The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0305-5728.htm

The relationship between

improving the management of
projects and the use of KM
Peter C. Lierni

Improving the
management of
projects
133

High Performance Technologies Inc. (HPTi), Reston, Virginia, USA, and

Vincent M. Ribie`re
Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand and New York Institute of Technology
(NYIT), New York, New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to determine whether there is a relationship between
improving the management of projects and the use of knowledge management (KM). Additionally, this
paper sought to determine if KM practices in use by practitioners of project management are
significant in terms of improving the management of projects, as well as the impact of these KM
practices in use by practitioners on improving the management of projects.
Design/methodology/approach A main research question supported by seven research
hypotheses were postulated. A survey was used to collect data from 99 project managers randomly
selected from the list of worldwide members of the project management Institute (PMI).
Findings The findings reveal the influence of KM on the improvement of the management of
projects. The KM practices and tools mostly used by project managers are presented.
Originality/value This study is the first one of the type that tries to identify and to demonstrate
the relationship between the fields of KM and project management through the collection of data
among project management practitioners.
Keywords Project management, Knowledge management
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Organizations undertake temporary endeavors (projects) to create a unique product or
service. Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, tools, and
techniques to project activities to meet project requirements (PMI, 2002). The buyer
and seller are the two main parties associated with any project management activity.
Buyer means the purchaser of goods and services from an organization. Likewise,
seller means the provider of goods and services to an organization (PMI, 2002).
According to the Standish Groups paper Extreme CHAOS 2001, only 28 percent of
all information technology (IT) projects are successful; 23 percent are failed; and 49
percent are challenged (Boucher et al., 2001). The Standish Group defines the categories
of project success, failure and challenged as follows:
.
Successful: the project is completed on time and on budget, with all features and
functions originally specified.
.
Challenged: the project is completed and operational, but over budget, late, and
with fewer features and functions than initially specified.
.
Failed: the project is canceled before completion, or never implemented.

VINE: The journal of information and

knowledge management systems
Vol. 38 No. 1, 2008
pp. 133-146
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0305-5728
DOI 10.1108/03055720810870941

VINE
38,1

134

Standish indicated that the main reasons for project failure include lack of (Standish
Group International, 2001):
.
executive support;
.
user involvement;
.
experienced project manager;
.
clear business objectives;
.
scope control;
.
standard software infrastructure;
.
baselined requirements;
.
formal methodology; and
.
reliable estimates projects.
A lot can be done to mitigate these causes of project failure. In particular, there is a need
for organizations to have knowledge mapped to processes (what you do), resources (who
does it), and schedule (when you do it) in order to get the right knowledge to the right
person(s) at the right time in order to decrease project schedule and cost, to increase
project quality, and to increase project return-on-investment (ROI). ROI is achieved by
improved risk management enabled by knowledge management. Risk management is
the means by which uncertainty is systematically managed to increase the likelihood of
meeting project objectives (Verzuh, 1999). The management of this uncertainty is
dependent upon the awareness and accessibility of the knowledge available.
Knowledge management (KM) enables a project team to reduce doing rework and
compresses the time that it takes to plan projects. In addition, providing the right
knowledge to the right person(s) at the right time allows for greater control over the
project throughout the projects lifecycle by reducing uncertainty. This translates into a
greater probability of fulfilling the projects objectives and increasing project ROI.
The problem is to identify whether KM practices contribute to improving the
management of projects. Previous studies have not clearly identified and not
demonstrated the relationship between improving the management of projects and the
use of KM. The need to have a greater likelihood of delivering successful projects and
improving project ROI requires an understanding of which KM practices are
significant in terms of improving the management of projects.
The purpose of this study is to identify whether KM practices contribute to
improving the management of projects thus resulting in the successful delivery of the
project. For this study, success is defined as a project completed within schedule,
within budget, met technical requirements, and thus fulfilled the organizational criteria
that define a successful project. A desired outcome is to increase the importance of KM
in the management of projects among project stakeholders to include: executive
management, project sponsors, project managers, and other members of the project
team.
Literature review
Innumerable articles, books, studies, and white papers attest to the efforts of individuals
in academia, government, industry, and professional organizations to improve the
profession of project management. Their topics include but are not limited to improving

the management of project scope, schedule, cost, human resources, communications, risk,
and procurement. In particular, innumerable quality management initiatives have
contributed directly or indirectly to improve project initiation, planning, execution, and
control. These quality management initiatives include but are not limited to:
.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9000 and 10000 series of
standards and guidelines;
.
Total Quality Management (TQM);
.
Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM);
.
Six Sigma; and
.
etc.

