See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/3077089

How Do Organizations Learn Lessons From Projects—And Do They?

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · June 2008

DOI: 10.1109/TEM.2007.912920 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

182 5,319

1 author:

Terry Williams
University of Hull
168 PUBLICATIONS   6,831 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue @ PMJ: Career Paths and Career Systems for Project Managers View project

Physical Employment Standards Conference, Portsmouth, 2018 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Terry Williams on 11 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

To appear in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

How do organisations learn lessons from projects – and do they?

Terry Williams, University of Southampton

Abstract
The need to learn from one project to the next is clearly of vital importance, but is often neglected. Furthermore,
there are fundamental issues within projects that inhibit such learning, such as the temporary nature of project
organisations and the fundamental complexity of projects. This paper surveys the diverse literature that can help
explain these factors and help projects to learn, and describes a large survey of project-managers to look at what
actual practice is and how successful it is perceived, as well as some empirical work. From this, a number of
general conclusions are drawn as to how to create project organisations that are learning organisations.

-1-
 HOW DO ORGANISATIONS LEARN LESSONS FROM PROJECTS – AND DO
THEY?

I. INTRODUCTION

The need to manage projects successfully, learning from each other and from one project to the next, is of vital
importance as management becomes more project-based [1],[2]. However in practice, projects are often not
reviewed at all [3], or if they are reviewed, methods often don’t give real understanding [4], let alone incorporating
lessons into organisational processes. During 2005-6 the Project Management Institute (PMI ®), Newtown Square,
PA, USA sponsored a small research grant to consider practice in reviewing projects (that is, learning about project
processes, not learning technical knowledge from projects.)

The objectives of the research were to identify current practice as well as what is currently considered “best
practice” for “lessons learned” in the Project Management field, and to compare them with advances in
understanding project behaviour to identify lessons not being learned. Because this work sought to answer a
number of different types of questions; different methodological approaches were required as is often the case with
management research [5]. The Research Questions were
(i) “What is current practice” and “what is currently considered ‘best practice’”; these are factual questions best
explored using positivist techniques, so a literature survey and a questionnaire were used.
(ii) “Do these techniques actually achieve their purpose?” This is harder to answer positivistically, so as well as the
literature survey and questionnaires, this question was also approached by interviews to gain subjective opinions,
and some phenomenological analyses of a real case-study.
(iii) “Can we identify practical techniques to help draw out the difficult lessons from the projects?”, and (iv) “How
can such lessons be incorporated into organisational practice?”. These are practical questions, approached by using
the knowledge and experience from the above activities, along the lines of UK “Mode II research” [6].

The full programme thus consisted of four activities, two establishing current practice: Activity 1, a survey of
literature relevant to learning lessons in projects, and Activity 2, an on-line questionnaire survey of current “lessons
learned” practice throughout the Project Management community. The second, much smaller, pair of activities,
looked at some particular examples: Activity 3 looked into some current practice using semi-structured interviews,
and Activity 4: looked in detail at a particular organisation to see how lessons are learned, and how learning could
be improved. A full report on the work has been published by the Project Management Institute [7]. This paper
concentrates on the establishment on current practice, so describes Activities 1 and 2. The latter two activities are
noted only in their backing up of some points in the paper.

II. LITERATURE

-2-
The literature discussed here summarises the more wide-ranging literature survey carried out as part of the research
study [7]. In view of the breadth of relevant material (for example in the Organisational Learning and Knowledge
Management literatures), this discussion must be seen as a summary rather than a full exploration.

Before we look at the breadth of the literature specifically on learning from projects, two areas of literature are
discussed below:
A: the motivation for the topic: does the literature agree that this is important?
B: although a small study, we still need to look at the theoretical underpinnings of the literature (rather than simply
what is done in practice), so the literature behind the relevant basic concepts is given.

Then the literature fell into a number of clusters:

C: What is the current situation? What standards and maturity models are there? And, how common are lessons-
learned activities in actuality?
D: Practices for collecting lessons and creating knowledge, and factors that facilitate or hinder; two particular areas
emphasized in the literature are the use of narratives, and issues of systemicity.
E: How learning from projects is transferred around the organisation, and factors that facilitate or hinder; one
particular area emphasized in the literature is that of Communities of Practice.

A. Motivation
We first look at why we need to look at how to learn lessons – does the literature agree that this study is important?
Authors such as Pinto [8] (on Information Systems projects) and Davies and Brady [9] (on Complex Product
System projects) assume that this is an important issue. Kerzner [2] places continuous learning and improvement as
the highest level of Project Management maturity, and says that “without ‘discounted’ lessons learned, a company
can quickly revert from maturity to immaturity in project management. Knowledge is lost and past mistakes are
repeated.” Berke [10] says that “Best practices and Lessons Learned are the building blocks of organizational
learning and organizational knowledge”.

There are fundamental aspects of the nature of projects that require concentration on learning.
• Projects are by their nature temporary organisations (see eg the Scandinavian project-management school, for
example Packendorff [11]), and any learning accumulated will dissipate at the end of the project unless
attention is paid to collecting, storing and disseminating it. Ekstedt et al [12] discuss the importance of
“knowledge formation” (learning and embedding the learning), saying that permanent organisations generally
have mechanisms built in for learning, but project-intensive organisational structures are action- and task-
oriented and not geared up to learning, so “the outcomes of the knowledge processes that take place are
difficult to feed back to the permanent organisation”. Brady et al [13] describe similar barriers to learning: the
-3-
 absence of departmentally held "knowledge silos"; the uniqueness of projects, with long life cycles so a long
time elapses before lessons are retrieved; and their temporary nature requiring new "human encounters" for
each project. (See particularly Bresnen et al [14] discussed in E below).
• Project processes are generally temporary and unique, with non-routine features, hindering learning. Brady et
al [13] describe characteristics of projects including customization (because of customer demands or because
previous solutions are obsolete), discontinuity (both temporal and organisational), complexity, interdependence
(so it is not always possible to rely on past experience to solve current problems) and uncertainty. However,
that is not to say that all project are completely different – this “misguided belief” itself inhibits learning [15].
• Furthermore, projects cut across organisational functions, and the knowledge is produced in the context of
application and is transdisciplinary; knowledge production has to be socially accountable, requiring new
mechanisms to capture and disseminate it beyond the traditional disciplinary and functional structures [16].

However, project learning does seem important. Cooke-Davies’s [17] major empirical study identified twelve key
success factors in project-oriented organisations, including "an effective means of ‘learning from experience’".
'Learning from post-project audits' is one of the ten ‘best practices’ in Menke [18] (although lowest in frequency of
use). Kotnour’s [19] influential survey indicates that project management performance is associated with project
knowledge; project management knowledge is supported by project learning activities and the level of lessons-
learned activity is related to inter-project learning. Reasons for managing the learning from projects include
• Project managers learn how to manage experientially; it is important to reflect and gain these lessons [20].
• Lessons can feed into the assessment, risk analysis or initial planning of the next project [21] [22].
• Lessons are used to feed into improving project-management processes [23]
• Lessons are used to improve management decision-making [23], [21].
• Projects are part of a cycle, and lessons learned can be tested and experimented with in the next cycle [24]
• Lessons-learned procedures are important to disseminate knowledge within the project team [25], to other
projects [26], and even to other organisations within alliances [27].
• Lessons-learned are useful for benchmarking: [28]
• Audits to learn lessons can aid senior management by being able to check on the performance of their
personnel [23] or on their project managers’ expertise [21].
• Post-mortems can play a key role at the stage-gates of the New Product Development (NPD) process, as
lessons learned in one (usually less costly) phase can feed through to the next phase [29].
• Knowledge from learning from projects can lead to changes in an organisation’s strategic focus [30].

But learning lessons and disseminating knowledge is not simple. In particular,

• There is a need to gain depth in the lessons rather than obvious or simple lessons; the systemic reasons for
project outcomes needs to be studied [22].

-4-
• There is a need to gain generalisable lessons (isomorphic learning [31]) rather than lessons specific to that one
project [25] (see for example Cooper et al’s [15] "learning system" for cross-project learning).
• “Learning within a project does not happen naturally; it is a complex process that needs to be managed. It
requires deliberate attention, commitment, and continuous investment of resources” [32], whereas in practice
learning is often “ad hoc” [9]. Organisational learning has to be integrated into core processes [33].

In summary, the literature seems to imply that learning from projects is important to organisational success in a
number of ways, while the temporary nature of the organisations and processes involved in projects make learning
from one to another particularly important. However, there are a number of issues making learning lessons and
disseminating knowledge difficult, which require exploring.

B. Concepts
To ensure our work has appropriate theoretical under-pinnings, we need to ensure that we have defined some basic
concepts: what is “knowledge” and “learning” for an individual?, then what is “organisational learning” and
“knowledge management” for an organisation?

1) Knowledge: There isn’t scope within this paper to cover much of this literature, but the work of two authors
stand out. Firstly, the idea of knowledge being internal, or “tacit”, and thus not easy to codify was established
particularly by Polanyi [34]. “Tacit” knowledge is difficult to operationalize, but work has been done by Ambrosini
and Bowman [35], who redefine “tacit knowledge” as tacit skills, and Cook and Brown [36], for whom tacit
knowledge is that associated with skills or “know-how”. (See also the literature on the development of knowledge
as a process of sense-making [37]). Johnson et al [38] suggest that codifying knowledge needs to recognise the
amount lost in the transformation process, but say that codification can stimulate learning when used to refine
models and to support reflection and explication.

The second author is Nonaka [39][40], exploring knowledge in organisations, and describing “knowledge-creating”
companies in Japan. His work requires a careful explication of what is “knowledge”, building on Senge’s work
[41][42] on “learning organisations”, and includes a model of knowledge creation within the organisation based on
the interrelationships between tacit and explicit knowledge. Knowledge creation is a social as well as individual
process (von Krogh [43], based on Nonaka and Hirotaka). Thus our understanding of knowledge has to look at the
interplay between tacit and explicit, and between individual and group knowledge. Cook and Brown [36] see a
distinction between knowledge that is “part of practice” (“knowledge”) and that which is “possessed in the head”
(“knowing”), and discuss the interplay between the two as a way in which new knowledge, and new ways of
knowing are formed; “Organizations are better understood if explicit, tacit, individual and group knowledge are
treated as four distinct and coequal forms of knowledge … and if knowledge and knowing are seen as mutually
enabling (and not competing)”.
-5-
Why are these general aspects particularly relevant for understanding knowledge within projects?
• Projects are complex systems, so the way in which we organize our thinking about those systems and generate
knowledge is complex [44]; eg narrative types of thinking are appropriate than propositional thinking.
• Real projects are often much more concerned with sense-making than carrying out a full-formed plan [45];
often projects take place in a context of confusion, and controversy can help to create new knowledge [46].
• Projects are temporary organisations, and there is a lack of time to develop trust in such organisations, which
means that knowledge generation and sharing is different from in permanent organisational structures [47];
furthermore, there may be no facilities to store information.
• The idea of “Project Management” imposes an ontology and a specific way of thinking; this immediately
frames ways of thinking when reviewing projects, and can pose difficulties in thinking critically [48].

2) Learning:. What does “learning” mean within the context of projects? Clearly learning and knowledge inter-
relate in an iterative, mutually reinforcing process [49]. Zollo and Winter [50] talk about the interaction of three
learning behaviours: tacit accumulation of experience, knowledge articulation and knowledge codification
(similarly, Mumford [51] describes four approaches to learning: from not being aware of learning happening,
reflection following some jolt, learning by retrospection and learning from opportunities identified in advance).
Reflection plays a key part, and Smith [52] describes tools for reflective learning. (Raelin [53] explains learning
through reflection with others, with particular applicability to learning from projects.) Indeed, Winter and Thomas
[54] feel that project managers’ professional development should focus on developing critical awareness and
reflective practice rather than on applying specific techniques.

Two authors with very particular lines of approach should be noted. The first is Stacey, whose work on complex
responsive processes in organizations ([55] building on Weick's ideas) shows the importance of the type of socially
constructed knowledge creation which will help us develop ideas about knowledge arising from the complexity of
organisations and projects. The second is Von Glasersfeld [56], the key writer in radical constructivism, claiming
that knowledge is not passively received through either the senses or communication, but is actively built up by the
cognising subject; and that the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the subject's organization of the
experiential world, not the discovery of an objective ontological reality; this work is important as we critically
consider “knowledge” (whatever our ontological or epistemological stance).

