Critical Review of Knowledge ManagementJournal

Exploring the performance of transnational projects:

Shared knowledge, coord ina t ion and communication

Maria AdenfeltSWEDEN

Amalia Kiswandari

Asgar Ali

Catur Wijanarko

Devy Dwi Orshella

Setiowati

Motivation

Method

Result

Critical Review

Aim

Future Works

The knowledge sharing process is important for the performance

of transnational project as it determines theextent to which knowledge of the diverse units comes touse in the transnational product development process,

and subsequently the final product launched (Murray and Chao, 2005; Subramaniam and Venkatraman, 2001)

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Why it is a Transnational Project?

Motivation

Challenges

physical distance

cultural diversity

language barriers

technological infrastructure

differences

Motivation

The AimKnowledge

Sharingtransnational

project performance

effects

Case

Study

5 Countries

Intervie

w

&Surve

y

Question

s:

4

Categorie

s

actual

develop

men

t of th

e

transnatio

n

al prod

uct

Phase

Method

Classification of

interviewsNo. of

interviews

No. of survey responses

Project managemen

t

4

5

Sub-projet groups

6

6

Case Study

• “Up-to-date” Company• regional structure with the objectives of enhancing

integration between the subsidiaries in each region1

• InfoAccess Project• new product offering, based on two existing offerings2

• functional backgrounds:• information analysis, business dvelopment or IT3

• Structure:• Project Manager - Sub-Project Manager - Member4

WINTERTemplateRESULT

01Managing coordination and communication

1At the beginning regular teleconferences

the past six months less meetings “everybody has been developing their own part of the product.”

2

sharing information communicationBUT

the content not always was in line with the information needs

3The communication complicated &time consuming

Geographically = so many different persons + units involved. “We have had so many misunderstandings”

02Initiation of the InfoAccess project

kick-off meetings

• every sub-project

• “It would have been wrong to start with a kick-off meeting”

• each sub-project independently

forked tongues

• standardize the products VS

• local customer requirements and preferences

Skills

• how to address business requirements differed between the sub-project teams

• “The problem is that we do not have the skills or resources for doing so”

02Initiation of the InfoAccess project

dialogue between the different sub-projects

• Very little• ‘‘Each sub-project

did what they were assigned to do without giving much thought to the overall project”.

silo mentality

• standardize the products VS

• local customer requirements and preferences

• “There is no learning between the sub-projects but as long as they are committed and take responsibility”

03Developing the product

time scheduled for testing was not in line

the sub-project managers did not approve or give

feed-back

the development of the product had

to proceed without approval from the sub-

projects

development process were highly technical

andproject members with a non-

technical background

difficulties in interpreting and giving feed-back

the development of the product had

to proceed without approval from the sub-projects

03Developing the product

Additional sophisticated

features

product more

competitive

Harmonizing the

terminology between the

countries.

04Finalizing the projectIntegrate sub-

projects a final product

interpreted the scope differently

Features were not in line with the

specifications

delay in launching

Not become market leader

F I N D I N G S

interdependencebetween shared knowledge, communication and coordination

frequent and continuousinteractions

coordination and communication

mechanisms that reliedon frequent interaction and communication

Case Study > one specific domain

The relationship between knowledge processesand transnational project performance further

how frequently cross-functionaltransnational project teams are used in productdevelopment, the impact of cross-functionality, knowledge sharing and subsequently project performance subject

Future Works

Cr i t i ca l Rev iew

The Theory (Coordination)

This Paper• Coordination of

activities across subsidiaries becomes an important organizational issue

• For example to solve a variety of problems and ensuring that the activities – often performed separately from each other – of the common solution harmonize and integrate properly.

• (Faraj and Sproull, 2000)

Others• The coordination of

geographically dispersed R&D activities has become an important challenge for MNEs (Arzumanyan dkk., 2011)

• Since companies need to access knowledge developed in different countries to remain competitive, more research focuses on the issue of knowledge management within MNEs (Adenfelt and Lagerstrom, 2008; Bouquet et al., 2009) and the importance of coordinating learning (Reger, 1999)

The Method (Number of Interview)

This Paper• A total of ten

interviews were performed

Others• Bernard (2000)

states that most studies are based on samples between 30-60 interviews

• Creswell (1998) 5 to 25

• Morse (1994) at least six;

• all qualitative research: Bertaux (1981) 15 is the smallest acceptable sample.

THE METHODThis Paper• s• The question

focusing on communication & coordination, but not present organizational structure characteristics.

Others• Wen-Bao Lin (2008)

shows there are 3 elements to run the knowledge sharing :• Organizational

Structure• Culture• Interaction

among the variables in there.

THE METHODThis Paper• the questions

focused on two sets of inquiries; how and why, with the intent of exploring the phenomena in-depth

• (Yin, 1994).

Others• Jang dkk (2005)

5W1H to get the complete information.

• Yang dkk (2014): “who” team member & leader leadership style communication and cooridnation

• Each sub-project was then expected to take responsibility of the activities on a local level.

• The scope of the transnational project was to develop a product with a common core that allowed for adaptations to local market needs.

• The scope of the transnational project was to develop a product with a common core that allowed for adaptations to local market needs.

In order to be selected, the transnational projecthad to encompass units and members from several countries.(Ratcheva, 2009)

Case Study Theory

Scale

This PaperJust focused on coordintion and communication, not explain bout who is the leader of the project and

how to manage the transnational

project.

Yang dan Wu, 2008The Success of

Knowledge Sharing or knowledge transfer not depends on document or any information, but

the success of Knowledge sharing is

depends on interaction between members of

the project.

Ochieng dan Price, 2010Contex of the problems from

communiction process in member of the multicultural

project is how project manager and clien

eliminate the constrain because of the difference in culture of project member

by develop the infrastructure

Planning of The Project

Root Cause of

Knowledge Sharing Failure

?

ThankYou