Improving the
management of
projects
135

Very few academic publications focused on the role and on the use of knowledge
management to improve the management of projects. Haddad and Ribie`re (2007)
looked at the benefits and feasibility of implementing KM in software acquisition
projects. KM models, practices, and tools are potentially valuable for improving
software outsourcing activities. KM can be useful for identifying the organizational
structures, processes and informational technologies for measuring, collecting, and
analyzing costs and risks incurred before, during and after the contract award (Haddad
and Ribie`re, 2007). The same framework can also be used to collect data on the
acquisition activities and processes such as writing requests for proposals, contractor
evaluation and selection, predicting needed resources, and identifying risks. Such
knowledge can be used on future projects to improve the acquisition processes by
allocating adequate resources and identifying risks to improve the likelihood of project
success (Haddad and Ribie`re, 2007). Koskinen (2004) looked at the different types of
knowledge required in a project management context. Knowledge can be tacit or
explicit and can be substitutive or additive. Knowledge not possessed by the group can
be acquired from outside. The acquired knowledge can be additive to the current
knowledge own by the group (acquired from previous projects) or can be substitutive
to it, meaning that it will replace the previous knowledge by new knowledge (Hall and
Andriani, 2002). Based on these four different types of knowledge Koskinen (2004)
created a matrix that illustrates which type of knowledge can be needed in different
project environments (Figure 1). Defining the type of knowledge and environment
required to complete a project will help selecting the best KM tools and practices to
support/enable the flow of knowledge.

Figure 1.

VINE
38,1

136

Snider and Nissen (2003) point out the static and explicit nature of the Body of
Knowledge Book (BOK) that serves as reference to most project managers. They
present a multidimensional model of knowledge flow that includes knowledge created
and shared through social interactions among practitioners, aspect not strongly
emphasized in the PMI BOK. This can be considered as a good eye opener particularly
to some practitioners focusing on a techno-centric approach to KM ignoring the most
critical people-centric aspect to it. Owen et al. (2004) propose a model for knowledge
reuse in a project management environment where knowledge is absorbed at a tactical
level and flows to a strategic level. Through a case study they highlight the important
aspect of tacit knowledge required for knowledge transfer and reuse. They present how
knowledge is applied through the project lifecycle. Through an empirical study
conducted among 13 projects in six organizations Newell et al. (2006) explored what
type of knowledge is more effectively transferred between projects using information
and communication technologies (ICT) and what type of knowledge is more effectively
transferred using social networks. Their findings show that ICT-based strategies are
widely implemented but are not as useful in term of learning. They also suggest that a
stronger emphasis on social networking among practitioners is more effective. They
discovered that lessons learned databases and other document repositories are not
really used because they contain knowledge about what was done but not how and
why is was done (Newell et al., 2006). More recently Horner Reich (2007) presented a
framework identifying the key areas where knowledge-based risks occurs. Ten
knowledge-based risks were identified, among them: failure to learn from past projects,
competence of the project team, problems in integrating and transferring knowledge,
lack of a knowledge map, and volatility in governance. Five knowledge principles were
mentioned that could help to mitigate these risks; establish a learning climate, establish
and maintain knowledge levels, create channels for knowledge flow and develop team
memory and use the risk register (Horner Reich, 2007).
Based on these various publications we can notice that there is an increasing
interest in developing methodologies on how to integrate knowledge management into
the project management process. We can also see a trend from focusing more on a
people centric approach to KM than on an IT-centered approach to KM. Further
research is needed to better understand all the implications and solutions required to
successfully implement KM initiatives supporting the management of projects.