3) Organisational learning: The move from the individual to the organisation is not simple. The motivation for
companies to become Learning Organisations clearly gained momentum with the work of Senge [41][42]. Simon
[57] notes that “An organization learns in only two ways: (a) by the learning of its members, or (b) by ingesting
new members who have knowledge the organization didn't previously have. But ….what an individual learns in an

-6-
organization is very much dependent on what is already known to (or believed by) other members of the
organization and what kinds of information are present in the organisational environment”. We need to consider the
inter-relation between the individual and the organisation (and further, with the community and the industry [58])
and for many, the process of reflection and knowledge creation is a social process [59].

There is a vast literature on Organisational Learning, but key reviews can be identified. Huber [60] gives an early
summary; he divided the literature at the time (1991) into four sections: knowledge acquisition, information
distribution, information interpreting, and organisational memory, claiming that the literature moved from mature
to immature going down this list. Dodgson [61] similarly gives a good bibliography of organisational learning
generally, noting the range of disciplines which contribute to the field and stating that “together, the literatures
reviewed contribute to the understanding of the complexity of factors that encourage and restrict learning”.
However, even in 2001, Nair’s [62] literature review concluded that organisational learning systems still did not
have a sound theoretical base (he proposed developing a classification of organisational learning systems by their
complexity). Easterby-Smith et al [63] reviewed papers submitted to a particular Organisational Learning
conference; they follow the progression of several debates in the field, including about units of analysis (is
organisational learning only the sum of what individuals learn?); single / double-loop learning; the nature and
location of organisational learning; a focus on power, politics and trust, and so on. More recently, Bapuji and
Crossan [64] reviewed literature on empirical organisational learning research published between 1990 and 2002,
(some of their results are noted below). An authoritative work is given in the “Handbook of organisational learning
and knowledge” [65], giving 42 chapters ranging from insights from the major social science disciplines through to
putting the knowledge into practice.

Two issues emerge from the literature as important: culture and organisational structure.
• National culture and internal corporate culture play a key role. Lipshitz et al [66] found cultural values
promoting learning being: transparency, integrity, issue-orientation, inquiry, and accountability. Similarly,
Reger and von Wichert-Nick [67] say that learning requiring a culture which supports teamwork, supports
experimentation and is open to risks. Examples of cross-national cultural analysis include Carmona and
Grönlund [68] and Kidd [69] (using Nonaka's SECI model).
• These references note the importance also of organisational structure. Lipshitz et al [66] look to roles and
procedures that enable organisational members to collect and analyse data; Reger and von Wichert-Nick [67]
argue that organisational learning needs hierarchy-free communication and flow of information.
As well as culture and structure, Bapuji and Crossan [64] in their analysis of the empirical literature since 1990,
identify as facilitators to organisational learning: strategy, environment, organisational stage and resource position.

4) Knowledge management:. “Knowledge management” (KM) has been developing over a number of years, and its
importance for organisational development is well-recognised. Again, there is not scope here for a full treatment of
-7-
the huge KM literature. Von Krogh et al [70] give an overview of the state of the art in 1998; Ruggles [71]
describes some KM activities, their prevalence and some barriers to successful implementation; Prichard et al [72]
provide broad perspectives on the developmental aspects of KM; and Scarbrough et al [73] give a full review of
literature on KM and learning organisations from 1993-8, noting that literature on learning organisations had been
dropping off in the latter years while that on KM was booming, largely in the IS/IT literature, much in practitioner-
oriented journals: "The dominant discourse of KM (to capture, codify, use and exploit the knowledge and
experience of employees by developing better tools and methods and by developing a willingness and ability to use
those methods) is fundamentally different to that of the Learning Organisations (to harness the learning capability
of the firm and individuals within it through people development, empowerment, leadership and culture change)".

There are different types of KM processes for different situations. Baumard [74] quotes Nonaka giving four
different ways of transferring knowledge: "socialisation" (tacit to tacit), "articulation" (tacit to explicit),
"combination" (explicit to explicit) and "internalization" (explicit to tacit), and describes different knowledge
embodiments in organisations. A number of authors have warned against the frequency with which KM restricts its
attention to codifiable knowledge [38],[75]. Connell et al [76] point to shortcomings in the KM literature with both
the "personalisation" view of KM (knowledge considered inseparable from the person or group that holds it) and
the "codification" view (knowledge seen as a commodity which can be isolated and codified): knowledge needs to
be considered as a property of the system, and embedded within the context. The concentration on codification is
perhaps partly due to the frequent view of KM as part of IT. Scarbrough et al [73] talk about the problem of “this
obsession with tools and techniques”, which they say causes four problems: the assumption that all knowledge is
codifiable, an overemphasis on new information technologies, an assumption that people are willing to share their
knowledge and to use the knowledge from systems, and a rigidifying of the informal and intuitive practices that are
essential in a flexible firm.

C. The current situation

So what is the current situation – are “lessons learned” activities actually carried out in practice? We need to look
at what the literature says both ought to happen, and what actually happens.

1) Standards and maturity models: What do Standards or guidelines say about drawing lessons from projects and
measuring an organisation’s effectiveness at project learning? 80% of project practitioners agree that "post-project
evaluation review" should be in a project management “Body of Knowledge” [77], and standards generally require
project reviews to be carried out, but with little guidance as to how this should operate. The Project Management
Institute’s Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) [78] (an ANSI standard) gives the simple statement
that “The causes of variances, the reasoning behind the corrective action chosen, and other types of lessons learned
should be documented so that they become part of the historical database”. But Strang [79] notes that lessons-
learned come as inputs or outputs to almost all of the knowledge areas and process groups of the PMBoK. In the

-8-
expanded “Pathways” version of the British Body of Knowledge, Wateridge [80] gives a chapter with general
guidance on project-implementation reviews (which considers reasons behind variances and what would have been
done differently in hindsight), project health-checks (stakeholders’ view of the project direction) and project audits
(particularly fraud). PRINCE2 [81] also has a “lessons learned” process, with lessons captured in a Lessons
Learned Log and an end-of-project Lessons Learned Report. “End of project reviews play a vital part in capturing
experience within organisations. PRINCE 2 and ISO 10,006 suggest a review be conducted at the end of every
project, and company standard procedures updated to reflect this.” [20]

Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow’s [17] study of how practices in Project Management differ between industries,
identified different levels of maturity but did not discuss differences in the way organisations learn. Nor did recent
work on Organisational Project Management Maturity [82]; nor really the Risk Management Maturity Model
standard RMRP [83] in which there is no significant discussion of post-project analysis. “Lessons learned” do
come into the Project Management Institute’s OPM3 Organisational Project Management Maturity Model [84], but
with little emphasis or much guidance beyond the PMBoK. However, recent Maturity standards work reported in
Schlichter [85] required a process to capture and disseminate lessons learned and evidence of capture/dissemination
and the reuse of information. Von Zedtwitz [86] also gives a capability model just for post-project reviews.

2) Prevalence. Given that standards require project reviews to be carried out, how common are they in practice?
The literature is somewhat divided. Some papers state as accepted fact that learning is rare. “Few companies
examine their completed projects in any depth” [26]; "Learning from past mistakes, or even building upon past
successes, continues to be the exception rather than the rule" [87]; "Only a few firms manage systematically to
identify and transfer valuable knowledge from projects to following projects” [88]; “[construction management]
teams frequently disband upon project completion without conducting post-project reviews and disseminating the
lessons learned.” [89]. Some on the other hand state as accepted fact that lessons-learned activities and learning
from projects generally occurs in practice (or even “ubiquitous” [90]). "As firms increasingly become more
innovative and project-based, many are recognising the need to capture the learning from individual projects, and
make it available throughout the organisation" [73], and of course learning is particularly important and relevant in
new projects where they are at the state-of-the-art level of technology.

Some give actual statistics, although none give definitive conclusions. Besner and Hobbs [91] found "Lessons
learned" was one of the most frequently used [project management tool], with the use of a lessons-learned database
differing significantly between low and high project-management maturity organisations. In Kotnour’s [19] survey
of 43 project managers who were attending a PMI chapter meeting (so presumably interested in project learning),
31 said they completed lessons. Others on the other hand however find post-project reviews less frequent. Carrillo
et al [89] found that 26% of companies did not have (or plan to have) a knowledge management strategy. Neale and
Holmes [21] found 48% companies used post auditing techniques, with a bias towards manufacturing companies

-9-
and the largest companies (this latter is agreed with by [23]). “80% of all R&D projects are not reviewed at all after
completion, and most of the remaining 20% were reviewed without established review guidelines” [86]. Menke
[18] found that 'Learning from post-project audits' was seen as one of the ten practices which confer R & D
advantage but came in bottom place in frequency of occurrence (24% of companies). In New Product Development
“improvement reviews are a low priority … most interviewed firms conduct reviews only on selected projects, for
example major or unique projects” [92].

A number of case-studies are listed below, and much of the work reported has been based on empirical work in real
cases. But other case-studies are contained in Rasper et al [93] in MDS Sciex; Landes et al [94] in DaimlerChrysler
Corporation; Patriotta [95] looking at Fiat; and Terrell [96].

D. Creating knowledge
Given a requirement to carry out project reviews, the next two sections look at what practices can be used, and
what would inhibit or help learning, firstly at practices for collecting lessons or creating knowledge, then in Section
E at dissemination. This section looks at some practices first, then two particular aspects which emerge as
important from the literature (narratives and understanding systemicity), and factors that inhibit or facilitate
learning.

1) Practice: Individuals firstly need to retain information, then to reflect upon and learn from it. The obvious
suggestion is keeping “learning diaries” [97]. But a journal is most useful if it is reflected upon, and Rigano and
Edwards [98] go on to outline the theoretic background to “reflection” (we have already alluded to reflective
practitioners, led by Schön [99] (see also Smith [52])). As we’ll discuss below, much value can be gained from
recording stories rather than simple “lessons”; NASA is a prime well-known example [100]. Another mechanism is
the “Micro Article” ([101] quoting Wilke), a half-page documentation of experiences and their context.

In moving from individual to group practices, a common practice is to hold a group meeting to look at the project
as a whole, or a facilitated brain-storming session [108]. In Ericsson, regular meetings are held involving all project
members, since "more complex patterns that might span across the whole organisation are more likely to be
uncovered only by a systematic learning effort" [102]. Bullard [103] suggests involving the customer (see also
[104]) Collier et al’s [105] process for post-mortems of IT projects includes collecting data and debriefing
followed by a "Project History Day", involving 6-8 people and a facilitator, with the aim of identifying root causes
- a key reason for including a larger group (explored in detail under “systemicity” below).

One common procedure is to have a post-project review group. British Petroleum's Post Project Appraisal (“PPA”)
Unit [26] assessed about six projects each year, each review taking a team of 2-3 for about 6 months. In Azzone
and Maccarrone’s [23] survey, most firms used a team, averaging 3 members; half of teams were external to the

- 10 -
project (preferred by those doing it for learning rather than for control). The US army deploys teams to collect
lessons and create archives [106]. The Texas State Agencies’ guidelines [107] assumes that “an objective facilitator
runs the process”; many authors recommend an external, neutral moderator or facilitator [101] [108] [109]. The
“Learning History” [110] quoted in various reviews [101], is a document chronologically describing the events of a
project with a storytelling approach, in a particular structure including both participant quotations and commentary
from analysts. One reason for such structures is the underlying complexity in projects and thus in project history.
Boddy and Paton [111] say that the analyst needs to take account of competing, sometime opposite, narratives
which arise from project complexity; they suggest firstly carrying out stakeholder analysis, and secondly creating
structures to enable alternative views to be articulated. This will be explored further below.

Reviews are sometimes carried out during the project rather than only at the end, eg at milestones, and many
authors point to the value of this [19][103][92] [101]. “Valuable learning experiences take place at the beginning of
the project, but are not captured until the post-project review at the end” [20]. In Ericsson [102], review meetings
are held every 3 months; in SmithKline Beecham, there is “a regular structured ongoing project review process”
[112] based on key milestones (see also Hewlett-Packard’s methods [113]).

Different types of projects and different objectives call for different techniques. A third of the sample in Crawford
et al’s [114] survey quoted “lessons learned” as one of the reasons they used a project-categorisation system. The
Texas State Agencies’ guidelines [107] describe tailoring activities, participants’ roles and the deliverables.
Schindler and Eppler [101] give a simple table showing four sets of approaches and their different aspects.
Kotnour’s [19] survey shows the frequencies with which practices were found to fall into different categories. The
most full collections of techniques are given in the landscapes given by Brady et al [13] and Prencipe and Tell
[115] (based on [50]). These papers give learning mechanisms in a matrix of learning processes (divided into
experience accumulation, knowledge articulation and knowledge codification) against organisational level. This
leads to three “ideal types” of approaches: socially-driven (in firms relying significantly on people-embedded
knowledge); “broadly socio-technical” and “staircase”. These tables not only give a useful brief compendium of
methods, they also provide helpful categorisations that would indicate appropriate points of use and techniques.

2) Narratives: We have started moving from statements of facts and lessons learned into the ideas of stories and
narratives, described as fundamental to the learning of individuals [116] and the memory of organisations [117].
The use of stories has recently appeared to be more important to deriving enduring lessons from projects. There is
much literature about storytelling in organisations [118], perhaps the best-known being Gabriel [119] which
describes how stories invite us to engage with the meaning: “storytellers neither accept nor reject ‘reality’. Instead,
they seek to mould it, shape it, and infuse it with meaning, each in a distinct and individual way through the use of
poetic tropes”, which is the mechanism by which he describes attribution (motive, causality, emotion, agency etc)
and which are useful in understanding how projects turn out the way they do (particularly in the light of the

- 11 -
systemic aspects discussed below).

A key reason for the importance of narratives is that projects and thus the reasons underlying project outcomes are
often complex (explored further below). Tsoukas and Hatch [44] give an important paper on complexity and the
subsequent need for narratives, differentiating between logico-scientific and narrative thinking, and explaining
how, because of the nature of project complexity the latter is more suitable. Connell et al [120] show how stories
carry with them the complex organisational context. Linehan and Kavanagh [121] observe that the dominant
ontology in project management is a “being” ontology: over-emphasising reification and representation: “projects
are complex, ambiguous, confusing phenomena wherein the idea of a single, clear goal is at odds with the reality”,
and explain that narratives expose subtle project dynamics and transient actions, often difficult to pin down.

A further reason narratives are useful is because actual practice often differs from company procedures or norms
[122], so that learning happens not just by transmitting explicit knowledge but also by acquiring tacit knowledge
within a communal context (illustrated by Orr's story [123] of photocopier repair workers). A similar use of project
stories is discussed by Koskinen [124], saying that "since the actual work practice often differs from the canonical
practice described in manuals and directive documents, the community of practice plays an important role for
socialising and sharing experiences of workarounds and trouble shooting".

Story-transmission, and sometimes even story-development is a social process. “Story-work is not always a purely
personal process. Some stories are virtually multi-authored, being co-narrated simultaneously…others emerge
accidentally during conversations out of small narrative fragments” [119]. This enables the multiple meanings of
stories to be explored – Boje’s [117] well-known deconstruction of stories of one organization (Walt Disney) for
example stresses parallel storytelling and the multiple-meaning nature of the stories. One particular benefit of this
social aspect is that it enables the emotional aspect of events to be retained [4] [119].

3) Systemicity: We have highlighted understanding systemicity as necessary to gaining learning from projects.
Senge described the need for systemic thinking so that the proper lessons can be learned [125], and this is echoed
by many authors discussing the complexity faced by managers and developing mental models of the systems [126]
[127] [128]. In particular, projects are complex entities, and learning from complex systems needs a more
sophisticated approach than simply writing down “lessons” [129]. Eden et al [130][131], following [132], give an
explanation of what complexity is in projects, showing how chains of causality [56] build up to complex systems of
relationships, often causing systemicity: combinations which appear greater than the sum of their parts, and
particularly where positive feedback builds up.

This needs to be taken account in methods for project learning. Busby’s [25] study of post-project review meetings
found diagnosis shallow because of a preference for causal rather than diagnostic reasoning. Von Zedtwitz’s [86]

- 12 -
four “barriers to success” in post-project reviews included one epistemological category including systemicity. The
"Project History Day" stage of Collier et al’s [105] post-mortem review process has the aim of identifying root
causes. Pitagorsky [133] says that in learning lessons from projects, process thinking and review are essential, for
example to identify cause and effect chains. Many other authors say that the difficulty of identifying causality or
determining the true causes of project performance inhibits learning [134] [15] [135] [136].

Mapping is a key method. The Ericsson methods [102] use a post-it session and mapping. Williams et al [22]
describe a case study showing why (and how) mapping was used to learn lessons (and feed back into risk
management) (similarly [137]). Williams et al [129] describe a more structured approach to develop a full and
detailed understanding of the systemic causes and effects in a project post-mortem for a post-project litigation
situation. A natural development of the use of causal mapping is to turn these into quantitative System Dynamics
simulation models of a project: this is the solution for many of the authors who recognised systemicity above, for
example PA Consulting Group [138][15] and the Eden/Williams/ Ackermann/Howick school [139] [22]. Franco et
al [140] widen this out to describe various Problem Structuring methods, specifically Strategic Choice, for inter-
organizational post-project reviews.

4) Facilitating factors and hindrances: Some issues that inhibit or facilitate the collection of lessons learned and
the creation of knowledge have been covered above, but this section draws some remaining advice together.
• 68% of Carrillo et al’s [89] survey quoted “not enough time” as a main barrier to learning, and other authors
cite inadequate time and too many other pressures as inhibitors [141][142]. Styhre et al [143] call for slack to
allow for discussions and training, and cite practical difficulties of arranging a meeting after the project team
has dispersed (similarly [101]). Zollo and Winter [50] state that "Opportunity cost considerations have the
somewhat paradoxical effect of tending to suppress learning when it is most valuable and needed".
• Clearly related to the issue of time are the issues of what incentives there are on team members to contribute to
organisational learning, and the resources available to carry out the exercises ([21], [89], [141], [144]), or,
“implementing reward systems that encourage people to engage in thoughtful dialogue” (Kotnour and Hjelm
[145]). (And an increase in sub-contract workers takes away the incentive to provide organisational learning
[146]). Key to tapping tacit knowledge is the employees’ sense of personal identification with the enterprise
and its mission [40]. The issue of available resources depends on the commitment of senior management,
called for by a number of authors [106][147][142].
• A key set of factors relate to organisational culture, in particular the social and behavioural processes involved
in capturing knowledge [148]. 76% in Carrillo et al’s [89] survey quoted “organizational culture” as a barrier.
Kotnour and Hjelm’s [145] other factors (following that quoted above) are part of the organisational culture
(including “building a community of learners”, discussed further below). In particular, a blame culture inhibits
learning [133], [21], [143], [25] (this last reference noting that the norm of constructive criticism inhibits

- 13 -
 criticism with no immediate solutions). Schindler and Eppler [101] include similar reasons. Glanville [149]
claims that factors which limit effectiveness include fear of failure, ambition, unwillingness to speak about
difficult issues, threat that the project might be curtailed, and a desire to justify the past. Morris and Loch [150]
point to “culture and strategic intent” as important influences. For von Zedtwitz [86] two of the four barriers to
success are psychological and team-based shortcomings, and others quote issues around psychological safety
[142] [151]. More positively, von Krogh [43] says that the key enabler is care, which brings trust, empathy,
lenience in judgement etc (Barker and Neailey [152] also call for an inclusive and positive process).
• Analysis can be biased by the manager or researcher's beliefs and values or by available data [134]. But there
are other more subtle cognitive factors, including hindsight bias [153][135]; “denial of agency” (attributing
blame for failure either on inevitability or conspiracy rather than unintended consequences [154]); and the
mind-set generated by the existence of accepted project-management practices [155].
• Formal procedures are often cited as being important to collecting lessons, although "There is some indication
that incorporating a formal process for learning pays off handsomely, but it is, as yet, based on insufficient
evidence to be at all reliable" (Cooke-Davies [156] in 1996). A number of authors have called for organisation
and formal methods [157][92][147][143]. Schindler and Eppler [101] claimed two reasons for not learning
lessons were “lacking knowledge of project debriefing methods” and “lacking enforcement of the procedures”.
• It is important to have a cross-section of people available when collecting lessons [22], with formal meetings
between different groups and different phases [143], and obtaining multiple perspectives, including possibly
external to the team [92]. Cicmil [158] says that projects can only be understood by looking at a number of
perspectives simultaneously, and presents a framework to help think about what knowledge about projects is
needed, and indeed what types of knowledge is needed as the perspectives have different ontologies.

E. Transferring knowledge
This section looks at practices for disseminating knowledge: after discussing what organisational learning means
for projects, specific practices will be studied, factors that inhibiting or facilitate organisational learning, and finally
one particular aspect which emerges as important from the literature (Communities of Practice).

1) Organisational learning and knowledge management in projects: We have looked at how organisations learn in
general. This section will look at how learning specifically from projects gets distributed around the organisation,
(useful reviews are given in [159], [150]).

The first question is whether the knowledge to be transferred is explicit and codifiable or tacit and personal, which
need to be treated by IT-based and people-based methods respectively [160] – depending on what is believed in the
range from "all knowledge can be codified" and "all codified knowledge requires tacit knowledge to be useful"
([161] quoted in [115]). Formal IT techniques for transferring knowledge appear to be beneficial, at least for

- 14 -
transferring explicit knowledge [162][163], and Liebowitz and Megbolugbe [164] provides an instrument for
measuring knowledge-sharing effectiveness. The exchange of tacit information is clearly more difficult [165]. The
PMBoK Guide [78] gives no guidance on transfer of tacit knowledge [166]. Bresnen et al [144] highlight the
particular difficulties of knowledge capture and transfer for process rather than product innovation. Lindqvist et
al’s [167] found that the transfer of knowledge relied on connecting people in networks. Schoeniger [168] also
stressed the importance of people in knowledge-management (networks, mentoring etc). Morris and Loch claim
that, because of the nature of projects, “socialization would seem to be the bedrock” [150], and suggest a bias
towards learning and sense-making by narratives rather than decomposition into explicit knowledge. Koskinen
[169] amplifies the tacit/explicit distinction, giving that IT based methods are good for additive (incremental) and
explicit knowledge based projects (e.g. house building), but for substitutive and tacit knowledge based projects
(e.g. product development) knowledge needs to be produced through face-to-face interactions.

In project-based structures, there is little incentive or structure for long-term organisational learning [170]. Bresnen
et al [14] discuss the contradiction between short-term aims of projects and long-term aim of organisational
learning, showing that knowledge management depends on the degree of the organisation’s projectisation; new
project-management knowledge derives not only from rules and resources etc but also "from how actors make
sense of and enact the system or practice…..it becomes important to understand the interactions between key
structural features of project-based organisations, on the one hand and localized project-based working practices on
the other". Various authors stress that the organisational structure generally is key in promoting organisational
learning and transfer of knowledge [171] [172]. Reger and von Wichert-Nick [67] say that organisational learning
needs: hierarchy-free communication and flow of information, a primary structure which is hierarchical and a
secondary structure which is "supra-heirarchical and coordination-oriented", as well as a suitable culture.

There is little literature on the "quality" of organisational learning. Naot et al [173] describe one attempt to define
this using Lipshitz et al's [66] model; they found 22 indicators summarised as: outcomes, processes and immediate
context; they also discuss assimilation, distinguishing this from short-term implementation.

2) Practices for distributing lessons: Much of the literature on practices for disseminating knowledge has already
been covered; this section gives some additional points.

The obvious method is the use of a database of “lessons learned”, perhaps the most well-known being NASA’s
[174]. This is assumed in many papers and is clearly appropriate for capturing explicit knowledge. Examples of IT
systems built are given in [175] [176]. Databases come first in the list of “retention practices” in Keegan and
Turner [141], along with reviews, training, competence models, learning resource centres, the intranet, quality
procedures/standards and centres of excellence. But clearly the existence of a data-base is not sufficient. Lessons
learned which are stored in a database should be easy to retrieve [92]. Bullard [112] emphasises "pushing"

- 15 -
information out to the organisation through web-based training, revisions to process template etc. Of course there
are more traditional ways of taking knowledge out: BP's “PPA” Unit [26] distribute results by reports and booklets;
Garvin [177] talks about reports, tours, staff transfers etc; Gibson and Pfautz [112] discuss “mentors”. The use of
groups of people either sharing knowledge or specific sub-groups as conduits of this knowledge is clearly
important. The first of these we shall return to later in “Communities of Practice”; an example of the second would
be Hewlett-Packard’s Project Management Initiative group, which acts as a "conduit for success stories and best
practices" [113].

These individual techniques are of course not independent: Eppler and Sukowski [178] describe a layered approach
moving from the communications infrastructure, to shared norms, to knowledge management processes and
leadership commitment. Again, Brady et al [13] and Prencipe and Tell [115] (drawing on [50]) give a whole
landscape of organisational learning mechanisms displayed in a matrix, with differentiation between circumstances
relying on people-embedded knowledge, based on a knowledge articulation process, or using ICT to support
learning. Brady et al [13] also suggest that there could be a relationship between practices and particular
characteristics of a project, such as technical complexity, technical novelty, project timing, organisational size, and
project organisation style.

3) Facilitating factors and hindrances: The literature gives various advice on what inhibits or facilitates
dissemination. Much has been covered, but this section tries to draw remaining advice together. Poor IT is
sometimes blamed for inadequacy in transferring knowledge [89]. But as we have seen, use of IT is only a part of
the knowledge-management process [179], and a number of authors comment on the dangers of over-reliance on IT
for sharing learning [180][90] (and Anderson cited in [144]). The temporary nature of projects is a major factor
inhibiting learning [47]. As Scarbrough et al [181] discuss, projects sit outside the mainstream organisational
structures, which helps develop practices but inhibits flow to other parts of the organisation, reinforcing the
division between organisation practices and project practices – a "learning boundary". Bresnen et al [14] highlight
“decentralization, the short-term emphasis on project performance and distributed work practices”, saying that the
circumstances of project-based organization create their own logic of action that poses particular problems for the
embedding of knowledge”. Morris [182] points to similar reasons, but also points out that projects have a strong
process basis (eg gate review) offering particular opportunities for organisational learning.

But two of the most important elements facilitating or hindering the transfer of knowledge are the same two key
aspects in D above: the structure and the culture of the organisation.

"For learning to become organizational, there must be roles, functions, and procedures that enable organizational
members to systematically collect, analyze, store, disseminate, and use information " [66]. Sense and Antoni [183]
carried out an empirical study and found six key factors impacting learning, three within projects and three between

- 16 -
projects; the latter being organizational structures between projects, inter-project assimilation practices and the
relationship with other projects. Scarbrough et al [184] found a number of organizational factors which influence
learning including project team autonomy, co-location, socialisation, "batching" of projects, specialization and the
links between different sub-units. (See also others concerning organisational structure [171][185][68][87]). The
project team itself also has a structure which affects learning [183] [186].

“Organizational culture” is cited as a major barrier to [89], or main enabler of [179], learning. Lipshitz et al [66]
developed 5 values which promote learning: transparency, integrity, issue-orientation, inquiry and accountability.
Sense and Antoni [183] found three key factors: individual authority level, project sponsor actions and
organizational environment. Carmona and Grönlund’s [68] Sweden/Spain study looked at power distance and
uncertainty avoidance (see also Kidd [69]). Another important aspect of organisational culture is openness [60],
[187]. Another is the desire to learn: Harris [87] claims that one of the reasons lessons are rarely learned is because
of reliance upon existing routines; Cooke-Davies [156] finds the need for a focus /culture of searching for
improvement and a structured process which challenges the status quo. What motivates members of the
organisation to invest in sharing lessons, and in seeking learning? Top management support is clearly important
[188]. Sense [189] develops a matrix of different types of learning depending on the sources being formal /
informal, and the project manager’s political approach being influencing / accommodation; Bourne and Walker
[190] emphasise organisational politics. However, it should be noted that Szulanski [191] claims that motivational
factors are not the major barriers to knowledge transfer, rather they are knowledge-related factors.

Different policies are suitable for difference circumstances and organisations, but some authors have pointed to
particular policies. Five of Huber’s [192] facilitating factors involve staffing practice, institutionalised sharing and
explicating evolving knowledge, institutionalised delivering "lessons learned" files, transferring knowledgeable
members into a new team, and identifying an absorptive member of a need-to-know unit. Levene and Gale’s [179]
key enablers to learning include management methods and procedures. Other facilitating or hindering factors noted
in the literature include metrics [179], dissemination by inviting outsiders to reviews [25], and a variety of aspects
noted in Lynn et al’s [136] study of NPD teams.

4) Communities of Practice: Much of the knowledge sharing process is a social, inter-personal process. There have
been various models of how such a process can be set up, but one particular model in favour in recent years is
“Communities of Practice” (CoP) (Wenger [193]). These are communities of interest that cut across project teams,
and enable sharing within the permanent organisation, partly overcoming the problems related to the temporary
nature of projects [194]. “The defining feature of communities of practice (as opposed to, say, project teams) is that
they are seen to emerge spontaneously from the (largely informal) networking among groups of individuals who
have similar work-related activities and interests” [195].

- 17 -
This means of bringing together personnel seems to reflect the way that learning actually happens in projects.
Styhre et al [143] claimed that in their domain culture is oral, people learn through mentoring, discussing practical
problems and storytelling. In Lindqvist et al’s [167] study, transfer of knowledge relied on connecting people
through formal or informal networks, in preference to accessing the organisations' formal systems. Brown and
Duguid [122] take these ideas and show how they lead to structures such as CoPs: the ways people actually work
usually differ fundamentally from organisations’ canonical practice, and learning happens by acquiring tacit
knowledge within a communal context as well as explicit knowledge; “communities are emergent. That is to say
their shape and membership emerges in the process of activity, as opposed to being created to carry out a task.” It
should be said, though, that Scarbrough et al [181] point out that CoPs in stable organisational contexts help
learning but can form a “learning boundary” inhibiting transferring learning to other contexts. Steichen [196]
describes Boeing’s CoP for Project Management. But the idea of CoPs can in fact be taken beyond the individual
organisation. Perhaps prime examples of this is Cooke-Davies’s work: the "network of 15 blue-chip organisations
…that have been working together ... to identify and benchmark ‘best project management practice’" [156] or the
CoP of project managers in the pharmaceutical industry [17].

F. Conclusion and preparation of Survey of Practice

The literature above (Section A) shows that project reviews or “post mortems” are important, but difficult for a
variety of reasons, including the "temporary organisation" aspect of projects. Standards (Section C1) suggest they
should be done but give little guidance as to how to do them. Looking at some conclusions of the literature survey
invites a number of questions which will form the structure of a survey of practice, numbered (i)-(viii) below.

The literature (D1) gives a number of techniques to facilitate knowledge-capture. Various techniques were also
described to support knowledge dissemination (E2); IT-mediated methods (eg a data-base) are more appropriate for
codifiable knowledge and socialisation methods are more appropriate for tacit knowledge; there is increasing
interest in Communities of Practice (E5), particularly for complex or tacit knowledge. The literature (C2) is divided
as to whether “learning from projects” is ubiquitous or a fairly rare occurrence. And there is little in the literature
on how successful these practices are in general, let alone individual practices.
(i) How often are such activities carried out in practice?
(ii) How frequently are these various techniques used?
(iii) How successful do practitioners consider they are in learning from projects?

The culture and structure of the organisation seem to be key success factors in collecting and disseminating lessons.
Time and opportunity-cost considerations, lack of incentives, management support and formal procedures seem to
be inhibitors. (B3, D4, E1, E3)
(iv) What aspects of an organisation (or particular techniques) are associated with perceived
success in lessons-learned?

- 18 -
 (v) What do practitioners consider “best practice” and what stops them implementing that?
(vi) Are these inhibiting factors found in practice?

One particular issue in the literature (D3) is that it appears to be important sometimes to understand the causality
producing the complex systemicity underlying project outcomes, so that root-causes are difficult to identify.
(vii) Is finding root-causes found to be a problem in practice?

A second particular issue found in Section D2 is that the social process of narrative telling and recording can be
effective to explore project issues, capturing their complexity and behaviours outside organisational norms.
(viii) Do practitioners feel that narratives can be or are useful in lessons-learned?

(It is perhaps also worth noting that there is much research in knowledge (particularly tacit knowledge), personal
learning, organisational learning and knowledge management, which does not seem to have been translated into
practical benefits for developing project management methodologies – see particularly Sections B and E1 above,
but this has informed all of the literature survey and survey.)

III. SURVEY OF PRACTICE

A The survey.
This section then describes the results of an online survey of project managers, exploring in reality the ideas found
in the literature survey. The questionnaire consisted of five segments.
• Segment 1 aimed to look at what organisations currently actually did about lessons-learned. This aimed to
answer questions (i) and (ii) above, and is discussed in Section B below.
• Segment 2 aimed to look at how successful respondents felt organisations were at learning lessons. This aimed
to answer question (iii) above and is discussed in Section C below. Question (vii) is also dealt with here
• Section D below discusses the relationships between characteristics of the organisations and the “success” in
Segment 2, and aims to answer question (iv) above
• Segment 3 asked what respondents felt was best practice in the area and Segment 4 asked what respondents felt
stopped them doing more to learn lessons. These aimed to answer questions (v) and (vi) and above and are
discussed in Section E below. Question (vii) is also dealt with here
• Segment 5 asked some demographic questions, and the results are used throughout where significant results
were found.

The questionnaire was piloted with a small group of experienced project managers from the UK, US and China,
and there were 522 usable responses. Despite strenuous efforts to widen the scope of the survey, 96% of the

- 19 -
respondents were members of the Project Management Institute, although only 54% had a project management
qualification (of whom 83% were PMP). It is also clear that the response was skewed towards those with an
interest in “lessons learned” activity. The industry which was most highly represented in the survey was IT (26%),
followed by manufacturing, finance and consulting / business management. Organisations varied widely in size.
Unsurprisingly, the respondents to this survey came from project-oriented organisations. The maturity of project
management within the organisations was described as ad hoc (8.4% of respondents), encouraged informally
(26.1%), integrated into the organisation’s processes (41.4%) or integrated and continuously improving (24.1%);
these stages align with standard maturity models, and are described as “ad hoc”, “encouraged”, “integrated”, and
“mature” in this paper.

Results in this section are summarized; much more detailed results are given in the PMI report [7]. There is a
certain amount of statistical analysis of the data in this document. However, it should be noted that factor analysis
did not generate any interesting results because of the colinearity of the data.

B What are organisations doing?

62.4% of the responses said their organisation had formal procedures for learning lessons from projects, although
of these only 11.7% said that they were closely adhered to. There was a strong correlation between this variable
and the maturity of project management in the organisation (which is not surprising, as maturity of project
management is defined by organisations having processes to carry out activities such as lessons-learned). 32% of
organisations have a specific department which is responsible for supporting learning from projects. The main
roles of these departments are to capture learning from projects, to ensure compliance to standards, and to transfer
learning to future departments.

The frequency with which organisations do lessons learned activities is much greater for organisations where
project management is more mature (again this is to some extent a truism), as shown in Figure 1
Project-management projects for which there is a lessons learned activity (%)
maturity all most some ad hoc None
mature 29.8 32.2 22.3 9.9 5.8
integrated 16.7 23.9 30.6 21.1 7.7
Encouraged or ad hoc 4.4 9.4 31.3 39.4 15.6

Figure 1: Organisations where PM is more mature do lessons learned for more projects

However it should be noted that a few (seven in number) organisations where project management is mature said
they do no lessons learned activity. Furthermore, organisations doing lessons learned activities were coded
depending on whether they did these activities on a regular basis (either on completion of major milestones or
deliverables or at regular intervals), post project only, ad hoc only or in reaction to problems or business needs only
or some combination; the most widespread practice was to do lessons learned on completion of the project only,

- 20 -
reported by 51.1% of the organisations, with no significant difference between organisations of different maturities.
The greatest differences arose when comparing organisations doing lessons learned at regular intervals (33.6% of
mature organisations compared to 10.7% of organisations where project management is encouraged or ad hoc) and
in reaction to problems or business needs only (3.4% compared to 13.4%).

People most commonly involved in the lessons learned activities are Project Management staff and technical staff,
as shown in Figure 2. It is interesting to note that outside personnel (customers or subcontractors) are involved in
lessons learned more often than might be expected from the literature; on the other hand, there appears to be less
presence of other types of internal staff, such as financial, contract/legal or human-resource-management staff.

People involved in lessons learned

% of organisations
0 20 40 60 80 100

PM staff 94.8
technical staff 69.9
senior mgmt 35.1
customers 28.4
subcontractors 15.5
financial staff 11.2
contract/legal staff 10.1
HRM staff 1.7

Figure 2. People involved in lessons learned

The survey presented the respondent with lists of processes aimed at capturing lessons and transferring them
outside the project team, drawn from the literature, experience, and the pilot questionnaires. To capture lessons, the
processes used most often were meetings/workshops (77.8% of organisations), followed by individual interviews
and project audits / health checks; these processes and learning diaries were used significantly more in project-
management-mature organisations. Other processes on the list were learning histories / narratives, seeking the view
of the public / customers, a process coordinated by a facilitator external to the project; and a process coordinated by
a team external to the project. To transfer lessons, the processes most often used were written documentation,
individuals moving on to new projects, “ad hoc” and presentations / conferences. Other processes on the list were
corporate training, IT mediated methods (eg database), learning networks / CoPs, learning resource centre,
mentoring, short micro-articles or video clips, and writing lessons into company procedures.Again, project-
management-mature organisations are more likely to use all the processes listed with the exception of ad hoc

- 21 -
processes and moving people; similar differences in use of processes can be seen between organisations having and
adhering to formal procedures and those which do not, though the differences are not as great.

There were differences in project management maturity found in the survey between the different sectors, with IT,
extraction and utilities generally more mature and government and academia less mature. However the differences
were only significant for IT and government. There were few significant differences reported in the processes used
by the different industries; the two most distinct industries are construction and government, construction making
greater use of presentations and project audits and less use of mentoring than other industries, and government
making less use of IT, presentations and project audits..

Around a third of respondents identified methods other than the methods listed in the questionnaire, of whom over
a third gave some sort of data-base-oriented answer, or a similar searchable electronic file, almost a third gave an
answer involving personally asking other people who had been involved in projects, and a number effectively
describing documentation which had to be looked up. There were a variety of other answers, mostly giving similar
methods to the lists above, a couple revealing significant frustrations, and some describing serious attention to the
lessons-learned process, such as for example: “Customer-facing project managers…are required to revisit lessons
learned documented on previous projects that are similar in nature and interview the project manager to gain a
better understanding of the challenges encountered. This becomes an agenda item in their project kick-off meeting.
They are also required to revisit the Risk Mgmt Plan regularly and share with the appropriate team members at
least monthly to ensure a common vision is shared”.

C. How successful are these processes?

Respondents were asked for their views on “How good are your processes for learning from projects?” and “How
useful would you say are the lessons you learn?” based on lists of issues taken from the literature, as in Figure 3:
Clearly, these are only the respondents’ subjective views, and self-reporting cannot fully determine the degree of
success in the processes (a little study of which was done more objectively in the last activity in the research
proposal [7]). However, respondents will have informed views of where their methods are failing them, and this
was well-captured in the survey. The object of “lessons learned” activities is to increase the understanding of
participants, and they clearly have views of where they feel their understanding is not being enhanced.

quality of processes % tend to agree or

strongly agree
lessons are generalisable to other projects 70.4
outputs are truthful 68.2
we identify clear issues 67.3
we prioritise issues 58.6
we learn complex lessons 57.4
we avoid blame 57.3

- 22 -
 people share learning about failures 57.3
we create knowledge rather than simply collecting data 44.9
we get to the root-causes of project outcomes 40.5

Figure 3: Agreement with statements relating to the quality of the processes

Measuring success in terms of increased competency, the benefits of doing lessons learned were perceived to
accrue significantly more to the individuals (86.7% agreed that “my competency as a project manager has
increased”) than to the organisation (60.8% agreed that “project competency within the organisation has
increased”, and only 55.1% agreed that “projects are more successful”).

The transfer of lessons within an organisation appears to be one of the major difficulties of learning from projects:
on every question relating to this there was stronger disagreement (that the potential benefit actually occurred) than
agreement. Nearly half of respondents (47.8%) agree that the lessons learned are transferred from the individual to
the project team. A much smaller percentage (35.6%) agree that they are transferred to other project teams, and
only 22.2% agree that they are transferred elsewhere in the organisation. However in 65.5% of organisations,
lessons learned from projects are either sometimes or routinely implemented into the organisations processes, and
56.9% of organisations have changed their strategy because of the lessons learned process; clearly some lessons are
being learned within the organisations despite the somewhat gloomy assessment by respondents.

Around 20% of responses indicated that they use at least one way of measuring their processes. Less than half of
these said they measured their processes for effectiveness, and there was little indication as to how this was done.

D. Factors contributing to the perceived success of lessons learned

This section looks at relationships between respondents’ views about how successful their organisations’ processes
are and the characteristics of those organisations. The clearest relationship was that organisations where project
management is more mature (“integrated” or “mature”) and those which have and adhere to formal procedures are
more likely to agree with all the above statements about process success with the exception of “my competency as
a project manager has increased” (which would be expected as this is an indication of the effect on the individual
not the organisation). The strength of agreement with all of these statements increases as the maturity increases or
similarly as the adherence to procedures is stronger (using four categories for each scale, significant at 95% using
the Jonckheere-Terpstra test). Differences are particularly large for “we get to the root-causes of project
outcomes”, and all statements concerning the transfer of lessons. For “lessons move from the project team to the
organisation” companies are more than three times more likely to agree if they have formal procedures or their
project management is integrated or mature. Figure 4 illustrates two of these differences. Organisations where
project management is less mature gain no significant benefit from having and adhering to formal procedures.
There is a significant benefit where project management is integrated.

- 23 -
 We get to the root causes of project outcomes Learning is achieved across cultures
50
70

60
40

50

30
40

30 20

20
10
10 strongly agree strongly agree

%
%

0 tend to agree 0 tend to agree

ad hoc encouraged integrated mature ad hoc encouraged integrated mature

Maturity of project management Maturity of project management

Figure 4: Companies where PM is mature are much more likely to agree with the above statements

Organisations which do lessons learned activities on a regular basis (on completion of major milestones or
deliverables or at regular intervals) are more likely to agree with almost all of the above success statements
(though, interestingly, not “we avoid issues of blame”, “we learn complex lessons”, “lessons are generalisable”,
“learning is achieved across cultures” and the individual statement, “my own competency has increased”). This is
true for many of the statements even after allowing for the maturity of the organisation.

There appears to be little relationship between the demographic data on the organisations on the success statements.
However, perhaps not surprisingly, organisations which have a specific department for lessons learned are
significantly more likely to agree on all statements relating to the transfer of lessons, and many of the statements
relating to the quality of the process, such as “we get to the root-causes of project outcomes” and “we create
knowledge rather than collecting data”.

It was also felt useful to see which processes correspond to increased perceptions of success. The success criteria
were therefore compared between those organisations that did or did not use the processes listed in the
questionnaire, and a chi-squared test carried out to see whether a process correlated with improved effectiveness.
To capture lessons, the use of project audits and meetings correlated well; asking the customer and using an
external facilitator did not; other relationships all but disappeared when controlling for project management
maturity. To transfer lessons, the use of almost any process appeared to correlate with getting to the root causes of
a problem and all aspects of transfer within the same culture; many of these relationships disappear when
controlling for project management maturity, although where project management is “integrated” about half of the
correlations persist. For organisations where project management is ad hoc or encouraged, there is a correlation
between using presentations and transferring lessons to later projects.

- 24 -
E “Best practice”
Respondents were also asked what they felt was best practice. They were firstly presented with a set of practices
for capturing lessons, and asked which did the respondent think their organisation should be doing. All were felt to
be important by a majority of the respondents, except for the use of a specific lessons-learned department (the
modal response was “useful but not essential”), and the use of project-external facilitators or teams. However, there
is a big discrepancy between the importance which project managers assigned to the various practices for learning
lessons and their use in practice as shown in Figure 5. Respondents were also asked whether there were any other
practices they felt their organisation should be doing; a minority of respondents gave substantive answers (and of
these a large number asked for a searchable database tool, which came in the following question about transferring
lessons), but there was a small collection of methods that were proposed, each by only one or two respondents.

Which practices should you be doing?

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

formal procedure
meetings
project audits
lessons at all stages
thought to be important or very
learning diaries important
narratives organisations using this
interview
specific dept
ext facilitator
ext team

Figure 5. Practices organisations should be doing to capture lessons and those which are actually done

Similarly, the questionnaire presented the respondent with a set of practices for transferring lessons to future
projects, and asked which did respondent thought their organisation should be doing. All were felt to be important
by a majority of the respondents, except the use of micro-articles/video clips and (again) the use of a specific
lessons-learned department (again, the modal response was “useful but not essential”). Again there are big
disparities between the importance which project managers assign to the various practices for transferring lessons
and their use in practice, occurring across all techniques, similarly to the previous question. Particularly noticeable
was that 88.9% felt that “encourage learning networks / communities of practice” was important or very important,
but only 11.6% said their organisation did this; and the figures were 78.5% and 17.1% respectively for “Construct a
learning history / narrative of the project after the event” – the very areas highlighted in the literature survey.
Respondents were again asked an open question about other methods. Around a quarter answered, a good half of
those stating that a database or similar was needed (or assumed its existence in their answer); other answers

- 25 -
included more sophisticated document management or content management systems; some were geared towards
socialisation ideas; other talked about embedding lessons learned within company procedures and processes. Two
responses explain the “lived experience” that is important for absorbing lessons: “No one gains experience through
reading cold data the only way to gain experience is to do something yourself or empathise with someone who has.
This is important in organisational learning as it hangs a lesson in a story that someone remembers and puts into
their own context...” and, “I don't believe a third party can be responsible. They didn't live the ‘issues’. I believe
it is the project team itself that must be responsible for gathering and documenting the lessons learned…”

Respondents were also asked what hindered people in their organisations from putting more effort into the lessons-
learned process (both capture and transfer), only 8.4% of people agreeing that they already put in enough effort,
from a pre-defined list of reasons taken from the literature survey. The main reasons for not doing more were lack
of employee time (67%) and lack of management support, followed by lack of incentive, lack of resources and lack
of clear guidelines, each cited by more than 50% of respondents. When asked if there were any “other” reasons,
only 63 replies were given, covering the culture (many specifically mentioned a “blame culture”), lack of a
database, lack of incentive of the process being too much time or effort and a few other responses.

Finally (following the interest in narratives found in the Literature Survey), respondents were asked whether they
felt that more “stories” or case studies would be of significant value, to which 83% responded “yes”.

Conclusions
There is clearly a big disparity between the processes project managers think their organisations should be doing
and those which are actually done. Project management-mature organisations are much more likely to carry out
lessons-learned activities, are likely to do these activities regularly throughout the project, and are unlikely to do so
simply in response to circumstances. Outside personnel (customers or subcontractors) are often involved in lessons
learned; but not internal staff not directly involved with the project.

A number of factors are felt to correlate with more effective learning, including maturity of project management,
use of formal procedures (but only where project-management is mature), having a specific lessons-learned
department, doing lessons learned throughout the project, and doing project audits. These relationships are most
notable in areas where organisations experience the greatest difficulties. There is no single process which improves
the effectiveness of lessons learned for organisations where project management is least mature.

The least successful aspect of learning is the transfer of lessons learned within an organisation, particularly from
the project team to the organisation. But there is also a key problem with getting to the root-cause of project
outcomes. The most successful aspect is the increased competency of individual project managers, however the
organisation does lessons-learned.

- 26 -
Lack of employee time and lack of management support are the leading reasons for lessons-learned not being
undertaken as well as lack of incentive/resources/guidelines; another reason cited was a blame-culture

IV.TESTING OF IDEAS IN PRACTICE

The latter two activities in the research tested some of these ideas and conclusions in practice. For reasons of space,
these activities cannot be fully reported here; they are described in the final project report [7].

Firstly, in order to get more insight into what happens within individual organisations, interviews were held with
managers on the use of “lessons learned” within their organisations. Six senior personnel (five UK and one US)
were interviewed from different organisations, using semi-structured interviews in order to both establish
processes, seek views about these practices, and investigate any anecdotes that might indicate success or failure of
the practices. The organisations spanned very large down to medium-sized; they included private and public,
manufacturing and IT.

Solutions found were heavily determined by the type and size of project and organisation. A very large company
performing very large, complex leading-technology projects eschewed formal procedures in favour of an approach
closer to Communities of Practice (with many mid-project reviews in view of the very long projects). A public
body required to utilize PRINCE2-type procedures [81] had a system which fitted within the organisational stage-
gate system, and used a data-base approach but distinguished particularly in having strong elements of narrative to
bring the lessons alive. A company carrying out smallish projects, fairly self-contained in a smallish unit, had a
well-enforced but more informal lessons-learned process. Other interviews illustrated the inter-personal issues that
need to be considered in planning such a process, and also the relationship between the “stories” of a project and its
documentation.

It is likely that organisations differ significantly in their requirements for lessons-learned systems. The size of the
organisation, the size and complexity of their projects, their geographical dispersity, and so on, all require different
customizations of the methods for gathering and disseminating lessons – there is no “one size fits all” here.

The final activity looked in more detail at a particular organisation, a small UK governmental body. The
organisation followed the standard process within the UK public sector, PRINCE2 [81], in which end-of-project
reports were prepared, including “lessons-learned”. It had recently set up a Centre of Excellence, which had
collated lessons-learned into a small but growing data-base; however, the content of this was felt to be somewhat
anodyne and it was suggested that full value was not being obtained from the process.

- 27 -
The organisation had recently undertaken a significant IT-enabled change programme, using outside project
management contractors. The programme had somewhat over-run in time and cost but had delivered the required
deliverables; lessons-learned activities had been carried out. It was decided to use this programme as an example
for this study. The resulting report, some 6000 words long, was not therefore a programme review, rather the
programme was used as a vehicle for studying the lessons-learned process and making proposals for improvement.

Semi-structured interviews were held with a number of project participants, particularly asking three types of
questions. The first type of question looked at issues and the overall outcome, and asked why these arose, working
back along the causal chain; the results above clearly show that getting to root-causes is important and difficult.
The second type of questions (“so what?”) explored the effects of identified project issues, to understand why these
issues are important. The lessons-learned data-base as it currently existed was normative, stating what “should” be
done. While these might be generally correct statements, it might not be apparent why they are being made (and,
being generalisations, there might be exceptions), and the “so what” shows why future projects should take notice;
the lack of this might be contributing to the feeling that the current data-base seems anodyne. The programme
studied, although large for this organisation, was small compared to many projects that are the subject of research;
however, even here there was some complexity in the systemic inter-relationships between issues that arose, and
capturing this systemicity, using mapping as an illustration, gave explanations for some behaviours which were not
obvious until the systemicity had been explored (similar to the case-study in [137]). The third type of question
asked was about the process of collecting lessons; one of the key issues for this (small, Civil-service) organisation
was the inhibitions placed on the lessons-learned process by issues of blame, which also contributed to making the
lessons-learned reports more anodyne; the existence of the Centre of Excellence unit, perhaps with the power to
offer anonymity, is likely to be useful in getting over this problem.

It was a clear conclusion from the literature survey that the social process of narrative telling and recording can be
an effective way to explore project issues, capturing complexity (and eg non-canonical behaviour). The types of
lessons quoted in the data-base in this case-study would also clearly benefit from capturing the stories around the
lessons to explain how the situation occurred and what the ramifications were.

The final issue investigated, highlighted in the online survey, was the dissemination of lessons learned throughout
the organisation, although such issues were slightly mitigated by the small size of the organisation (which also
exacerbated issues of “blame”). The literature survey clearly distinguished between social methods, appropriate for
tacit knowledge, and IT-mediated methods, appropriate for codifiable knowledge. The organisation had set up a
lessons-learned data-base, although consideration needed to be given to how to disseminate lessons within the data-
base. But in terms of sharing of tacit knowledge, the mechanisms within the organisation for disseminating tacit
knowledge were not clear at all, and the ideas of “communities of practice” in the Literature Survey became
relevant, and again the role of the Centre of Excellence as a facilitator as well as conduit of knowledge is important

- 28 -
here.

V CONCLUSION

Looking at our Research Questions,

(i) This work has given us a good idea of what current practice looks like, and also what is generally considered
to be ‘best practice’.
(ii) However, it is not clear that current techniques actually achieve their purpose, and there were a range of
issues identified that need addressing. The survey provided respondents’ self-reporting of where current
methods were not providing the increase in understanding that they expected, and the final activity in the
research project supported these points.
(iii) We have however identified some techniques to help draw out difficult lessons from the projects.
(iv) Finally, the dissemination of lessons and incorporation of lessons into organisational practice has received
less attention in this brief study, and clearly needs further research.

Some themes which emerge from this paper can be identified as follows.

Learning lessons from project reviews is felt to be very important and an integral part of the "learning
organisation". There was a good amount of support for further work in this area and improving practice. However,
the survey shows that there is a wide disparity between what is done and what project managers feel “should” be
done. Leading reasons for this are clearly lack of employee time and lack of management support. The literature
suggests that the culture and structure of the organisation are likely to be key factors inhibiting or facilitating the
process; and both the survey and the case-study showed blame-culture to be a key inhibiting factor. The survey
indicated that formal processes seem to assist the process (eg a specific department responsible for lessons-
learned), but only in a project-management-mature organisation. This has increased our understanding of what is
happening in practice, and given some pointers to where attention needs to be paid in practice.

There is a significant stream of literature that shows that because of the complex systemicity underlying project
outcomes, it is difficult to see the causality and thus difficult to gain appropriate lessons. The case-study showed
that the use of causal-mapping helped uncover some of this causality. But the survey clearly showed that project-
managers perceive that their methods are not getting to the root-cause of project outcomes, and that this is one of
their main concerns. While the theoretical research is there in the literature, this clearly needs further development
in practice to derive useful, practical methods that can help organisations.

Another stream of literature indicated that the social process of narrative telling and recording can be effective to
explore project issues, capturing their complexity and behaviours outside organisational norms. The case-study

- 29 -
suggested that this can avoid the feeling that a lessons learned are “anodyne”. Again, the survey showed a keen-
ness in practitioners to pursue this idea, and the case-study indicated its usefulness. There is a clear need for
research into the role that narratives can play in the development, storing and transmitting of lessons from projects.

One of the least successful aspects of learning in the survey was the transfer of lessons from the project team to the
organisation. The literature indicates that, of the methods for knowledge dissemination, IT-mediated methods are
more appropriate for codifiable knowledge and socialisation methods for tacit knowledge. The survey indicates that
the former are being used in practice, but the latter less so. Within the latter category, particularly for complex
knowledge, there is increasing interest (in the literature and practice) in structures such as Communities of Practice
(the interviews showed one particular case). There is a clear need for research into the role that Communities of
Practice can play, and in what types of project. And this needs to be set within wider research into how lessons can
be disseminated throughout an organisation and incorporated into organisational practice.

REFERENCES

1
C. Collison Learning to fly – practical lessons from one the world’s leading knowledge companies. Oxford: Capstone
Publishing. 2001.
2
H. Kerzner. Applied project management: Best practices on implementation, New York: Wiley. 2000
3
T.M. Williams, F. Ackermann, C. Eden, and S. Howick. “The use of project post-mortems”. In, Proceedings of PMI 2001,
Project Management Institute Annual Symposium, Upper Darby, PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 2001.
4
G. MacMaster “Can we learn from project histories?” PM Network vol 14, no. 7 July, pp 66-67. 2000
5
M.Easterby-Smith, R.Thorpe, and A.Lowe Management Research: an introduction, London: SAGE Publications. 1991
6
K. Starkey and P. Madan “Bridging the relevance gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management research”.
Brit.J.Mgmt. vol 12, pp S3-S26. 2001
7
T.M. Williams How do organisations learn lessons from projects – and do they? Newton Square, PA: Project Management
Institute (in publication). 2007
8
J.K. Pinto “Managing information systems projects: regaining control of a runaway train”. In: K.A.Artto, et al, (Eds.)
Managing Business by Projects, pp. 30-43. 1999
9
A. Davies and T. Brady"Organisational capabilities and learning in complex product systems: towards repeatable solutions".
Res. Pol. vol 29, pp 931-953. 2000
10
M.F. Berke “Best Practices Lessons Learned (BPLL): a view from the trenches”. In, Proceedings of the PMI Annual
Seminars and Symposium. Upper Darby, PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 2001
11
J. Packendorff “Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project management research.” Scand.J.Mgmt.
vol. 11, pp. 319-333. 1995
12
E. Ekstedt., R.A.Lundin, A. Soderholm and H. Wirdenius Neo-industrial organising: renewal by action and knowledge
formation in a project-intensive economy, Routledge, London. 1999
13
T. Brady, N. Marshall, A. Prencipe and F. Tell “Making sense of learning landscapes in project-based organisations”. In,
OKLC 2002: The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002
14
M. Bresnen, A.Goussevskaia and J. Swan "Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations". Org
Stud vol 25, pp 1535-1555. 2004
15
K.G.Cooper, J.M.Lyneis and B.J.Bryant "Learning to learn, from past to future". Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 20, pp 213-219. 2002
16
M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P.Scott and M. Trow The new production of knowledge: the
dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies., London: Sage. 1994
17
T.Cooke-Davies and A. Arzymanow. “The maturity of project management in different industries”. In, IRNOP 5: Fifth
International Conference of the International Research Network of Organizing by Projects, East Horsley, UK: International
Research Network of Organizing by Projects. 2002
18
M.M. Menke "Managing R & D for Competitive Advantage". Res.Tech.Mgmt. vol. 40, no.2, pp 40-42 1997

- 30 -
19
T. Kotnour "Organizational learning practices in the project management environment". Int.J.Qual.Rel.Mgmt. vol 17, pp
393-406. 2000
20
J.R. Turner, A. Keegan and L. Crawford “Learning by experience in the project-based organisation”. In, Proceedings of the
PMI Research Conference, Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA, USA. 2000
21
C.W. Neale and D.E.A. Holmes "Post-auditing capital projects". L.Range.Plan. vol 23, pp 88-96. 1990
22
T. Williams, F. Ackermann, C. Eden and S. Howick “Learning from Project Failure” . In: P. Love, Z. Irani and P. Fong
(Eds.) Knowledge Management in Project Environments, Oxford, UK: Elsevier / Butterworth-Heinemann. 2005
23
G. Azzone and P. Maccarrone"The design of the investment post-audit process in large organisations: evidence from a
survey". Eur.J.Inn.Mgmt. vol 4, pp 73-87. 2001
24
T. Kotnour "A learning framework for project management". Proj.Mgmt.J. vol 30, pp 32-38. 1999
25
J.S. Busby "An assessment of post-project reviews". Proj.Mgmt.J. vol 30, pp 23-29. 1999
26
F.R. Gulliver "Post-project appraisals pay". Harv.Bus.Res. vol. 65, March-April, pp 128-131. 1987
27
G.D. Holt, P.E.D. Love and H. Li"The learning organisation; towards a paradigm for mutually beneficial strategic
construction alliances". Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 18, pp 415-422. 2000
28
N. Garnett and S. Pickrell "Benchmarking for construction: theory and practice". Constr.Mgmt.Econ. vol 18, pp 55-63.
2000
29
S. Kumar and D. Terpstra "The post mortem of a complex product development - lessons learned". Technovation vol 24, pp
805-818. 2004
30
T. Brady and A. Davies "Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning". Org.Stud. vol 25, pp
1601-1622. 2004
31
B. Toft "The failure of hindsight". Disaster.Prev.Mgmt. vol 1, pp 48-61. 1992
32
K. Ayas "Professional project management: a shift towards learning and a knowledge creating structure". Int.J.Proj.Mgmt.
vol 14, pp 131-136. 1996
33
S.A. Cavaleri and D.S. Fearon "Integrating organizational learning and business praxis: a case for intelligent project
management". The Learning Organization vol 7, pp 251-258. 2000
34
M. Polanyi The Tacit Dimension, New York: Doubleday. 1962
35
V. Ambrosini and C. Bowman "Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization". J.Mgmt.Stud. vol 38, pp 811-
829. 2001
36
S.D.N. Cook and J.S. Brown "Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and
Organizational Knowing". Org.Sci. vol 10, pp 381-400. 1999
37
L.A. Isabella "Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: how managers construe key organizational events".
Acad.Mgmt.J. vol 33, pp 7-41. 1990
38
B. Johnson, E. Lorenz and B.-A. Lundvall"Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge?". Industrial and Corporate
Change vol 11, pp 245-262. 2002
39
I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation,
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1995
40
I. Nonaka "The knowledge-creating company". Harv.Bus.Res. vol 69, Nov-Dec, pp 96-104. 1991
41
PM. Senge The Fifth Discipline, New York: DoubleDay. 1990.
42
PM. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. Ross and B. Smith The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building
a Learning Organisation, New York: DoubleDay. 1994
43
G. von Krogh "Care in knowledge creation ". Calif.Mgmt.Rev. vol 40, pp 133-153. 1998
44
H. Tsoukas and M.J. Hatch "Complex thinking, complex practice: The case for a narrative approach to organizational
complexity". Human Relations vol 54, pp 979-1013. 2001
45
C. Ivory, N. Alderman, I. McLoughlin, R. Vaughan and A. Thwaites “Sense-making as a process within complex service-led
projects”. In, IRNOP 6: Sixth International Conference of the International Research Network of Organizing by Projects. East
Horsley, UK: : International Research Network of Organizing by Projects. 2004
46
S. Fernie, S.D. Green, S.J. Weller and R. Newcombe "Knowledge sharing: context, confusion and controversy".
Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 21, pp 177-187. 2003
47
K.U. Koskinen, P. Pihlanto and H. Vanharanta "Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context".
Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 21, pp 281-290. 2003
48
D. Hodgson "Disciplining the professional: the case of project management". J.Mgmt.Stud. vol 39, pp. 803-821 2002
49
D. Vera and M. Crossnan “Organizational learning and knowledge management: toward an integrative framework”. In,
M.A. Lyles and M. Easterby-Smith (Eds.) The Blackwell Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management
pp 122-142. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 2003
50
M. Zollo. and S.G. Winter "Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities". Org.Sci. vol 13, pp 339-351.
2002
51
A. Mumford "Four approaches to learning from experience". The Learning Organization vol 1, pp 4-10. 1994

- 31 -
52
P.A.C. Smith "Action learning and reflective practice in project environments that are related to leadership development".
Mgmt.Learn. vol 32, pp 31-48. 2001
53
J.A. Raelin. "Public reflection as the basis for learning". Mgmt.Learn. vol 32, pp 11-30. 2001
54
M. Winter and J. Thomas “Understanding the lived experience of managing projects: The need for more emphasis on the
practice of managing”. In, Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, Project Management Institute, Newtown Square,
PA, USA. 2004
55
R.D. Stacey “Mainstream thinking about learning and knowledge creation in organizations”. In: R.D. Stacey, D. Griffin and
P. Shaw Complex responsive processes in organizations: learning and knowledge creation, pp. 33-37. London: Routledge
2001
56
E. Von Glasersfeld Radical Constructivism: A Way of Knowing and Learning, London: Routledge Falmer. 1995
57
H.A. Simon "Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning". Org.Sci. vol 2, pp 125-134. 1991
58
R.J. DeFillippi and M.B. Arthur “Project-based learning, embedded learning contexts and the management of knowledge”.
In, OKLC 2002: The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002
59
R.E. Purser, W.A. Pasmore and R.V. Tenkasi "The influence of deliberations on learning in new product development
teams". J.Eng.Tech.Mgmt. vol 9, pp 1-28. 1992
60
G.P. Huber “Organizational Learning: the contributing processes and the literatures” Org.Sci. vol 2, pp 88-115. 1991
61
M. Dodgson "Organizational learning: a review of some literatures". Org.Stud. vol 14, pp 375-394. 1993
62
K.U.Nair "Adaption to creation: progress of organizational learning and increasing complexity of learning systems".
Sys.Res.Behav.Sci. vol 18, pp 505-521. 2001
63
M.Easterby-Smith, M.Crossan and D. Nicolini "Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present and Future". J.Mgmt.Stud.
vol 37, pp 783-796. 2000
64
H. Bapuji and M.Crossan "From questions to answers: reviewing organizational learning research". Mgmt.Learn. vol 35, pp
397-417. 2004
65
M. Dierkes, A. Berthoin-Antal, J. Child and I.N. Nonaka The handbook of organizational knowledge, Oxford: Oxford
University Press. 2001
66
R. Lipshitz, M. Popper and V. Friedman "A multifacet model of organizational learning". J.Appl.Behav.Sci. vol 38, pp 78-
98. 2002
67
G. Reger and D. von Wichert-Nick "A learning organization for R&D management". Int.J.Tech.Mgmt. vol 13, pp 796-817.
1997
68
S. Carmona and A. Grönlund "Learning from forgetting: an experiential study of two European car manufacturers".
Mgmt.Learn. vol 29, pp 21-38. 1998
69
J.B. Kidd "Knowledge creation in Japanese manufacturing companies in Italy". Mgmt.Learn. vol 29, pp 131-146. 1998
70
G. von Krogh, J. Roos and D. Kleine Knowing in firms: understanding, managing and measuring knowledge, London:
Sage publications. 1998
71
R. Ruggles "The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice". Calif.Mgmt.Rev. vol 40, pp 80-89. 1998
72
C. Prichard, R. Hull, M. Chumer and H. Willmott (Eds.) Managing knowledge: critical investigations of work and learning.
Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. 2000
73
H. Scarbrough, J. Swan and J. Preston Knowledge Management: a literature review, London: Institute of Personnel and
Development. 1999
74
P. Baumard Tacit knowledge in Organizations, London: Sage Publications. 1999
75
R. McDermott "Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management". Calif.Mgmt.Rev. vol 41,
pp 103-117. 1999
76
N.A.D. Connell, J.H. Klein, and P.L. Powell "It’s tacit knowledge but not as we know it: redirecting the search for
knowledge". J.Opl.Res.Soc. vol 54, pp 140-152. 2003
77
P.W.G. Morris, M.B. Patel, and S.H.Wearne "Research into revising the APM project management body of knowledge".
Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 18, pp 155-164. 2000
78
Project Management Institute A Guide to the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK guide) 2000 Edition,
Upper Darby, PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 2000
79
K.D. Strang “Organizational learning across projects”. In, Proceedings of the PMI Global Congress North America, Upper
Darby, PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 2003
80
J. Wateridge “(Post) Project Evaluation Review”. In: Association for Project Management, (Ed.) Project Management
Pathways, High Wycombe, UK: Assocation for Project Management Ltd 2002
81
Office of Government Commerce Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2 (PRINCE Guidance) London: The
Stationery Office Books. 2002
82
N.J. Kalantjakos “Understanding Organizational Project Management Maturity”. In, Proceedings of PMI 2001, PMI’s
annual symposium, Upper Darby, PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 2001

- 32 -
83
Risk Management Research and Development Program Collaboration RMRP-2002-02, Version 1.0, Risk Management
Research and Development Program Collaboration [Formal Collaboration: INCOSE Risk Management Working Group;
Project Management Institute Risk Management Specific Interest Group; UK Association for Project Management Risk
Specific Interest Group]. 2002
84
Project Management Institute Organizational Project management Maturity Model (OPM3®), Upper Darby, PA, US.:
Project Management Institute. 2004
85
J. Schlichter “PMI’s organizational project management maturity model: emerging standards”. In, Proceedings of PMI
2001, PMI’s annual symposium, Upper Darby, PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 2001
86
M. von Zedtwitz "Organizational learning through post-project reviews in R & D". R & D Management vol 32, pp 255-
268. 2002
87
L. Harris "The learning organisation - myth or reality? Examples from the UK retail banking industry". The Learning
Organization vol 9, pp 78-88. 2002
88
G. Disterer "Management of project knowledge and experiences". J.Know.Mgmt. vol 6, pp 512-520. 2002
89
P. Carrillo, H. Robinson, A. Al-Ghassani and C. Anumba "Knowledge management in UK construction: strategies,
resources and barriers ". Proj.Mgmt.J. vol 35, pp 46-56.2004
90
S. Newell "Enhancing cross-project learning". Eng.Mgmt.J. vol 16, pp 12-20. 2004
91
C. Besner and B. Hobbs “An empirical investigation of project management practice: in reality, which tools do practitioners
use?” In, Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown
Square, PA, USA. 2004
92
B. Lilly and T. Porter "Improvement reviews in new product development". R & D Management vol 33, pp 285-296. 2003
93
V. Rasper, M. Stanier and P. Carluccio “A real life approach to lessons learned”. PMI Annual Seminars and Symposium,
Upper Darby, PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 2002
94
D. Landes, K. Schneider and F. Houdek "Organizational learning and experience documentation in industrial software
projects". Int.J.Hum-Comp.Stud. vol 51, pp 643-661. 1999
95
G. Patriotta Organizational knowledge in the making: how firms create, use and institutionalise knowledge, Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press . 2003
96
M.W. Terrell “Implementing a lessons learned process that works”. In, PMI Annual Seminars and Symposium, Upper Darby,
PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 1999
97
R. Loo "Journaling: a learning tool for project management training and team-building.". Proj.Mgmt.J. vol 33, pp 61-66.
2002
98
D. Rigano and J. Edwards "Incorporating reflection into work practice: a case study". Mgmt.Learn. vol 29, pp 431-446.
1998
99
D. Schön The reflective practitioner Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. 1991
100
E.J. Hoffman “NASA reduces uncertainty and minimizes risks with project methods.” PM Network June, pp 20. 2003
101
M. Schindler and M. Eppler "Harvesting project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors".
Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 21, pp 219-228. 2003
102
I. Brander-Löf, J-U. Hilger and C. André “How to learn from projects: the work improvement review”. In, Proceedings of
the IPMA World Congress, Zurich: International Project Management Association 2000
103
T.M. Bullard “Project management "train wrecks" - how to ensure your project is on the right track!” In, Proceedings of the
PMI Global Congress (EMEA) Newton Square, PA, US: Project Management Institute . 2005
104
R.H. Dean, T.B. Clark and D. Young "Creating a learning project environment: Aligning project outcomes with customer
needs". Inf.Sys.Mgmt.vol 14, pp 54. 1997
105
B. Collier, T. DeMarco and P. Fearey "A defined process for project post-mortem review". IEEE Software vol 13, pp 65-
72. 1996
106
L. Crosman “Lessons learned - the army way”. In, Proceedings of the PMI 2002 Annual Seminar and Symposium, Newton
Square, PA, US: Project Management Institute 2002
107
Texas Department of Information Resources. Process for post project reviews. Quality assurance guidelines for projects in
Texas State agencies. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Information Resources, 2000
108
A. Abramovici "Gathering and using lessons learned". PM Network October pp 61-63. 1999
109
A. Kransdorff “Using the benefits of hindsight – the role of post-project analysis”. The Learning Organization vol 29, pp
431-446. 1996
110
G. Roth and A. Kleiner "Developing organizational memory through learning histories.". Org.Dyn. pp 43-59. 1998
111
D. Boddy and R. Paton "Responding to competing narratives: lessons for project managers". Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 22, pp
225-233. 2004
112
L. Gibson and S. Pfautz “Re-engineering IT project management in an R&D organization - a case study”. In: Artto, K.A., et
al, (Eds.) Managing Business by Projects, Helsinki: Project Management Association Finland and NORDNET, Helsinki pp.
86-97. 1999

- 33 -
113
R.L. Englund and R.J. Graham "From experience: linking projects to strategy". J.Prod.Inn.Mgmt. vol 16, pp 52-64. 1999
114
L. Crawford, J.B. Hobbs and J.R.Turner “Project categorization systems and their use in organizations: an empirical study”.
In, Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square,
PA, USA. 2004
115
A. Prencipe and F. Tell "Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codificiation in project-based firms".
Research Policy vol 30, pp 1373-1394. 2001
116
D.E. Polkinghorne Narrative knowing and the human sciences, State University of New York Press, Albany NY. 1988
117
D.M. Boje "Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as "Tamara-Land"". Acad.Mgmt.J.
vol 38, pp 997-1032. 1995
118
M.E. Boyce "Organizational story and storytelling: a critical review". J.Org.Chnge.Mgmt. vol 9, pp 5-26. 1996
119
Y. Gabriel Storytelling in organisations: facts, fictions and fantasies, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2000
120
N.A.D. Connell, J.H. Klein and E. Meyer "Narrative approaches to the transfer of organisational knowledge".
Know.Mgmt.Res.Prac. vol 2, pp 184-193. 2004
121
C. Linehan and D. Kavanagh “From project ontologies to communities of virtue”. Paper presented at the 2nd International
Workshop, “making projects critical”. University of the West of England, Bristol, UK 2004
122
J.S. Brown and P. Duguid "Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working,
learning and innovation". Org.Sci. vol 2, pp 40-57. 1991
123
J.E. Orr “Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: common memory in a service culture”. In, . Middleton , D. and Edwards,
D., (Eds.) Collective Remembering pp 169-189. London: Sage. 1991
124
K.U. Koskinen “Storytelling as an addition to a project-based company's organisational memory” . In, Proceedings of the
EURAM conference, Brussels: EURAM 2005
125
F. Kofman and P.M. Senge “Communities of commitment: the heart of learning organizations”. Org.Dyn., vol 22, p 5-23.
1993
126
J. Morecroft “Mental models and learning in System Dynamics practice”. In: Pidd, M., (Ed.) Systems Modelling: theory
and practice, Chichester: Wiley. 2004
127
J.D. Sterman Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher
Education. 2000
128
D.H. Kim "The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning". Sloan.Mgmt.Rev. vol 35, pp 37-50. 1993
129
T.M. Williams “Learning from projects”. J.Opl.Res.Soc. vol 54 pp 443-451. 2003
130
C. Eden, T. Williams, F. Ackermann and S. Howick “On the Nature of Disruption and Delay (D&D) in major projects”.
J.Opl.Res.Soc. vol 51 pp 291-300. 2000
131
C. Eden, F. Ackermann and T. Williams “The amoebic growth of project costs”. Proj.Mgmt.J. vol 36 pp 15-27. 2005
132
T. Williams, C. Eden, F. Ackermann and A. Tait “The effects of design changes and delays on project costs”.
J.Opl.Res.Soc. vol 46 pp 809-818. 1995
133
G. Pitagorsky “Lessons learned through process thinking and review”. PM Network vol 14 part 3 (March) pp 35-38. 2003
134
A.M.M. Liu and A. Walker "Evaluation of project outcomes". Constr.Mgmt.Econ. vol 16, pp 209-219. 1998
135
J. Busby "The effectiveness of collective retrospection as a mechanism of organizational learning". The J.Appl.Behav.Sci.
vol 35, pp 109-129. 1999
136
G.S. Lynn, R.R. Reilly and A.E. Akgun “Knowledge management in new product teams: practices and outcomes”. IEEE
Trans.Eng.Mgmt. vol 47 pp 221-231. 2000
137
T.M. Williams “Learning the hard lessons from projects – easily”. Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 22, pp 273-279. 2004
138
J.M. Lyneis, K.G. Cooper and S.A. Els "Strategic management of complex projects: a case study using system dynamics".
Sys.Dyn.Rev. vol 17, pp 237-260. 2001
139
F. Ackermann, C. Eden and T. Williams “Modelling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches”.
Interfaces vol 27 pp 48-65. 1997
140
L.A. Franco, M. Cushman and J. Rosenhead "Project review and learning in the construction industry: embedding a
problem structuring method within a partnership context". Eur.J.Opl.Res. vol 152, pp 586-601. 2004
141
A. Keegan and J.R. Turner "Quantity versus quality in project-based learning practices". Mgmt.Learn. vol 32, pp 77-98.
2001
142
G.S.C. Pan and D. Flynn “Gaining knowledge from post-mortem analyses to eliminate electronic commerce project
abandonment”. In, T. Thanasankit (Ed.) E-commerce and cultural values Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. 2003.
143
A. Styhre, P.-E. Josephson and I. Knauseder "Learning capabilities in organizational networks: case studies of six
construction projects". Constr.Mgmt.Econ. vol 22, pp 957-966. 2004
144
M. Bresnen, L.Edelman, J. Swan, S.Laurent, H.Scarbrough and S.Newell “Cross-sector research on knowledge
management practices for project-based learning”. In, Proceedings the EURAM 2002: Innovative Research in Management.
Brussels: EURAM 2002

- 34 -
145
T. Kotnour and M. Hjelm “Leadership mechanisms for enabling learning within project teams”. In, Proceedings of OKLC
2002: The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002
146
G.Winch "The growth of self-employment in British construction". Constr.Mgmt.Econ. vol 16, pp 531-542. 1998
147
C.W. Neale and S. Letza "Improving the quality of project appraisal and management: an exercise in organizational
learning". The Learning Organization vol 3, pp 26-30. 1996
148
M. Bresnen, L. Edelman, S. Newell, H. Scarbrough and J. Swan "Social practices and the management of knowledge in
project environments". Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 21, pp 157-166. 2003
149
J.Glanville “The key factors in Project Review”. Paper given at Project Challenge 2003: Strategies for successful project
delivery, Hook, Hants, UK: Management Events Ltd 2003
150
P.W.G.Morris and I.C.A.Loch “Knowledge creation and dissemination (organizational learning) in project-based
organisations”. In, Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard,
Newtown Square, PA, USA. 2004
151
K.Ayas and N. Zeniuk "Project-based Learning: Building Communities of Reflective Practioners". Mgmt.Learn. vol 32, pp
61-76. 2001
152
M. Barker and K. Neailey "From individual learning to project team learning and innovation: a structured approach".
J.Workplace.Learn. vol 11, pp 60-67. 1999
153
E.Bukszar and T. Connolly "Hindsight bias and strategic choice: some problems in learning from experience".
Acad.Mgmt.J. vol 31, pp 628-641. 1988
154
A.D. Brown and M.R. Jones "Doomed to failure: narratives of inevitability and conspiracy in a failed IS project. ".
Org.Stud. vol 19, pp 73-88. 1998
155
P. Brown “A cure that harms? The enactment of project management on IS projects”. Paper presented at the 2nd
International Workshop, “making projects critical”, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK 2004
156
T. Cooke-Davies “Learning in a project-based organisation”. IPMA 96 World Congress on Project Management, Zurich:
International Project Management Association. 1996
157
M.B. Arthur, R.J.DeFillippi and C. Jones "Project-based Learning as the Interplay of Career and Company Non-financial
Capital". Mgmt.Learn. vol 32, pp 99-117. 2001
158
S. Cicmil “Reflection, participation and learning in project environments: a multiple perspective agenda”. In: P.Love,
Z.Irani and P. Fong (Eds.) Knowledge Management in Project Environments, Oxford, UK: Elsevier / Butterworth-
Heinemann. 2005
159
P.M. Bosch-Sijtsema “Knowledge Management in virtual organisations: Interorganisational and interproject knowledge
transfer”. In, OKLC 2002: The Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, 2002
160
P. Carrillo "Managing knowledge: lessons from the oil and gas sector". Constr.Mgmt.Econ. vol 22, pp 631-642. 2004
161
B. Ancori, A. Bureth and P. Cohendet “The economics of knowledge: the debate about codification and tacit knowledge”.
Industrial and Corporate Change vol 9 pp 255-287. 2000
162
J. Liebowitz “Conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management” . In: Love, P., Irani, Z. and Fong, P., (Eds.)
Knowledge Management in Project Environments, Oxford, UK: Elsevier / Butterworth-Heinemann 2005
163
R. Karni and R. Gordon “Knowledge management in a project-oriented environment”. In, Proceedings of PMI Europe
2000, Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA, USA. 2000
164
J. Liebowitz and I. Megbolugbe "A set of frameworks to aid the project manager in conceptualizing and implementing
knowledge management initiatives". Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 21, pp 189-198. 2003
165
K.C. Desouza "Facilitating Tacit Knowledge Exchange". Comm.ACM vol 46, pp 85-88. 2003
166
B.H.Reich and S.Y. Wee “Searching for knowledge management practices in the PMBOK Guide”. In, Proceedings of the
PMI Research Conference, Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA, USA. 2004
167
L. Lindqvist, J. Söderlund and C. Frohm “Knowledge management in technology- and project-based firms”. In,
Proceedings of IRNOP 5. East Horsley, UK: International Research Network of Organizing by Projects. 2002
168
E. Schoeniger “Message relay”. 2005 Leadership in Project Management Annual Project Management Institute, Four
Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA, USA..2005
169
K.U. Koskinen "Knowledge management to improve project communication and implementation". Proj.Mgmt.J. vol 35,
pp 13-19. 2004
170
M. Hobday "The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products or systems?". Res.Pol. vol 29,
pp 871-893. 2000
171
E. Cassells "Building a Learning Organization in the Offshore Oil Industry". L.Range.Plan. vol 32, pp 245-252. 1999
172
M.D. Lytras and A. Pouloudi "Project management as a knowledge primer: the learning infrastructure in knowledge-
intensive oganizations: projects as knowledge transformations and beyond". The Learning Organization vol 10, pp 237-250.
2003
173
Y.B.-H.L.R. Naot and M. Popper "Discerning the quality of organizational learning". Mgmt.Learn. vol 35, pp 451-472.
2004

- 35 -
174
NASA “ASK: Academy sharing knowledge”. http://appl.nasa.gov/ask/issues/11/overview/search_index.html accessed May
2004.
175
M. Weiser and J. Morrison "Project Memory: Information Management for Project Teams". Journal of Management
Information Systems vol 14, pp 149-166. 1998
176
C.A. Tacla and J.-P. Barthès "A multi-agent system for acquiring and sharing lessons learned". Computers in Industry vol
52, pp 5-16. 2003
177
D.A. Garvin "Building a learning orgnisation". Harv.Bus.Res. vol. 71, July-August, pp 78-91. 1993
178
M. Eppler and O. Sukowski "Managing team knowledge: core processes, tools and enabling factors". Eur.Mgmt.J. vol 18,
pp 334-341. 2000
179
R.J. Levene and P.C. Gale “Organisational learning and dysfunctional project processes”. In, Proceedings of the PMI
Annual Seminars and Symposiums, , Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA, USA.
2000.
180
J. Storey and B. Barnett "Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure". J.Know.Mgmt. vol 4, pp 145-156.
2000
181
H.S.J. Scarbrough, S.Laurent, M.Bresnen, L.Edelman and S. Newell "Project-based learning and the role of learning
boundaries". Org.Stud. vol 25, pp 1579-1600. 2004
182
P.W.G.Morris “Managing project management knowledge for organizational effectiveness”. In, Proceedings of the PMI
Research Conference, Project Management Institute, Four Campus Boulevard, Newtown Square, PA, USA. 2002
183
A.J. Sense and M. Antoni "Exploring the politics of project learning". Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 21, pp 487-494. 2003
184
H. Scarbrough, M. Bresnen, L.F. Edelman, S. Laurent, S. Newell and J. Swann "The process of project-based learning: an
exploratory study". Mgmt.Learn. vol 35, pp 491-506. 2004
185
M. Osterloh and B.S. Frey "Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, and Organizational Forms". Org.Sci. vol 11, pp 538-550.
2000
186
A.C. Edmondson "The Local and Variegated Nature of Learning in Organizations: A Group-Level Perspective". Org.Sci.
vol 13, pp 128-146 2002
187
A.J.DiBella and E.C.Nevis How organizations learn, Jossey-Bass. San Francisco 1998
188
P.S.W.Fong (2005) “Managing knowledge in project-based professional services firms: an international comparison.” In:
P.Love, Z.Irani and P.Fong (Eds.) Knowledge Management in Project Environments, Oxford, UK: Elsevier / Butterworth-
Heinemann. 2005
189
A.J. Sense "Learning generators: project teams re-conceptualized.". Proj.Mgmt.J. vol 34, pp 4-11. 2003
190
L.Bourne and D.H.T.Walker "Advancing project management in learning organizations". The Learning Organization vol
11, pp 226-243. 2004
191
G. Szulanski "Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm". Strat.Mgmt.J. vol
17, pp 27-43. 1996
192
G. Huber “Facilitating project team learning and contributions to organizational knowledge.” Creativity.Inn.Mgmt. vol 8,
pp 70-76. 1999
193
E.Wenger Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 1998
194
K. Garrety, P.L. Robertson, and R. Badham "Integrating communities of practice in technology development projects".
Int.J.Proj.Mgmt. vol 22, pp 351-358. 2004
195
J. Swan, H. Scarbrough and M. Robertson "The construction of ‘communities of practice’ in the management of
innovation". Mgmt.Learn. vol 33, pp 477-496. 2002
196
K.A. Steichen “Project management communities of practice - advancing the practice”. In, Proceedings of the PMI Annual
Seminars and Symposium, Upper Darby, PA, US.: Project Management Institute. 2001

- 36 -

View publication stats