International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
JPMA-01496; No of Pages 12
www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman
Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competingvalues perspective in Australian context
Anna Wiewiora a, b,⁎, Bambang Trigunarsyah c, Glen Murphy b, c, Vaughan Coffey c
a School of Tourism and Hospitality Management, Southern Cross University, Australiab Cooperative Research Centre for Infrastructure and Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM), Australia
c Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
Received 18 October 2012; received in revised form 14 December 2012; accepted 20 December 2012
Keywords: Australian context; Competing values framework; Knowledge sharing; Project based organizations; Organizational culture
1. Introduction
Previous studies indicate that organizational culture (OC) canhave a significant influence on the long-term success of organi-zations (Ajmal and Helo, 2010; Kendra and Taplin, 2004; Yazici,2010) as well as on project performance (Coffey, 2010), Forinstance Coffey (2010) found that various cultural traits appear tobe closely linked to objectively measured organizational effec-tiveness. However, only recently has the research on projectmanagement explored the link between organizational cultureand knowledge management outcomes (Ajmal and Koskinen,2008; Eskerod and Skriver, 2007; Polyaninova, 2011).
The context surrounding the practice of knowledge manage-ment (KM) in PBOs is complex and multifaceted. Firstly, thereare a number of knowledge sources available during different
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and wiInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016
,;
llingne/j.ijpro
stages of a project, including experts, project teams, routines,repositories, communities of practice, knowledge gatekeepersand so on (Smyth, 2005). Secondly, there are many partiesengaged in knowledge sharing including project team members,contractors, subcontractors, clients, community and other stake-holders. Finally, different types of knowledge – technical,procedural, know-what, know-how, know-why and know-when– are required during different stages of the project: planning,design, construction and closing. Nevertheless, the value contrib-uted by knowledge in PBOs is extensive. The risk of knowledgeloss at a project's end is a serious issue for organizations becauseaccumulated knowledge throughout the project, if not effec-tively shared, can be irretrievably lost resulting in unnecessaryreinvention, errors and time overruns (Carrillo, 2005; Fong,2008; Landaeta, 2008; Walker et al., 2004).
Similarly, the notion of culture in a project management contextis complex because a project involves a number of experts fromvarious fields, backgrounds and professions, who typically havetheir own cultures and ways of working, which are not necessarilyin harmony with one another or with the prevailing culture of the
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
2 A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
entire project (Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008). These culturaldifferences can either be a source of creativity and broad per-spectives on organizational issues or they can be a source ofdifficulty and miscommunication (Anbari et al., 2010). It istherefore important that those within PBOs are aware of the type ofcultures evident within various projects in order to better predictthe potential consequences of cultural-related behaviours onknowledge sharing outcomes and arguably, on overall projectperformance.
The concepts of OC and KM as foundations to understandinghow organizations behave and gain competitive advantage bothhave strong theoretical and empirical support (Alavi et al., 2006;Davenport and Prusak, 1998; De Long and Fahey, 2000;Sackmann, 1992). These two concepts are highly related andexisting research suggests in the main that OC underpins KMactivities (Gray and Densten, 2005). To be truly effective, KMrequires an understanding of the culture in which it is embedded(De Long and Fahey, 2000; Fong and Kwok, 2009) and this isimperative because OC shapes members' knowledge sharingbehaviours and influences how they learn.
Overall, some cultural values encourage and others impede KMactivities (De Long and Fahey, 2000; Janz and Prasarnphanich,2003). However, examining the two concepts of OC and KM inPBOs is especially challenging due to their complexity, multi-dimensional nature and context dependency. Yazici (2010) high-lights that in a project management context, OC is still largelyunder-examined. Currently very little is known about how OCcontributes to the willingness for knowledge sharing betweenprojects. The purpose of this research is to extend previous theoryon organizational culture and knowledge management in projectenvironment and explore which cultural values are more likely todrive inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours in the context ofAustralian PBOs.
2. Knowledge sharing in PBOs
The criticality of quality data and information leading toeffective utilization of knowledge is a well recognized componentof organizational competiveness (e.g. Alavi and Leidner, 2001;Liebowitz, 2005, 2008; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) and has led toincreased attempts to manage knowledge in a more systematic andeffective way. PBOs, which typically function in rapidly changingand knowledge intensive environments, to be highly competitive,need to ensure the best use of their organizational knowledge. Thiscan be achieved through the process of knowledge sharing, whichallows exchange and distribution of organizational and projectknowledge, and ensure its access at the right time and the rightplace (Bhatt, 2001; Koskinen et al., 2003). Knowledge sharing onthe project level takes place as social communication betweenproject stakeholders and through different explicit informationchannels such as project documentation (Arenius et al., 2003). Inthe inter-project context, knowledge sharing is a process throughwhich a project is affected by the experience of another project(based on the definition provided by Argote and Ingram (2000, p.151)). As such knowledge is defined as a fluid mix of framedexperience, values, contextual information, and expert insightthat provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
experiences and information, which originates in the minds ofknowledge holders and is transferred into documents, organiza-tional routines, processes, practices, and norms (Davenport andPrusak, 1998, p. 137).
At the project level, there are a number of knowledge sourcesavailable during different stages of a project that possess or requiredifferent types of knowledge at different phases of a project lifecycle (El-Gohary and El-Diraby, 2010; Smyth, 2005). Further-more, there are multiple sources of knowledge at the inter-projectlevel, where except for that which is human-based, includingproject team members, contractors, subcontractors, clients, com-munity and other stakeholders, knowledge can be also stored indatabases, lessons learned documents, post-project reports in aform of stories, advice, and contextual facts. Projects have differentlevels of interdependency and operate in different dimensions oftime and space (Newell et al., 2008). This creates complications atan inter-project level, related to weak communication linksbetween projects (Hobday, 2000), and time pressure (Lundin andSöderholm, 1995; Riege, 2005) that hamper knowledge sharing.These all make the process of inter-project knowledge sharing achallenging effort.
3. The concept of organizational culture
An organization's culture consists of practices, symbols, valuesand assumptions that the members of the organization share withregard to appropriate behaviour (Schein, 1990). The artefacts caninclude physical layout, the dress code, the manner in whichpeople address each other and the overall feel of the place, to morepermanent aspects such as archival records, products, statementsand annual reports. Values are organizational norms, ideologies,charters and philosophies.Basic underlying assumptions are basedon an organization's historical events that determine perceptions,thought processes, feelings and behaviour (Martin &Meyerson inSchein, 1990). The basic underlying assumptions are the leastapparent, but are much more influential on behaviour thanespoused artefacts and values (Schein, 1990). Consequently thisresearch conceptualizes and later operationalizes OC primarily interms of values. This is because values are more easily studiedthan basic underlying assumptions, which are invisible, and valuesprovide rich understanding of social norms that define the rules orcontext for social interaction through which people act andcommunicate (Alavi et al., 2006; Schein, 1990).
Various studies provide evidence to suggest that cultural valuesinfluence knowledge sharing behaviours by shaping patterns andqualities of interactions needed to leverage knowledge amongindividuals (Alavi et al., 2006; De Long and Fahey, 2000; Grayand Densten, 2005). Culture establishes an organizational contextfor social interaction and creates norms regarding what is ‘right’and ‘wrong’ (Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008; De Long and Fahey,2000). Therefore, it can influence how people communicate andshare knowledge. Furthermore, evidence suggests that organiza-tional structure has an impact on approaches to KM (Friesl et al.,2011). For example, De Long and Fahey (2000) argue thatdifferent cultural attributes influence knowledge sharing across theorganization (horizontal) and throughout the various levels ofan organization (vertical). In contrast to functionally driven
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
3A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
organizations, the predominantly horizontal structures of PBOsare more likely to promote horizontal knowledge sharing ofproject specific knowledge and role based knowledge (e.g.between project managers, or between project schedulers). Also,collaboration and collective responsibility lead employees to gothat extra mile to avoid letting colleagues down. Finally, culturesthat reward individuals for sharing behaviours and encourage theuse of existing knowledge create different knowledge sharingpatterns than cultures that do not promote such activities (DeLong and Fahey, 2000).
In relation to the effect of OC on knowledge sharing in projectenvironments, Eskerod and Skriver (2007) suggest that organiza-tional subcultures can explain the reluctance found in knowledgetransfer activities between project managers. Their research re-vealed that organizing by projects constrains knowledge transferbecause a project orientation facilitates knowledge silos and ‘lonelycowboys’, who do not rely heavily on colleagues (Eskerod andSkriver, 2007). Furthermore, Fong and Kwok (2009) suggestedthat in a project management environment, different OC types mayrequire different KM strategies, and implied that identifying thisneed is an important step towards developing the theory, butacknowledged that much research is still needed in this area. Stillvery little is known about how OC contributes to the willingnessfor knowledge sharing between projects and which cultural valuesare more likely to drive knowledge sharing behaviours in thecontext of PBOs.
3.1. Competing values framework
A range of different cultural frameworks, including thoseintroduced by Cameron and Quinn (2005), Denison and Spreitzer(1991), Hofstede (1984), and Schein (1990) have all been proposedin an attempt to measure OC. In this study we utilized theCompeting Values Framework (CVF) developed by Cameron andQuinn (2005), which uses the Organisational Culture AssessmentInstrument (OCAI). The CVF provides a holistic view of cultureand has been validated in both international and Australiancontexts (Lamond, 2003). Organizations are seldom characterizedby a single cultural type, tending to develop a dominant cultureover time as they adapt and respond to the challenges and changesin the surrounding environment (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Assuch, the CVF is considered useful in a PBO context as it allows anassessment of a company's dominant culture across six keycharacteristics of overall corporate culture: Dominant Characteris-tics, Organizational Leadership, Management of Employees,Organizational Glue, Strategic Emphasis and Criteria of Success.
The CVF recognizes the complex nature of culture accordingto two primary dimensions: internal/external focus and stability/flexibility structure. These two dimensions create four quadrants,which represent four culture types: Clan, Adhocracy, HierarchyandMarketing. Fig. 1 shows the attributes characterizing the fourcultural types, according to Cameron and Quinn (2005).
Clan cultures tend to have an emphasis on developing a sharedunderstanding and commitment instead of relying exclusively onformalized communication processes. Typical characteristics ofClan cultures are teamwork and employee involvement programs,whereas the core values represent participation, loyalty and
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
commitment (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Those demonstratingattributes, consistent with an adhocracy culture (referred to as theopen systems perspective), give importance to flexibility andexternal competitive position. They emphasize creativeness, entre-preneurship and adaptability (Keskin et al., 2005). In contrast, aHierarchy culture is characterized by predictability and an internalfocus. The emphasis is on information management, documenta-tion, stability, routines, centralization, continuity and control(Keskin et al., 2005). In a Hierarchy culture, members are bondedtogether through internal controls and are governed primarily byprocedures. The principles of stability, formal rules and policies areseen to hold the organization together (Cameron and Quinn, 2005).Market culture refers to the rational goal perspective of anorganization and is characterized by a preoccupation with stabilityand having a strong external focus (Keskin et al., 2005). They areoriented towards the external environment, rather than internalaffairs (Cameron and Quinn, 2005). Market-type organizationsvalue competitiveness, productivity, goal clarity, efficiency andaccomplishment (Cameron and Quinn, 2005; Gray and Densten,2005), bounding members together through goal orientation andcompetition. Extending this model Gray and Densten (2005)proposed a theoretical model of Organizational KnowledgeManagement integrating both a knowledge creation model(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) with the CVF (Cameron andQuinn, 2005) as a means to understanding how OC drives orenhances the development of organizational knowledge. Fol-lowing this approach, a research agenda was advocated thataims to identify whether different dominant cultural valuesmay indeed lead to different knowledge sharing outcomes.
In summary, although existing research has identified arelationship between OC and KM (e.g. Alavi et al., 2006; DeLong and Fahey, 2000), there is still limited research concerningOC and KM in the project management field, particularly inrelation to PBOs (with the exception of Ajmal and Koskinen,2008; Eskerod and Skriver, 2007; Fong and Kwok, 2009).Furthermore, the complexity and context dependency of thesetwo concepts – culture and knowledge sharing – mean that thereis still limited empirical evidence unpacking the precise nature ofthose relationships. Using Cameron and Quinn's (2005) CVFmodel this research aimed to explore how culture might influenceinter-project knowledge sharing, and investigate which culturalvalues are more likely to drive knowledge sharing outcomes.
4. Research method
A case study researchmethodwas employed to investigate howdifferent cultural types shape knowledge sharing behaviours in aninter-project context. Our justification for applying the case studyapproach was due to the contemporary nature of this research, inwhich the relationship between the two investigated concepts ofculture and KM outcomes remain under-investigated and wherethe issue of measurement requires a research design able to copewith complex and ambiguous phenomena. In instances such asthis, the use of the case study method for examining culture hasbeen strongly recommended (e.g. Alavi et al., 2006; Eskerod andSkriver, 2007; Sackmann, 1991). The use of multiple case studiesprovided the opportunity to compare data from a number of case
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
MentoringExtended family, nurturingParticipationTeamworkEmployee involvement Corporate commitment to employeesRewards based on teams not individuals LoyaltyInformalityJob rotationConsensus
ADHOCRACY
Dynamic EntrepreneurialRisk-takingRapid changeInnovationCreativityTemporary structurePower is not centralised, it flows from individual to individual or team to teamSometimes exist in large organisations that have dominant culture of a different type
HIERARCHY
StructureControlCoordinationEfficiencyStabilityProcedures govern what people doFormal rules and policies
MARKET
Results-orientedGets job doneCompetition and achievementFocus on transaction with external suppliers, customers, contractors ProductivityTough and demanding leadersEmphasis on winning Success is defined in terms of market share and penetration
Fig. 1. Attributes of clan, adhocracy, hierarchy and market cultures.
4 A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
sources and generate more compelling results, offering greaterpotential for explanation, a stronger base for theory building(Yin, 2009, pp. 54–60) and a broader exploration of theoreticalelaboration (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).
4.1. Sources of Evidence
To ensure adequate triangulation of data three primary datasources were captured through: 1) questionnaire, 2) interviews, and3) review of organizational documentation. The use of multiplesources of evidence to collect empirical data, with the aim to builda degree of confidence around the same fact or phenomenon, andallowed the researchers to achieve a better perspective on whathappens in reality and increased the validity of the research (Yin,2009).
Questionnaire was used to assess each company's dominantculture. We utilized the established OCAI instrument to examineculture across six key characteristics (Cameron and Quinn, 2005),which has been previously validated in the Australian context(Lamond, 2003) and used in previous studies investigating KM(e.g. Fong and Kwok, 2009). (1) Dominant Characteristicsrepresent most the prevailing characteristics of the organization,such as orientation on production versus orientation on people;(2) Organizational Leadership characterises the leadership stylesin the organization, such as mentors, innovators, organisers;(3) Management of Employees represents the managementapproach in the organization; (4) Organizational Glue is thebonding mechanisms that hold the organization together, such asloyalty versus or goal accomplishment; (5) Strategic Emphasischaracterises the main focus such as human development, actions
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
and achievement or stability; and (6) Criteria of Success, whichare the standards based on which an organization defines success.Appendix 1 reports on the questions asked and adopted fromCameron and Quinn (2005).
In addition to the OCAI instrument, 39 face-to-face semi-structure interviews were conducted to provide a richer insight intobehavioural and attitudinal manifestations of culture and knowl-edge sharing in each organization. The interviews also explored theemployee's behaviours that were associated with effective knowl-edge sharing. Questions captured data around the perceived levelof knowledge sharing, explored the volume of interaction, level ofcollaboration, orientation to seek out knowledge, presence of silosand willingness to share knowledge. The questions developedwere based on the investigation conducted by De Long and Fahey(2000), and Gamble and Blackwell (2001). The interviews wereundertaken predominantly with project managers as sources ofproject knowledge who were directly involved in the knowledgesharing process as well as with other parties including programmanagers, senior management, project officers and the projectmanagement office (PMO) personnel. The interviews were guidedby the protocol and the pre-prepared questions, which providedclear guidance for the data collection process ensuring consistency,greater rigor and thoroughness of the research (Yin, 2009). Oftenadditional, probing questions were asked during interviews forexplanation and clarification. All interviews were recorded andlater transcribed.
Finally the third source of data came from a review of orga-nizational documentation, which provided a better understandingof the participating companies' objectives and core purpose andidentified their organizational structures.
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
5A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
4.2. Data analysis process
Two stages of analysis were conducted: within- and cross-case.During each stage a careful use of analytical tactics includingpattern matching, explanation building and addressing rival expla-nations helped to strengthen the internal validity of the findings(Yin, 2009, p. 42). As recommended by Yin (2009), the draft fromwithin the case analysis was reviewed by peers and case studyparticipants helping to reduce the likelihood of false reportingand further increase validity of findings. The within case analysiscreated a platform for cross-case analysis, which aimed to comparethe cases looking for similarities and differences between them.
During the cross case analysis, explanation building logicwas used to explain how different organizational culture typeslead to different inter-project knowledge sharing outcomes.Findings that emerged from these analyses provided insightsoutlining which cultural values lead to more or less effectiveinter-project knowledge sharing, in the context of AustralianPBOs. Eisenhardt (1989) argues that cases confirming emergentrelationships enhance confidence in the validity of the relation-ships. Accordingly, the use of replication logic, executed byreplicating the findings to a second, third and fourth case, assistedin ensuring the validity of emerging relationships between culturetypes and knowledge sharing outcomes. Finally, careful compar-ison of the emergent theory to existing literature, taking intoaccount conflicting perspectives as well as literature aligned withour research findings, strengthened theory building outputs(Eisenhardt, 1989) and achieved analytical generalizability ofthe research (Yin, 2009, p. 43).
4.3. Research cases
Four large Australian PBOs were chosen for this research,referred to here as Angas, Netcom, Gotel, and Ronalco (Table 1).The selection of specific sectors – Heavy Engineering, Telecom-munication, Communication Services and Research – allowedgreater control of environmental variations, as the focus on largePBOs constrained variation due to size differences among thecompanies, as well as allowed the capturing of the complexity ofthe investigated phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989). Consistent withthe typology outlined by the PMI (2008), all PBOs involved in thestudy had a strong matrix structure and the unit of investigation inthis research was the project management department. This studyexamined knowledge sharing practices that occurred betweenprojects as well as the relationships between project managers ofproject management departments in participating cases.
5. Case analysis
5.1. Angas case
This study investigated personnel from project managementdepartments who were located at two sites, South Australia (SA)and a smaller team in Western Australia (WA). Out of 39 peopleworking in the project management department at Angas, sevenparticipated in the questionnaire assessing the dominant culturetype and eight participated in the interviews. At Angas, evidence
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
from OCAI revealed that two types of culture were dominant –Hierarchy andMarket – suggesting that the culture was focused onstability and control (see Fig. 2). Data indicated that a Hierarchyculture was prevalent in two categories: Dominant Characteristicsand Criteria of Success. These results, together with the interviewresponses, indicated that respondents perceived the organization asa very controlled and structured environment in which formalprocedures govern what people do, and smooth scheduling isessential. A Market culture dominated in three categories: Organi-zational Leadership, Management of Employees and Organiza-tional Glue. Based on that, it would appear that the leadership inAngas was results-oriented and the management style exemplifiedcompetitiveness, high demands and achievement. This wasconsistent with Angas' espoused values that suggested a Marketfocus — performance through excellence and commitment tocustomers' outcomes.
Interviews at Angas revealed that some project managers werewilling to share knowledge with their colleagues, but some werevery protective and believed that ‘knowledge is power.’ Thosemore reluctant to share appeared to believe that keeping knowledgeto themselves sustained their position of importance; thus, sharingtoo much could potentially jeopardize their competitive positionwithin the organization. A project engineer reported: ‘there's lots ofissues with people not wanting to share information because forthem that's power and it's those roles that make a difference to myjob where I can't get the information or they're trying to stop [me]for whatever reason’. There were also comments from intervieweesstating that some people viewed project shortcomings as signs ofweakness or even failure; therefore, admitting they did somethingwrong in their projects could potentially threaten their strongposition in the company, as illustrated by one respondent: ‘…like tobe portrayed as [a] kind of perfect project manager’.
Nevertheless, it was also reported that the change of aleader who has recognized the need for collaboration andbetter knowledge sharing between projects, has helped shiftthe organization's routines towards better knowledge sharingpractices. Due to those recent changes in management, fourrespondents sensed that the silos were starting to break down.One of them stated that before the leadership change there was a‘very stove-piped approach’ for inter-project knowledge sharing.‘But with having [new leader] sitting at the top, he's actuallydrawn them all together and we're actually getting some reallygood communication so it's broken down a lot of barriers’.
In summary, the examination of culture at Angas revealed thatit had a strong dominance of Hierarchy and Market types with anemphasis on control, structure, achievement, demanding leadersand competition. There was a strong indication that culturalvalues affect the willingness to share knowledge. Our data pro-vided evidence that some project managers were willing to shareknowledge with their colleagues; however, some were veryprotective and believed that knowledge helps them to sustain aposition of expertise. Others believed that revealing project pitfallswas a sign of failure and put their position of being seen as a highperforming project manager at risk. Finally, an analysis of Angascase provided evidence indicating that a recent change of a leaderwithin the project management department lead to a cultural shifttowards more collaborative and fostering knowledge sharing.
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
Investigated sites Western AustraliaSouth Australia
Queensland Queensland Queensland
Industry Heavy engineering and building Tele-communication Communication services Research (mining)Project sizeBudget b$3 M b$1.5 M b$1.5 M b$3 MDuration ≤3 years b1 year b1 year b1 year
6 A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
5.2. Netcom case
Netcom is a large Australian PBO and specialises in deliveringa broad range of telecommunication services to businesses. Sixrespondents from Netcom's project management department
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
participated in the interviews and seven filled out the question-naire. An examination of the culture profile at Netcom, capturedin Fig. 2, revealed that the Market type was the dominant culturalvalue, suggesting that their culture was results-oriented, focusedon achievement and directed towards transactions with external
7A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
customers. Data acquired during interviews supported findingsfrom the questionnaire, indicating that Netcom was typicallyviewed as a controlled and structured place, where the mainconcern was getting the job done. It was characterized by a com-petitive and achievement-oriented environment, where formalprocedures governed what people do. It was reported: ‘if it cannotbe measured it is not worth doing’. Interviews revealed that atNetcom, employees followed formal rules and policies, and thecompany's focus was on providing good customer service:‘because the market has changed measurably, we cannot be com-placent about how we treat the customer. We have to differentiateourselves in the market by customer service’. These statementsstrongly indicate a Market focus. Additional findings from thequestionnaire showed that Hierarchy and Market types had thesame high scores in the Dominant Characteristics and Organiza-tional Glue categories, suggesting that formal rules and policies, aswell as the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment,were the dominant characteristics within Netcom. This was alsosupported by the interviews, which revealed that Netcom was seento be driven by well-defined processes, labour efficiencies, rigourand discipline, and the company's values are focused on measure-ment, error detection, process control and the use of quality tools.
Our interview data indicated that Netcom's upper level manage-ment encouraged, but did not directly contribute to, the facilitationof inter-project knowledge sharing. Although an open-plan officearchitecture was found to enable frequent communication andknowledge sharing, there was strong evidence that some projectmanagers were unwilling to reveal their projects' pitfalls. At leasttwo respondents reported that there were project managers whowere reluctant to share knowledge, were focused on their careersand perceived knowledge as a source of power and as a way to geta promotion. It was also reported that people had a tendency to bedefensive and did not necessarily want to provide any informationabout their project failures or weaknesses; instead, sometimes theyattempted to blame others for project failures and believed thatadmitting failure put their position in the organization at risk.
5.3. Gotel case
Gotel is a leader in providing communication services togovernment agencies in Australia by setting up phone numbers,websites or integrated service counters for an ongoing or time-specific period. At Gotel, 16 respondents participated in the inter-view and questionnaire out of a total of 27 people working in theproject management department. Interestingly, evidence from theOCAI, presented in Fig. 2, revealed that the culture profile at Gotelwas balanced, with a slight shift towards the Hierarchy type.Nevertheless, data from the interviews at Gotel strongly suggestedthat culture was focused towards teamwork, employee involve-ment and employee recognition, indicating values consistent with aClan-type culture. There was strong evidence demonstrating thattheir culture was focused on teamwork, employee involvement andemployee recognition. The organization provided mentoring ses-sions and job rotation was frequently practiced. Respondentsconstantly reported that employees at Gotel work together, werehonest and willing to help their colleagues, and Gotel's culture wasdescribed ‘as a supportive environment [where people] want to
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
grow and get better in the project management [field].’ Data frominterviews provided a strong indication that project managers wereopen and willing to share knowledge. The culture in the organi-zation was not to create blame, but rather to encourage learningfrom mistakes and recognition of opportunities for improvement.Many respondents commented that shortcomings in projects ‘arenot failures, they're just opportunities to improve things.’ All theevidence from interviews strongly suggested that Clan-type valueswere the most prevalent at Gotel.
Follow-up interviews were conducted to investigate the reasonfor the discrepancy between the results from the OCAI survey andinterview data. These brought to light that a change of directorshortly after the time of the initial interviews was the main reasonfor the culture shift from Clan to Hierarchy. The culture shiftedmore towards Hierarchy when the new director was appointed,whose prime focus was more around the processes and makingsure project managers followed the correct procedures: ‘Our[previous director] wasn't like that at all. If you skipped all of theseprocesses [sic], but have reached [sic] the outcome that was fine’.When the new director arrived, the organization's focus shiftedtowards structure and control. Project managers were not able tomake decisions and everything had to go through the director whowanted to ensure that work was being done correctly. OCAI wasconducted after the leadership change occurred, whereas in-terviews took place before the change; thus the change of leader isthe most possible explanation for differences between thequestionnaire and interview results. There was also an indicationthat the change in culture possibly affected knowledge sharingpatterns: “now [the interviewee indicates the state after the changeof director] everything is control by the top manager, procedures,formal rules, structure”. Respondents commented that processesin the organization became more formal, which promoted theneed for evidence and formalized knowledge sharing.
5.4. Ronalco case
The forth case study, Ronalco, is a large Australian PBOdelivering leading technologies to mining companies, which iscurrently one of the most booming industries in Australia. Ronalcois one of the largest andmost diverse research agencies in Australiaand a powerhouse of ideas. Fifteen respondents from Ronalco'sproject management department participated in the questionnairewhile nine participated in the interviews. Data fromOCAI revealedthat the dominant culture at Ronalco was orientated towards aClan-type culture. There was a range of evidence suggesting thatinformality (an attribute of Clan-type culture) was prevalent atRonalco. At least three respondents reported that most of theformal processes to transfer knowledge from one project toanother did not work and tended to be resisted by employees.Furthermore, there was no formal induction process; insteadnewcomers joined a team working on a particular project and theteam's duty was to provide mentoring for the new colleague.Moreover, face-to-face informal interactions were the mostcommonly used means to interact and share knowledge and ourdata strongly indicated that teams working in the department wereopen and happy to share knowledge: ‘certainly within the groupeveryone is very open and willing to share knowledge even this
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
8 A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
related to their projects' pitfalls’. Other characteristics, likewearing casual outfits and the use of informal language, suggesteda high level of informality at Ronalco.
At least five respondents reported that when seeking knowledgethey often went into each others' offices asking for help or metduring morning or afternoon tea. There were also groups that gottogether to have lunch. It was reported that often during theseinformal gatherings people helped each other solve work-relatedissues, as illustrated in this statement: ‘Within our lab so they'repeople that are working on other projects and you'll be chatting inthe tea room or something about saying oh they had this problemhere and I go ‘oh hang on we've got that same problem’. What weend up doing is the person that solved that problem ends up solvingour problem, so that happens quite a lot’. Overall, the data provideda strong indication that at Ronalco the dominance of values relatedto Clan culture and this was the reason that project managers weregenerally open and willing to share knowledge, even if it related toproject shortcomings.
6. Organizational culture and the willingness to shareknowledge
When considered together, the results from within the caseanalyses indicate that in the context of Australian PBOs, differentorganizational culture types differently impact inter-project knowl-edge sharing behaviours. So far, similar findings have been drawnin the context of PBOs based in Hong Kong (Fong and Kwok,2009).
In the case of Angas and Netcom, a Market culture appears tohave had a negative impact on inter-project knowledge sharing,whereas in the Gotel and Ronalco cases, the dominance of Clan-type values led to positive knowledge sharing outcomes. Table 2summarizes these findings.
According to De Long and Fahey (2000), cultures thatemphasize collaboration and frequency of interactions will havegreater knowledge sharing outcomes. A similar pattern was foundat Gotel and Ronalco, whose cultures displayed dominant Clan-type values and whose focus on employee involvement, collab-oration and teamwork was perceived to improve inter-projectknowledge sharing. Within-case analysis revealed that projectmanagers in the Clan-oriented cultures of Gotel and Ronalco, werenormally open and willing to share any kind of knowledge, theyviewed project pitfalls as areas for improvement rather than failuresand worked together to solve problems. This finding reinforcesresearch results proposed by Yang (2007) who found a strong linkbetween cultures focused on collaboration and knowledge sharingand is consistent with observations made by Davenport et al.(1998) who noted that ‘knowledge friendly cultures’ are one of theimportant factors leading to successful KM projects. Thosecultures, according to the authors, highly value learning, wherepeople are willing and free to explore, where leaders encourageknowledge creation and use, and people do not feel that sharingknowledge will cost them their jobs (Davenport et al., 1998).
The pattern was different in the Angas and Netcom cases,where participants reported evidence of hesitancy to share knowl-edge related to their projects. Data from the Angas and Netcominterviews strongly suggested that some project managers were
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
very protective and unwilling to share knowledge. The data alsoprovided evidence that in these two cases there were peoplereluctant to share their project pitfalls because theywanted to retaintheir reputation and position of importance in the company; others,focused on their careers, recognized knowledge as power andwithholding knowledge as being a way to advance their careers.
Also, at Angas and Netcom, the indicator of Market culture washigh, whereas the Clan culture was relatively low, demonstratingcompetitive and goal-oriented cultures, where there is no place forfailure and the focus is on winning and success. This potentiallyexplains why project managers in Angas and Netcom were some-times reluctant to share knowledge — especially anything relatedto their projects' shortcomings. Furthermore, a Market culture ischaracterized by competitiveness, productivity, efficiency andaccomplishment. Thus, the performance measures in Market-typecultures are normally based on numbers and tangible achieve-ments. This further explains why some employees at Angas andNetcomwere hesitant to share their project pitfalls and to give theirsecrets away to others because this could affect their performanceoutcomes and jeopardize career advancement.
Although according to Kasper (2002), and Cameron andQuinn (2005), Market cultures maintain a prime focus on theexternal environment and the literature on Market culture andKM primarily focuses on the role of knowledge development inrelationships with external competitors (Hult et al., 2007; Kasper,2002), the Angas and Netcom cases revealed that competitivenessis also present within organizational boundaries which may be anunderlying driver of the hesitancy to share knowledge. This findingis consistent with that outside project-based firms, proposed by DeLong and Fahey (2000) who claim that cultures which emphasizeindividual power and competition among employees will lead toknowledge hoarding behaviours. De Long and Fahey (2000)stated that if employees believe that sharing what they knowincurs personal risks and decreases power then the social normsgoverning how individuals should interact will not supportknowledge sharing behaviours.
This research contributes to project management literatureby providing evidence that awareness of dominant culture typeof the PBO is important for predicting inter-project knowledgesharing behaviours and structuring suitable knowledge sharingmechanisms around these behaviours. Overall, findings from thisresearch are consistent with the notion that cultures surroundingproject-based firms that create a friendly, non-competitive atmo-sphere at work, based on participation, teamwork and informality(displaying Clan-type characteristics), are more likely to improveinter-project knowledge sharing. Whereas cultures that empha-size competition, achievement, demanding leaders and winning(displaying Market-type characteristics) are likely to lead to dys-functional inter-project knowledge sharing, such as informationhoarding and, hence, undesirable outcomes. This finding indicatesthat the culture in which projects operate has a tremendous impacton inter-project knowledge sharing, and building on the researchconducted by Coffey (2010), it would suggest that ultimately italso impacts on overall project success.
Hofstede (2005) provided cultural profile of Australian orga-nizations stating that Australian businesses measure their perfor-mance on a short-term basis, which drives individuals to strive for
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
Evidence of knowledge hoarding and hesitancy to share- Knowledge increases power and a way to promotion- Sharing project pitfalls is a sign of failure and puts strongposition at risk
Strong evidence on thewillingness to share any kinds of knowledge-Teamwork and informal discussions are theway to solve project issues- Project shortcomings seen as areas forimprovement ratherthan failures
Remarks fromrespondents
“I have a number ofindividuals who feel thatfailure is a weakness andtherefore wouldn't be as open”
“We have some people that have been inthe organisation for ten years and believethat they should be a general manager,so I think there's a little bit of well ifI share too much with you you'llget the heads up on me”
“I'm quite happy toidentify my shortcomingsbecause [if not] you'renot going to make itbetter next time”
“That's greatabout [Ronalco]the way thateveryone canbe totally upfrontabout their likesand dislikes andsuccesses andfailures”
9A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
quick results within the work place. Hiring and promotion deci-sions are based on evidence of what one has done or can do.Furthermore, Hofstede (2005) found that in Australian organiza-tions managers are normally accessible and rely on individualemployees and teams for their expertise. Both managers andemployees are normally informal, direct and participative; andknowledge is shared frequently. Our research showed that there isno fixed type of culture in Australian PBOs and investigated PBOsdisplaying a prevalence for both Clan and Market types. Ourresearch, providing evidence from Australian PBOs, along withpast research conducted on PBOs from Hong Kong (Fong andKwok, 2009) indicates that project organizations operating in Clantype cultures appear more capable of sharing knowledge betweenprojects than those from Market cultures. Further, our Australiancases showed that leaders are capable of influencing culture in thePBO (Angas and Gotel cases). Thus, this article makes an impor-tant contribution to the project management literature by beginningto unpack the role of leadership in adopting the cultural change andultimately in shaping knowledge sharing behaviours in projectenvironment. This is important finding showing the role of leadersin PBOs in shaping inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours.
Based on this finding, we therefore indicate that if Marketdriven organization seeks to improve their knowledge sharingoutcomes, one way might be to introduce supportive and partic-ipative leadership styles. This is consistent with Kasper (2002)who proposed that in a Market culture, achievement-orientedleaders who care about people would be the best solution, whileHarris and Ogbonna (2001) also found that the participativeand supportive leadership styles were strongly positively linkedto Market culture orientation. Support from leaders can endorsefeelings of belongingness, enhance the collaborative climate andhelp project teams recognize they are not competing amongstthemselves, but are part of a team who, by sharing knowledge, willbuild its knowledge capabilities and gain a competitive position inthe market, in consequence, creating new knowledge sharingenvironment. It is possible that our findings from the context ofAustralian projects could be leveraged to other contexts.
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
Nevertheless, further research is recommended to examinewhether these relationships hold in the context of other countries.
In regard to the method applied in this research, our inves-tigation of Australian PBOs demonstrates that a qualitativeexamination of OC yields insight into underlying motivationsand mechanisms that better explain behaviours in the projectcontext. The Gotel case showed discrepancies between the resultsobtained from interviews and the questionnaire. The interviewfindings suggested that the Gotel case displays principles of aClan culture; however, findings from the OCAI showed that thedominant culture was that of a Hierarchy type. Similar difficultieswere encountered in the study of Hong Kong projects, where twocases demonstrated conflicting responses with the initial survey(Coffey, 2010, pp. 190, 198). Similar to Coffey, this researchconducted follow-up interviews, which helped identify and explainthe reason for the discrepancy, providing a complete picture ofGotel's OC. Consequently, this research demonstrates that, asadvocated by Buchanan and Bryman (2009, p. 529), the use of amixed-method approach is preferred for investigating organiza-tional context, such as culture, as it provides insightful findingswith increased rigor. This recommendation is also consistent withliterature outside project management, which advocates examiningculture in its organizational context using qualitative data providesvaluable insights into the nature of this complex phenomenon(e.g. Bellot, 2011; Sackmann, 1991).
7. Conclusions
This paper has examined how different cultural values driveinter-project knowledge sharing, in the context of AustralianPBOs. Applying Cameron and Quinn's (2005) Competing ValuesFramework, findings from this research have demonstrated thatdifferent organizational culture types lead to different inter-projectknowledge sharing behaviours. In particular, this research showedthat cultures displaying Market-type values, such as competitive-ness and achievement, are likely to show evidence of hesitancy toshare knowledge. On the other hand, cultures with Clan-type
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
10 A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
characteristics, emphasizing a collaborative environment andfriendly, non-competitive atmosphere at work, are likely to openlyshare knowledge even related to project shortcomings.
Overall, the results showed that Australian PBOs recognizethe value of sharing knowledge between projects, neverthelessdifferent cultures were seen to lead to different inter-projectknowledge sharing outcomes. This research contributes to theproject management literature by providing evidence that anawareness of the dominant culture type within a PBO is importantfor predicting inter-project knowledge sharing behaviours and therequisite structures needed for optimized knowledge sharingmechanisms around these behaviours. Accordingly, this paperemphasizes the need for awareness of the dominant culture typeas being a determinant of different knowledge sharing outcomes.It is therefore suggested that PBOs evaluate their dominantculture characteristics. This will help identify knowledge sharingpatterns specific for a given culture type. Applying Cameron andQuinn's (2005) CVF can be useful in determining the dominantculture.
Furthermore, this research makes a significant contribution byproviding rich empirical evidence of the relationships betweenOC and the willingness to share knowledge in Australian PBOs.The use of interviews and the OC Assessment Instrument in thecross examination of culture resulted in empirical contributionsdemonstrating which cultural values are more and which are lesslikely to improve inter-project knowledge sharing. Finally, thisresearch contributes to the project management literature byintroducing Cameron and Quinn's (2005) CVF to evaluateknowledge sharing in the inter-project context.
Although this study offered interesting insights into the role ofOC in inter-project knowledge sharing, further investigations arerequired to fully understand the complexity of this phenomenon.The somewhat limited number of cases, representing only twocultural dimensions – Clan and Market – means that moreresearch is required to investigate inter-project knowledge sharingbehaviours for the Adhocracy and Hierarchy culture types.Furthermore, this study was limited to the management levelperspectives because of their key role in knowledge sharing.Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that other project members playan important role in inter-project knowledge sharing. Accordingly,future studies could consider investigating the roles of other projectmembers, taking into account project complexity and the varyingbackgrounds of these individuals.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the CRC forIntegrated Engineering Asset Management (CIEAM), establishedand supported under the Australian Government's CooperativeResearch Centre Programme.
Appendix 1
This appendix reports on the questionnaire send to case studyrespondents measuring organizational culture. The questionswere adopted from Cameron and Quinn (2005).
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
Tell us about your organization, focusing on the unit/division/or department you are currently working in.
For each of the next 6 statements please distribute 100 pointsamongst the four items (A, B, C and D) depending on the extentto which each item best describes your organization.
Make sure the total distributed for each statement equals 100,as per the example shown below.
E.g.: Knowledge sharing in organizations can be achieved by:
A. building mutual trust
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian conteman.2012.12.014
30
B. improving information and communication technologies 20 C. motivating employees with incentives 10 D. building knowledge sharing culture 40 Total 100
1) My organization is …
A. a very personal place. It is like an extended family, people seem toshare a lot of themselves.
B. a very dynamic entrepreneurial place. People are willing to stick theirnecks out and take risks.
C. very results oriented. The major concern is with getting the job done,people are very competitive and achievement oriented.
D. a very controlled and structured place. Formal procedures generallygovern what people do.
Total
100
2) The leadership in my organization is generally considered toexemplify…
A. mentoring, facilitating, or nurturing.
B. entrepreneurship, innovating, or risk taking. C. a no-nonsense, aggressive, results-oriented focus. D. coordinating, organising, or smooth-running efficiency. Total 100
3) The management style in my organization is characterisedby…
A. teamwork, consensus, and participation.
B. individual risk-taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness. C. hard-driving competitiveness, high demands, and achievement. D. security of employment, conformity, predictability, and stability inrelationships.
Total
100
4) The glue that holds my organization together is…
A. loyalty and mutual trust. Commitment to this organization runs high.
B. commitment to innovation and development. There is an emphasis onbeing on the cutting edge.
C. the emphasis on achievement and goal accomplishment. Aggressivenessand winning are common themes.
D. formal rules and policies. Maintaining a smooth-running organizationis important.
11A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
5) My organization emphasises…
A. human development. High trust, openness, and participation persist.
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture andInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.10
B. acquiring new resources and creating new challenges. Trying new thingsand prospecting for opportunities are valued.
C. competitive actions and achievement. Hitting stretch targets and winningin the marketplace are dominant.
D. permanence and stability. Efficiency, control and smooth operationsare important.
Total
100
6) My organization defines success on the basis of…
A. the development of human resources, teamwork, employee commitment,and concern for people.
B. having the most unique or newest products. It is a product leader andinnovator.
C. winning in the marketplace and outpacing the competition. Competitivemarket leadership is key.
D. efficiency. Dependable delivery, smooth scheduling and low-costproduction are critical.
Total
100
References
Ajmal, M.M., Helo, P., 2010. Organisational culture and knowledgemanagement: an empirical study in Finnish project-based companies.International Journal of Innovation and Learning 7 (3), 331–344.
Ajmal, M.M., Koskinen, Kaj U., 2008. Knowledge Transfer in Project-BasedOrganizations: An Organizational Culture Perspective. Project ManagementJournal 39 (1), 7–15.
Alavi, M., Leidner, D., 2001. Review: knowledge management and knowledgemanagement systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MISQuarterly 25 (1), 107–136.
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T., Leidner, D., 2006. An empirical examination of theinfluence of organizational culture on knowledge management practices.Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (3), 191–224.
Anbari, F., Khilkhanova, Erzhen, Romanova, Maria, Ruggia, Mateo, Tsay,Crystal HanHuei, Umpleby, Stuart A., 2010. Cultural differences inprojects. Paper presented at the PMI Research and Education Conference2010, Washinghton DC, USA.
Arenius, Marko, Artto, Karlos, Lahti, Mika, Meklin, Jukka, 2003. Projectcompanies and the multi-project paradigm—a new management approach.In: Pinto, J., Cleland, D., Slevin, D. (Eds.), The Frontiers of ProjectManagement Research. Project Management Institute.
Argote, Linda, Ingram, Paul, 2000. Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitiveadvantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses 82 (1), 150–169.
Bhatt, Ganesh D., 2001. Knowledge management in organizations: examiningthe interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal ofKnowledge Management Practice 5 (1), 68–75.
Buchanan, D.A., Bryman, A., 2009. The Sage Handbook of OrganizationalResearch Methods. Sage Publications Ltd., London.
Cameron, K.S., Quinn, R.E., 2005. Diagnosing and Changing OrganizationalCulture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, Revised ed. Jossey-Bass Inc. Pub, San Francisco, USA.
Carrillo, P., 2005. Lessons learned practices in the engineering, procurementand construction sector. Engineering Construction and ArchitecturalManagement 12 (3), 236–250.
Coffey, Vaughan, 2010. UnderstandingOrganisational Culture in the ConstructionIndustry. Spon Press/Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, Oxon.
willingne16/j.ijpro
Davenport, Thomas H., Prusak, Laurence, 1998. Working Knowledge. HarvardBusiness School Press, Harvard.
Davenport, Thomas H., Long, De, David, W., Beers, Michael C., 1998.Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review 39(2), 43–57.
De Long, David, Fahey, Liam, 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledgemanagement. The Academy of Management Executive 14 (4), 113–127.
Denison, D.R., Spreitzer, G.M., 1991. Organizational culture and organizationaldevelopment: a competing values approach. Research in OrganizationalChange and Development 5 (1), 1–21.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academyof Management Review 14 (4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: Opportu-nities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal 50 (1), 25–32.
El-Gohary, Nora M., El-Diraby, Tamer E., 2010. Dynamic knowledge-basedprocess integration portal for collaborative construction. Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management 136 (3), 316–328.
Eskerod, Pernille, Skriver, Hans Jørgen, 2007. Organisational culture restrainningin-house knowledge transfer between project managers — a case study.Project Management Journal 38 (1), 110–123.
Fong, P., 2008. Can we learn from our past? Managing knowledge within andacross projects. In: Becerra-Fernandez, I., Leidner, D. (Eds.), Knowledgemanagement: an evolutionary view, vol. 12. ME Sharpe Inc., Armonk, NewYork, pp. 204–226.
Fong, P., Kwok, C., 2009. Organizational culture and knowledge managementsuccess at project and organizational levels in contracting firms. Journal ofConstruction Engineering and Management 135 (12), 1348–1356.
Friesl, M., Sackmann, S.A., Kremser, S., 2011. Knowledge sharing in neworganizational entities: the impact of hierarchy, organizational context, micro-politics and suspicion. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal18 (1), 71–86.
Gamble, Paul R., Blackwell, John, 2001. Knowledge Management: A State ofthe Art Guide. Kogan Page, London.
Gray, J.H., Densten, I.L., 2005. Towards an integrative model of organizationalculture and knowledge management. International Journal of OrganisationalBehaviour 9 (2), 594–603.
Harris, L.C., Ogbonna, E., 2001. Leadership style and market orientation: anempirical study. European Journal of Marketing 35 (5/6), 744–764.
Hobday, Mike, 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managingcomplex products and systems? Research Policy 29 (7–8), 871–893.
Hofstede, G., 1984. Culture's Consequences: International Differences inWork-related Values. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA, USA.
Hofstede, G., 2005. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw-Hill, London, UK.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Arrfelt, M., 2007. Strategic supply chainmanagement: Improving performance through a culture of competitivenessand knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal 28 (10),1035–1052.
Janz, B.D., Prasarnphanich, P., 2003. Understanding the antecedents of effectiveknowledge management: the importance of a knowledge-centered culture.Decision Sciences 34 (2), 351–384.
Kasper, H., 2002. Culture and leadership in market-oriented service organisa-tions. European Journal of Marketing 36 (9/10), 1047–1057.
Kendra, K., Taplin, L.J., 2004. Project success: a cultural framework. ProjectManagement Journal 35 (1), 30–45.
Keskin, Halit, Akgun, Ali E., Gunsel, Ayse, Imamoglu, Salih Zehi, 2005. Therelationship between adhocracy and clan cultures and tacit oriented KMstrategy. Journal of Transnational Management 10 (3), 39–53.
Koskinen, Kaj U., Pihlanto, Pekka, Vanharanta, Hannu, 2003. Tacit knowledgeacquisition and sharing in a project work context. International Journal ofProject Management 21 (4), 281–290.
Lamond, David, 2003. The value of Quinn's competing values model in anAustralian context. Journal of Managerial Psychology 18 (1/2), 46–59.
Landaeta, Rafael E., 2008. Evaluating benefits and challenges of knowledgetransfer across projects. Engineering Management Journal 20 (1), 29–39.
Liebowitz, Jay, 2005. Conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management.In: Love, P., Fong, P., Irani, Z. (Eds.), Management of Knowledge in ProjectEnvironments. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 1–18.
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
12 A. Wiewiora et al. / International Journal of Project Management xx (2013) xxx–xxx
Liebowitz, Jay, 2008. 'Think of others' in knowledge management: makingculture work for you. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 6 (1),47–52.
Lundin, Rolf A., Söderholm, Anders, 1995. A theory of the temporaryorganization. Scandinavian Journal of Management 11 (4), 437–455.
Newell, Sue, Goussevskaia, Anna, Swan, Jacky, Bresnen, Mike, Obembe,Ademola, 2008. Interdependencies in complex project ecologies: the case ofbiomedical innovation. Long Range Planning 41 (1), 33–54.
Nonaka, Ikujiro, Takeuchi, Hirotaka, 1995. The Knowledge-creating Company.Oxford University Press, New York.
Polyaninova, T., 2011. Knowledge management in a project environment:organisational CT and project influences. Vine 41 (3).
Project Management Institute, 2008. A guide to the project management bodyof knowledge:(PMBOK guide), 4th ed. Project Management Institute, Inc.
Riege, A., 2005. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers mustconsider. Journal of Knowledge Management 9 (3), 18–35.
Sackmann, S., 1991. Uncovering culture in organizations. The Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science 27 (3), 295–317.
Please cite this article as: Wiewiora, A., et al., Organizational culture and willingneInternational Journal of Project Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpro
Sackmann, S., 1992. Culture and subcultures: an analysis of organizationalknowledge. Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (1), 140–161.
Schein, E.H., 1990. Organizational culture. American Psychologist 45 (2),109–119.
Smyth, H., 2005. Managing the external provision of “knowledge management”services for projects. In: Kazi, A.S. (Ed.), Knowledge Management in theConstruction Industry: A Socio-Technical Perspective. Idea Group Inc.,London, pp. 34–52.
Walker, D., Wilson, A., Srikanathan, G., 2004. The Knowledge Advantage (K-Adv)Unleashing Creativity and Innovation Guide for the Project 2001–004. CRC inConstruction Innovation, Brisbane.
Yazici, Hulya Julie, 2010. Role of project maturity and organizational cultureon project success. Paper presented at the PMI Research and EducationConference 2010, Washinghton DC, USA.
Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Fourth ed. SagePublications Inc., Thousand Oaks, California.
ss to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context,man.2012.12.014