Research questions
Based on our literature review we could not find any study that was conducted in order
to assess the impact of KM on the management of projects. It is also not very clear how
KM is currently implemented by PM practitioners. Our study will try to answer these
questions.
This study is designed around the following research question:
RQ1. Is there a positive relationship between improving the management of
projects and the use of knowledge management?
If a positive relationship exists per the aforementioned question, the secondary purpose
of the study is to identify:

RQ2. Which knowledge management practices in use by practitioners of project

management are significant in terms of improving the management of
projects?
To answer the main research question, the following seven main research hypotheses
were postulated:
H1. There a positive relationship between improving satisfaction of buyer
(customer) requirements and the use of knowledge management.
This hypothesis was broken down into four sub-hypotheses:
H1a. There is a positive relationship between the fulfillment of a projects
functional/technical requirements exceeding the buyers expectation
and the use of knowledge management.
H1b. There a positive relationship between project schedule reduction and the
use of knowledge management.
H1c. There is a positive relationship between the reduction of project schedule
slippage and the use of knowledge management.
H1d. There is a positive relationship between project cost reduction and the
use of knowledge management.
H2. There is a positive relationship between increasing project process
reusability, e.g. change control; risk management, analysis and design;
testing, etc. and the use of knowledge management.
H3. There is a positive relationship between increasing project artifact (tools,
techniques, templates, software objects, etc.) reusability and the use of
knowledge management.
H4. There is a positive relationship between institutionalization of
organizational/project lessons learned and the use of knowledge management.
H5. There is a positive relationship between improving project products
(deliverables) and the use of knowledge management.
H6. There is a positive relationship between improving project communication
and the use of knowledge management.
H7. There is a positive relationship between reducing project risks and the use of
knowledge management.
Methodology
In order to test our research hypotheses among project management practitioners a
survey was designed. The survey questions were drawn from review of the literature.
Literature review indicated that in order for knowledge management to improve
project management, whenever a project is initiated, content, processes, technology,
and most importantly people need to be considered (Kelly, 2003). The survey
instrument developed consisted of three sections. Section I of the survey instrument
consisted of introductory information and it stated the purpose of the study and
provided biographical and contact information about the researchers. Section II

Improving the
management of
projects
137

VINE
38,1

138

provided directions about the survey, and section III consisted of the 43 actual survey
questions used to test our research hypotheses. The responses were measured in
several formats: attribute; dichotomous; Yes-No; multiple choice; numeric; and Likert
Rating Scales. Table I shows the six possible Likert scale responses for the questions
on the survey instrument that were inquiring about if a particular best practice had an
effect on the improvement in the management of projects. In order to conduct analysis
for each applicable response, each response was assigned a weighted value.
For example: to what extent has the use of KM in your organization resulted in
project cost reduction?
Note: if respondents indicated I do not know to a question, then these values were
removed as a factor when statistically determining mean and standard deviation or
performing a regression analysis or an independent t-test.
In order to identify the most frequently used KM tools and practices, we adapted a
list presented by the Delphi Group (2000). This list groups by categories what we also
thought were the primary/most popular KM tools and practices. Respondents were
also provided the option to add other KM technologies and tools (not listed):
.
Asynchronous Communications (e-mail, message board/broadcasting,
subscriptions and alerting, discussion threats).
.
Synchronous Communications (instant messaging/white boarding, application
and screen sharing, video and audio conferencing).
.
Collaborative Services (calendar and scheduling, task management, survey
voting and polling).
.
Document and Content Management.
.
Lessons Learned and Best Practices Repositories.
.
Communities-of-Practice/Purpose.
.
Expertise Locator/Organizational Yellow Pages.
.
Shared Repository of Project Artifacts.
.
Other (please specify): _____________.
.
None.
For each hypothesis a follow up question asked: If there was any improvement, which
KM practice(s)/tool(s) do you think were responsible for this improvement? Select all
that apply.
According to Huck and Cormier (1996), in the absence of statistical testing, a panel
of experts must be formed to review the survey instrument for content validity. The

Table I.
Possible responses to
questions on survey
instrument inquiring if a
particular best practice
had an affect upon
improving project
management

Response
To a very high extent
To a high extent
To some extent
To a little extent
To a very little extent
I do not know

Weighted value
1
2
3
4
5
6

first version of the questionnaire was reviewed by subject matter experts (academics
and practitioners) in survey design, knowledge management and project management.
The survey instrument was reviewed by the experts for content and face validity. All
of the subject matter experts recommendations were incorporated into the instrument
prior to administration.
The sample for this study was derived from a rented-list made available by the
Project Management Institute (PMI) consisting of 1,000 PMI members who were
randomly selected from a database of 62,400 active PMI members. The 1,000
individuals came from a myriad industries from across the world. In this regard, the
study used a single-stage sampling procedure. According to Creswell (1994), A
single-stage sampling procedure is one in which the researcher has access to names in
the population and can sample the people directly. A postcard was mailed to each
potential respondent (n =1,000) directing them to the survey instrument posted online.
The response rate from the mail-out was approximately 40 (4.0 percent) over a 30-day
period. A second mail-out was done to the same 1,000 individuals 30 days after the first
mail-out. The cumulative response rate 30 days after the second mail-out was 99 (9.9
percent).
The participants in the survey were volunteers solicited by the researcher. The
subjects of the study were informed of the purpose of the study in the invitation to
participate postcard. In an effort to receive more honest and accurate responses from
the study, the directions of the study on the online survey indicated to the participants
that their responses would be held in strict confidence and that complete anonymity
would be guaranteed; however, they were offered the opportunity to submit their
e-mail addresses if they wanted to receive a copy of the survey results.
The data collection was performed through the online survey and the data analysis
was performed using Microsoft Excel and the statistical tool SAS.

Improving the
management of
projects
139

Findings
In total, 99 project managers from around the world responded to the survey
instrument.
Table II summarizes the respondents years of experience as a project manager. The
largest group of respondents (30, 30.30 percent) indicated that they had between six to
ten years of project management experience. The second largest group of respondents
equally indicated that they had from 11-15 (20, 20.20 percent) and 16-20 (20, 20.20
percent) years of project management experience.

Years experience as a project manager

Less than 5
6 to 10
11 to 15
16 to 20
Over 20
Note: n=99

Frequency

Percent

16
30
20
20
13

16.16
30.30
20.20
20.20
13.13

Table II.
Respondents years of
experience as a project
manager

VINE
38,1

140

In total 65 (65.65 percent) of the 99 respondents indicated that they were certified as
Project Management Professionals (PMPs) from PMI.
The largest group of respondents (22, 22.22 percent) came from the IT industry. The
other industries with the second and third largest groups of respondents were the
computer/software/data processing and consulting industries with respectively 11
(11.11 percent) and ten (10.10 percent) respondents.
The largest group of respondents (34, 34.34 percent) came from organizations with
more than 10,000 people. The second largest group of respondents (24, 24.24 percent)
came from organizations with between 1,001 and 10,000 people.
Table III summarizes the extent to which respondents, as project managers, used
knowledge management to support their own projects. The largest group of
respondents (79, 79.79 percent) indicated that as project managers they use knowledge
management from a very high extent to some extent on their projects. The second
largest group of respondents (16, 16.16 percent) indicated that as project managers they
use knowledge management from a little extent to a very little extent on their projects.
In order to test our research hypotheses we used the simple linear regression
analysis. For each hypothesis the degree to which KM was used for managing projects
was used in association with the variable assessed. Null hypotheses were used to test
the slope of the population regression line. Hypotheses were accepted for a level of
confidence greater or equal to 95 percent (# 0:05). Table IV illustrates the results of the
statistical analyzes.
All the postulated research hypotheses were accepted showing a relationship
between the use of knowledge management and the improvement of the management
of projects. Overall the relationships are not too strong but they remain significant and
they highlight some relationships worth investing in more details.
For each hypothesis respondents were asked to identify which KM practice(s)
/tool(s) was/were responsible for this improvement. A list of eight practices were used
Extent that respondents as
project managers used KM
on their own projects

Frequency

Percent

8.08

2. To a high extent
3. To some extent
4. To a little extent

25
46
6

25.25
46.46
6.06

5. To a very little extent

6. Did not know

10
3

10.10
3.03

1.01

1. To a very high extent

Table III.
Extent respondents as
project managers use KM

7. Skipped question
Note: n = 99

Cumulative responses
79 (79.79 percent) of the respondents
indicated that as project managers they use
KM from a very high extent to some extent.
16 (16.16 percent) of the respondents
indicated that as project managers they use
KM from a little extent to a very little extent.
Four (4.04 percent) of the respondents as
project managers for some unknown reason
indicated that they did not know if they used
KM or skipped the question.

H7

H6

H5

H4

H3

H2

H1

H1a: There is a positive relationship between the fulfillment of a projects

functional/technical requirements exceeding the buyers expectation and the use of
knowledge management
H1b: There is a positive relationship between project schedule reduction and the use of
knowledge management
H1c: There is a positive relationship between the reduction of project schedule slippage
and the use of knowledge management
H1d: There is a positive relationship between project cost reduction and the use of
knowledge management
There is a positive relationship between increasing project process reusability, e.g.
change control; risk management, analysis and design; testing, etc. and the use of
knowledge management
There is a positive relationship between increasing project artifact (tools, techniques,
templates, software objects, etc.) reusability and the use of knowledge management
There is a positive relationship between institutionalization of organizational/project
lessons learned and the use of knowledge management
There is a positive relationship between improving project products (deliverables) and the
use of knowledge management
There is a positive relationship between improving project communication and the use of
knowledge management
There is a positive relationship between reducing project risks and the use of knowledge
management

p
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.010
0.000
0.016

rjr2
0.532 j 0.283
0.331 j 0.109
0.411 j 0.169
0.376 j 0.142
0.338 j .114
0.332 j 0.110
0.438 j 0.192
0.286 j 0.082
0.481 j 0.231
0.273 j 0.075

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Accepted?

Improving the
management of
projects
141

Table IV.
Results of the statistical
analyzes used to validate
or to fail to validate our
research hypotheses

VINE
38,1

142

as well as a None answer and an Other answer. Table V is a compilation of the

answers provided by the project management practitioners.
In many surveys, it is common that respondents may select any number of the
outcome categories. For instance, for the KM practice/tool question associated with
hypothesis H1a respondents could choose all eight KPM Practices/Tools, select the
Other option, choose some combination of the eight and the Other options, or select
None. Analyzing these types of multiple response items is a difficult exercise
precisely because the responses are not independent across cells. Indeed, the only
solution appears to be to modify the usual Pearson goodness-of-fit test statistic either
by weighting the distributions of single versus multiple responses, employing the
bootstrap to recover consistent standard errors, or analyzing the data via item response
models, random-effects models, quasi-log-linear models, and other options (see Agresti
and Liu, 1999). Unfortunately, the sparseness of the present data (n 99) precludes the
use of these analytic methods. Consequently, we analyzed the conditional distributions
evident in Table V from a descriptive, exploratory perspective and urge readers to do
the same. Interpreting the multiple marginal conditional distributions of Table V in
any other manner is not warranted.
Table V shows that the KM best practice most often used by respondents to
improve the management of projects was a Shared Repository of Project Artifacts
(received a total of 442 responses across all ten questions (columns 11 and 12). The
second KM best practice most often used by respondents to improve the management
of projects was Lessons Learned and Best Practices Repositories (received a total of
413 responses across all ten questions), and the third KM best practice most often used
by respondents to improve the management of projects was Document and Content
Management (received a total of 411 responses across all ten questions).
Table V shows that the KM best practice of Shared Repository of Project Artifacts
was ranked first for four of the questions (column 13), and respondents indicated that it
improved:
.
Project schedule reduction.
.
Reduction of project schedule slippage.
.
Project process reusability.
.
Project artifact reusability.
Rank

KM Practice/tool

1
2
2
4

Shared Repository of Project Artifacts

Lessons Learned and Best Practices Repositories
Document and Content Management
Asynchronous Communications (e-mail, message
board/broadcasting, subscriptions and alerting,
discussion threats)
Collaborative Services (calendar and scheduling,
task management, survey voting and polling)
Synchronous Communications (instant
messaging/white boarding, application and screen
sharing, video and audio conferencing)
Communities-of-Practice/Purpose
Expertise Locator/Organizational Yellow Pages

5
6
Table V.
Summary of the most
used KM practices in
project management

8
9

No. of answers

Percent

442
413
411
350

17
16
16
13

308

12

218

176
78

7
3

It was ranked second for five of the questions (column 14), and respondents indicated
that it improved:
.
Fulfillment of project functional/technical requirements.
.
Institutionalization of project lessons learned.
.
Project products exceeding buyer expectations.
.
Reducing project miscommunication.
.
Reducing the number of risks to the project.
The KM best practice of Shared Repository of Project Artifacts was ranked third for
one question (column 15), and respondents indicated that it improved project cost
reduction.
Table V shows that the KM best practice of Lessons Learned and Best Practices
Repositories was ranked first for four of the questions (column 13), and respondents
indicated that it improved:
.
Project cost reduction.
.
Institutionalization of a project lessons learned.
.
Project products exceeding buyer expectations.
.
Reducing the number of risks to the project.
It was never ranked second (column 14). The KM best practice of Lessons Learned and
Best Practices Repositories was ranked third for four of the questions (column 15), and
respondents indicated that it improved:
.
Fulfillment of project functional/technical requirements.
.
Reduction of project schedule slippage.
.
Project process reusability.
.
Project artifact reusability.
Table V shows that the KM best practice of Document and Content Management was
ranked first for one question (column 13), and respondents indicated that it improved
fulfillment of project functional/technical requirements. It was ranked second for four of
the questions (column 14), and respondents indicated that it improved:
.
Project cost reduction.
.
Project process reusability.
.
Reusability of project artifacts.
.
Reducing project miscommunication.
The KM best practice of Document and Content Management was ranked third for
two of the questions (column 15), and respondents indicated that it improved:
.
Institutionalization of a project lessons learned.
.
Project products exceeding buyer expectations.
Table V shows that based upon a total of 394 responses for the first question and its
associated hypothesis (column 1), 67 (17 percent) of the responses indicated that the
KM best practice of Document and Content Management contributed most to

Improving the
management of
projects
143

VINE
38,1

144

improving the fulfillment of a projects functional/technical requirements. In total 62

(15.73 percent) of the responses indicated that the KM best practice of Shared
Repository of Project Artifacts contributed second most to improving the fulfillment
of a projects functional/technical requirements, and 60 (15.22 percent) of the responses
equally indicated that the KM best practices of Asynchronous Communications and
Lessons Learned and Best Practices Repositories contributed third most to
improving the fulfillment of a projects functional/technical requirements.
We will not describe each section of the table in detail but it clearly identifies which
KM tools and practices are primarily responsible for each particular project
management improvement/benefit.
Conclusions
The validation of the ten research hypotheses through the use of regression
analyses showed that there is reasonable certainty that project managers perceive
that the use of KM practices has a positive influence on the improvement of the
management of projects. Shared Repository of Project Artifacts, Lessons Learned
and Best Practices Repositories and Document and Content Management systems
seem to be the most frequently used KM tools and practices by project managers.
These initial findings are encouraging and we hope that they will trigger further
studies in this area and that the Project Management Institute (PMI) will consider
including KM practices in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK).
It is important to remember that our sample was composed of 99 worldwide project
managers, members of the Project Management Institute (PMI), working primarily in
large organizations (. 1,000 employees). The information technology industry was
predominantly represented and the majority of project managers had more than five
years of experience.
Looking more closely at the ranking of the summary of the most used KM practices
(Table V) we can notice that the top four KM practices belong to the codification
approach of KM and the four remaining ones belong to the personalization approach.
The codification approach is intended to collect, codify and disseminate information.
Knowledge is codified using a people-to-documents approach. This approach relies
heavily on IT. One of the benefits of the codification approach is the reuse of
knowledge (Hansen et al., 1999). On the other side, the personalization approach
focuses on developing networks for linking people so that tacit knowledge can be
shared. Knowledge that has not been codified and probably couldnt be is
transferred in brainstorming sessions and one-on-one conversations. It invests
moderately in IT. One of the benefits of the personalization approach is to leverage
knowledge (Hansen et al., 1999).
This is an interesting finding since it shows that project manager seems to mainly
rely and value the codification approach where the main benefit is the re-use of
previously codified knowledge. The codified knowledge comes primarily from explicit
knowledge sources. We believe, and based on our literature review, that project
managers will also strongly benefit from sharing and codifying to some extent the tacit
knowledge associated with the management of former projects. This will imply not
only relying on documents but communicating with other project managers and
sharing insights, experience, tips, tricks, . . . and by using social tools (KM 2.0) (e.g.
Communities of Practice, Social networking, Blogs and Wikis, Instant messaging,

Knowledge Cafes, . . .). Doing so will decrease project management risks and will
increase the benefits provided by KM practices and might also foster innovation.
The conclusions drawn from the literature review and findings suggest that the
following efforts be taken in the future to enhance the understanding of the
relationship between the use of KM and the improvement in the management of
projects by:
.
conducting a more detailed study between the different KM best practices in
order to help determine which really lend themselves more to a particular type of
improvement, e.g. project schedule reduction and which do not;
.
conducting a study between two very similar projects where specific knowledge
management practices are used on one and not the other and studying the
differences between the two with regard to, for example, reduction of project
schedule slippage, reduction in project miscommunication, project cost
reduction, and project risk reduction, etc.;
.
assessing the improvements that could be brought to project management by the
use of social tools (KM 2.0) and by putting a stronger emphasis on a people
centric approach to KM;
.
conducting a more detailed study on the use of KM and the improvement in the
management of projects within a specific industry; and
.
studying the feasibility of including KM as a knowledge area within the PMBOK
with its own set of generally accepted processes, inputs, tools and techniques,
and outputs.
References
Agresti, A. and Liu, I. (1999), Modeling a categorical variable allowing arbitrarily many
category choices, Biometrics, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 936-43.
Boucher, K.D., Conners, K., Johnson, . and Robinson, J. (2001), Collaboration: development and
management collaborating on project success, Software Magazine, February/March.
Creswell, J.W. (1994), Research Design-qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, Sage
Publications Inc., Thousands Oaks, CA.
Delphi Group. (2000). Portal Design Primer: 68 Questions for Portal Planners, Delphi Group,
Boston, MA
Haddad, M. and Ribie`re, V. (2007), The use of knowledge management in software acquisition,
VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 295-313.
Hall, R. and Andriani, P. (2002), Managing knowledge for innovation, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 35, pp. 29-48.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), Whats your strategy for managing
knowledge?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 106-16.
Horner Reich, B. (2007), Managing knowledge and learning in IT projects: a conceptual
framework and guidelines for practice, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 5-17.
Huck, S.W. and Cormier, W.H. (1996), Reading Statistics and Research, Harper Collins Publishers,
New York, NY.
Kelly, J. (2003), Prospecting for knowledge, CrossTalk: Journal of Defense Software
Engineering, Vol. 16 No. 4.

Improving the
management of
projects
145

VINE
38,1

146

Koskinen, K.U. (2004), Knowledge management to improve project communication and

implementation, Project Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 13-19.
Newell, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2006), Sharing knowledge
across projects: limits to ICT-led project review practices, Management Learning, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 167-85.
Owen, J., Burstein, F. and Mitchell, S. (2004), Knowledge reuse and transfer in a project
management environment, Journal of Information Technology: Cases and Applications,
Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 21-35.
PMI (2002), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), Project
Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.
Snider, K.F. and Nissen, M. (2003), Beyond the body of knowledge: a knowledge-flow approach
to project management theory and practice, Project Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 4-12.
Standish Group International (2001), Extreme Chaos, Standish Group International, Boston, MA.
Verzuh, E. (1999), The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY.
About the authors
Peter C. Lierni, Director in the Defense, Research, and Engineering (DR&E)
Practice at High Performance Technologies, Incorporated (www.hpti.com) in
Reston, Virginia received his Master of Science in Information Systems (MSIS)
from American University (AU) in Washington, DC and Master of Business
Administration (MBA) from George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, VA.
He has 19 years of combined government consulting and military experience.
He is designated as a Project Management Professional (PMP) by the Project
Management Institute (PMI) and is also designated as a Certified Information Systems Auditor
(CISA) by the Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA). Peter C. Lierni is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: plierni@hpti.com
Vincent Ribie`re, Visiting Professor at the Graduate School of Bangkok
University and Assistant Professor of Management of Information Systems at
the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT), received his Doctorate of Science
in Knowledge Management from the George Washington University, and a PhD
in Management Sciences from the Paul Cezanne University, Aix en Provence,
France. Vincent teaches, conducts research and consults in the area of knowledge
management and information systems. Over the past years, he presented various
research papers at different international conferences on knowledge management, organizational
culture, information systems and quality, as well as publishing in various refereed journals and
books. He is a contributing editor and reviewer to journals focused on knowledge management. He
is the Director for Asian activities at the Institute for Knowledge and Innovation (IKI George
Washington University and Bangkok University).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints