Praxis, 6. Aufl. Konstanz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabriel, Y. (2008): Against the tyranny of PowerPoint: Technology-in-use and technology abuse. In: Organization Studies 29 (2), S. 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrick, J./Clegg, S. (2001): Stressed-out knowledge workers in performative times: A postmodern take on project-based learning. In: Management Learning 32 (1), S. 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B.G./Strauss, A.L. (1967): The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabher, G. (2004): Temporary architectures of learning: Knowledge governance in project ecologies. In: Organization Studies 25 (9), S. 1491–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernes, T./Bakken, T. (2003): Implications of self-reference: Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis and organization theory. In: Organization Studies 24 (9), S. 1511–1535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobday, M. (2000): The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? In: Research Policy 29 (7–8), S. 871–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, D. (2004): Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization. In: Organization 11 (1), S. 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, D./Cicmil, S. (2007): The politics of standards in modern management: Making „the project” a reality. In: Journal of Management Studies 44 (3), S. 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. (2011): Strategy and Powerpoint: An inquiry into the epistemic culture and machinery of strategy making. In: Organization Science 22 (2), S. 320–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keegan, A./Turner, J.R. (2001): Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices. In: Management Learning 32 (1), S. 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenis, P./Janowicz-Panjaitan, M./Cambré, B. (2009): Temporary organizations: Prevalence, logic and effectiveness. Cheltenham, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieser, A. (1998): Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Organisation beim Reden. In: Industrielle Beziehungen 5 (1), S. 45–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (1980): Content analysis: An introduction of its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.S. (1962): The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.R. (2008): A communicative theory of the firm: Developing an alternative perspective on intra-organizational power and stakeholder relationships. In: Organization Studies 29 (8–9), S. 1227–1254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammers, J.C./Barbour, J.B. (2006): An institutional theory of organizational communication. In: Communication Theory 16 (3), S. 356–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampel, J./Scarbrough, H./Macmillan, S. (2008): Managing through projects in knowledgebased environments. In: Long Range Planning 41 (1), S. 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonardi, P. (2011): When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. In: Management Information Systems Quarterly 35 (1), S. 147–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, M./Packendorff, J. (2006): What’s new in new forms of organizing? On the construction of gender in project-based work. In: Journal of Management Studies 43 (4), S. 841- 866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1984): Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt a.M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1992): What is communication? In: Communication Theory 2 (3), S. 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (2000): Organisation und Entscheidung. Opladen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundin, R.A./Söderholm, A. (1995): A theory of the temporary organization. In: Scandinavian Journal of Management 11 (4), S. 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M.L. (2001): Toward a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. In: Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), S. 57–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2000): Qualitative content analysis. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 1 (1). (http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385UTH).

  • Mengis, J./Eppler, M.J. (2008): Understanding and managing conversations from a knowledge perspective: An analysis of the roles and rules of face-to-face conversations in organizations. In: Organization Studies 29 (10), S. 1287–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohe, M./Seidl, D. (2011): Theorizing the client-consultant relationship from the perspective of social-systems theory. In: Organization 18 (1), S. 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassehi, A. (2005): Organizations as decision machines. Niklas Luhmann’s theory of organized social systems. In: Jones, C./Munro, R. (Hrsg.): Contemporary organization theory. Oxford, UK, S. 178–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S.M. (2004): Enhancing cross-project learning. In: Engineering Management Journal 16 (1), S. 12–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S.M./Bresnen, M./Edelman, L./Scarbrough, H./Swan, J. (2006): Sharing knowledge across projects. In: Management Learning 37 (2), S. 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W.J. (2007): Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. In: Organization Studies 28 (9), S. 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W.J./Yates, J. (1994): Genre repertoire: The structuring of communicative practices in organizations. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 39, S. 541–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz, A. (2002): Toward a theory of social practices: A development in culturalist teorizing. In: European Journal of Social Theory 5 (2), S. 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, R./Eppler, M.J. (Hrsg.)(2004): Wissenskommunikation in Organisationen. Methoden, Instrumente, Theorien. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1981): Hermeneutics and the human sciences: Essays on language, action and interpretation. Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robichaud, D./Giroux, H./Taylor, J.R. (2004): The metaconversation: The recursive property of language as a key to organizing. In: Academy of Management Review 29 (4), S. 617–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T.R. (2006): On organizations as they happen. In: Organization Studies 27 (12), S. 1863–1873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeneborn, D. (2006): Wissenskommunikations-Management: eine Studie zur Neugestaltung des Wissensmanagements aus medien- und kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Perspektive. Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoeneborn, D. (2008): Alternatives considered but not disclosed: The ambiguous role of PowerPoint in cross-project learning. Wiesbaden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoeneborn, D. (2011): Organization as communication: A Luhmannian perspective. In: Management Communication Quarterly 25(4), S. 663–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeneborn, D. (im Druck): The pervasive power of PowerPoint: How a genre of professional communication permeates organizational communication. In: Organization Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg, G./Noss, C. (1995): Organisatorischer Wandel. Von der Organisationsentwicklung zur Lernenden Organisation. In: Die Betriebswirtschaft 55 (2), S. 169–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D. (2005): Organization and interaction. In: Seidl, D./Becker, K.H. (Hrsg.): Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Kopenhagen, S. 145–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D./Becker, K.H. (Hrsg.)(2005): Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Kopenhagen.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenhar, A.J./Dvir, D. (1996): Toward a typological theory of project management. In: Research Policy 25 (4), S. 607–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söderlund, J. (2011): Pluralism in project Management: Navigating the crossroads of specialization and fragmentation. In: International Journal of Management Reviews 13, S. 153- 176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spee, A.P./Jarzabkowski, P. (2011): Strategic planning as communicative process. In: Organization Studies 32 (9), S. 1217–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D./Paravel, V. (2008): PowerPoint in public: Digital technologies and the new morphology of demonstration. In: Theory, Culture & Society 25 (5), S. 30–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A.L./Corbin, J. (1990): Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, J./Scarbrough, H./Newell, S. (2010): Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects? In: Management Learning 41 3), S. 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J./Lindkvist, L./DeFillippi, R. (2004): Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge: Editorial. In: Organization Studies 25 (9), S. 1475–1489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.R./Cooren, F./Giroux, H./Robichaud, D. (1996): The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. In: Communication Theory 6 (1), S. 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor , J.R./van Every, E.J. (2000): The emergent organization. Communication as its site and surface. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E.R. (2003): The cognitive style of PowerPoint. Cheshire, CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werr, A./Stjernberg, T. (2003): Exploring management consulting firms as knowledge systems. In: Organization Studies 24 (6), S. 881–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witzel, A. (2000): The problem-centered interview. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 1 (1). (http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/1132/2521).

  • Wolf, T. (2004): Persuasive presentations. http://softeng.polito.it/courses/01GSP/students2read/guidelines.pdf).

  • Yates, J./Orlikowski, W.J. (1992): Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media. In: Academy of Management Review 17 (2), S. 299–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J./Orlikowski, W.J. (2007): The PowerPoint presentation and its corollaries: How genres shape communicative action in organizations. In: Zachry, M./Thralls, C. (Hrsg.): The cultural turn: Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions. Amityville, NY, S. 67–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, B./Olivera, F. (2006): Error reporting in organizations. In: Academy of Management Review 31 (4), S. 1012–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zorn, T.E./Taylor, J.R. (2003): Knowledge management and/as organizational communication. In: Tourish, D./Hargie, O. (Hrsg.): Key issues in organizational communication. London, S. 96–112.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Universität Zürich, Universitätsstr. 84, Zürich, CH-8006, Deutschland

    Dr. Dennis Schoeneborn

Authors
  1. Dr. Dennis Schoeneborn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis Schoeneborn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Lehrstuhl für Unternehmensführung, Europa Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder), Germany

    Jochen Koch

  2. Lehrstuhl für Unternehmenskooperation Management-Department, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jörg Sydow

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Schoeneborn, D. (2013). PowerPoint und die Einkapselung von Prozessualität im projektübergreifenden Lernen. In: Koch, J., Sydow, J. (eds) Organisation von Temporalität und Temporärem. Managementforschung, vol 23. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02998-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02998-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-02997-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-02998-2

  • eBook Packages: Business and Economics (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation