Renovating Project Management: Knowledge Personalization and Sharing

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


Purpose. Complex research projects, such as those regarding flight missions, are characterized by advanced technical-scientific goals, interactive teamwork, and financial or temporal constraints. Their management is based on formal project management (PM) methodologies, that offer the advantage that tasks are assigned and monitored with precision but the burden of formal duties can make interactions between researchers less effective. As the studies of Knowledge Management (KM) show, researchers need a rich exchange of knowledge and a process of mutual learning to find innovative solutions in areas of scientific forefront. In addition, new web 2.0 technologies give the opportunity to interact and exchange complex contents. Consequently, while PM methodologies remain an essential tool for researchers, there is the need to identify novel approaches that enable more effective knowledge exchanges for technical/scientific purposes. To contribute to a better understanding of these issues, this study examines if traditional PM approaches are an “automatic” solution adopted by any research team, or if researchers would spontaneously prefer more flexible ways to manage knowledge exchanges and interactions.

Design/methodology/approach. The paper investigates the “basic KM needs” that emerge from inexpert researchers working in complex projects. These researchers, being less conditioned by standard PM methodologies used in complex organizations, can have more propensity for the exploration of new ways to interact. At the same time, this analysis can point out the real perceptions of novice researchers about the necessity of a structured PM approach. In detail, the case study of a research team of Engineering post-graduate students, competing in an ESA (European Space Agency) student challenge, is presented. The way team members perceived the problems of KM and PM, and the way they decided to organize themselves to face these problems was systematically examined by means of direct observations, surveys, and interviews to team members. The main research questions are: How would a novice research team organize a complex research project, for combining formal management efficiency with effective and flexible knowledge exchanges? What approaches, methods or communication tools would they tend to adopt?

Implications for research and practice. In terms of research, the study contributes to the debate on the needs for new PM concepts and methods. In practical terms, it allows to draw useful lessons that can inspire the identification and design of new PM approaches, based on KM concepts and on the use of web 2.0 applications. In addition, it can provide elements for a definition of courses of PM and KM to novice researchers.


Knowledge management Project management Codification KM strategy Personalization KM strategy Sharing KM strategy Post-graduate students Space research 


  1. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559.Google Scholar
  2. Berggren, C., & Söderlund, J. (2008). Rethinking project management education: Social twists and knowledge co-production. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 286–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolisani, E., & Scarso, E. (2014). The place of communities of practice in knowledge management studies: A critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(2), 366–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolisani, E., Scarso, E., & Padova, A. (2016, June 15–17). Cognitive overload and related risks of social media in knowledge management programs. 11th IFKADInternational Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics, Dresden.Google Scholar
  5. Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cicmil, S., & Hodgson, D. (2006). New possibilities for project management theory: A critical engagement. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 111–122.Google Scholar
  7. Coccia, M., & Rolfo, S. (2009). Project management in public research organisations: Strategic change in complex scenarios. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 1(3), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Disterer, G. (2002). Management of project knowledge and experiences. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Egan, B. D. (2009). What is formal project management and who needs it? Expert Reference Series of White Papers, 1–800, Global Knowledge Network Training, Ireland. Retreived from
  10. Farrall, S. (1996). What is qualitative longitudinal research? [online]. Papers in Social Research Methods—Qualitative Series n. 11, London School of Economics and Political Science. Retreived from
  11. Handzic, M., & Durmic, N. (2015, September 3–4). Realizing value from knowledge assets: Empirical study in project environment. Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Knowledge Management, Udine.Google Scholar
  12. Harrison, F. L. (1981). Advanced project management. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  13. Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: Creating innovative products. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  14. Hodgson, D. (2002). Disciplining the professional: The case of project management. Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 803–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koskela, L., & Howell, G. (2002). The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. In Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Research Conference, Seattle, pp. 293–302.Google Scholar
  16. Kumar, J. A., & Ganesh, L. S. (2011). Balancing knowledge strategy: Codification and personalization during product development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 118–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leseure, M. J., & Brookes, N. J. (2004). Knowledge management benchmarks for project management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levy, M. (2009). WEB 2.0 implications on knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liebowitz, J., & Megbolugbe, I. (2003). A set of frameworks to aid the project manager in conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management initiatives. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NASA. (2014). NASA space flight program and project management handbook [online]. National Areonautics and Space Administration. Retreived from
  21. Nonaka, I., & Zhu, Z. (2012). Pragmatic strategy. Eastern wisdom, global success. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ortloff, D., Popp, J., Schmidt, T., & Mielke, M. (2009). A customer-driven approach to product engineering of micro and nano devices—Requirement analysis. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Commercialization of Micro and Nano Systems, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  23. PMI. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK Guide (5th ed.). Newton Square, PA: The Project Management Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Pollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 266–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Remidez, H., & Jones, N. B. (2012). Developing a model for social media in project management communications. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(3), 33–36.Google Scholar
  26. Taylor, R. G. (2010). Systems thinking for project management: Implications for practice and education. Acta Structilia, 17(1), 79.Google Scholar
  27. Thomas, J., & Mengel, T. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity–Advanced project management education. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Turban, E., Bolloju, N., & Liang, T. P. (2011). Enterprise social networking: Opportunities, adoption, and risk mitigation. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 21(3), 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Turner, J. R., & Huemann, M. (2001). Project management education in project-oriented societies. Project Management, 7(1), 7–13.Google Scholar
  30. Wagner, C. (2006). Breaking the knowledge acquisition bottleneck through conversational knowledge management. Information Resources Management Journal, 19(1), 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yeong, A. (2010). Integrating knowledge management with project management for project success. Journal of Project Program and Portfolio Management, 1(2), 8–19.Google Scholar
  32. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DTG—Department of Management and EngineeringUniversity of PadovaVicenzaItaly
  2. 2.DII—Department of Industrial EngineeeringUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly
  3. 3.CISAS—Center of Studies and Activities for SpaceUniversity of PadovaPadovaItaly

Personalised recommendations