Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Anandasivakumar Ekambaram and Agnar Johansen
(According to Davenport et al. (1998, page 2), data is “a set <strong>of</strong> discrete, objective facts about events”,
and information is “a message, usually in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> a document or an audible or visible
communication”.)
The definition <strong>of</strong> knowledge mentioned above seems to suggest <strong>the</strong> practice-based perspective <strong>of</strong>
knowledge. In our opinion, knowledge is practice-based and that it can be created through reflection,
interpretation, action, communication and cooperation. These mechanisms, possibly interacting with
one ano<strong>the</strong>r when knowledge is created, reflect <strong>the</strong> fluid mix <strong>of</strong> framed experience, values, contextual
information and expert insight that are mentioned in <strong>the</strong> definition given by Davenport et al. (1998).
3.2 The role <strong>of</strong> project owner
A project owner has rights to and is responsible for <strong>the</strong> project. The project owner takes <strong>the</strong> risk
connected to <strong>the</strong> project’s cost and its future (Eikeland, 2001) Olsson, N, et al. (2007) say:
The beauty behind <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> a project owner lies in <strong>the</strong> fact that a project owner has
incentives for weighing costs against benefits for a project. Project owners are <strong>the</strong>refore
expected to strive for project governance aimed at maximising <strong>the</strong> value from <strong>the</strong> project.
The role <strong>of</strong> project owner can be explained by comparing it with <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> project manager. This
comparison is described by a <strong>the</strong>ory called principal-agent <strong>the</strong>ory. When describing agent <strong>the</strong>ory,
Andersen says (2008, page 13):
The base organisation is setting up a temporary organisation and giving it an assignment
to perform work on its behalf [...] The base organisation will usually appoint a project
owner, who <strong>the</strong>n takes on <strong>the</strong> role as <strong>the</strong> representative for <strong>the</strong> principal. The project will
be headed by <strong>the</strong> project manager, who will represent <strong>the</strong> agent. The <strong>the</strong>ory will
accordingly throw light on <strong>the</strong> relationship between <strong>the</strong> project owner and <strong>the</strong> project
manager.
Regarding <strong>the</strong> interaction between project owner and project manager, <strong>the</strong> principal–agent <strong>the</strong>ory
(Turner et al., 2004; Eisenhardt, 1989; Andersen 2008) pinpoints some factors that are useful for
understanding <strong>the</strong> relationship:
The project owner (regarded as <strong>the</strong> principal) does not have <strong>the</strong> same interests as <strong>the</strong> project
manager (regarded as <strong>the</strong> agent), provided that <strong>the</strong>y both want to maximize <strong>the</strong>ir utilities.
The project owner and project manager both have different information, due to <strong>the</strong> limited
resources <strong>the</strong>y can use to acquire such information.
The project owner and project manager both have different attitudes towards risk, due to <strong>the</strong>ir
different interests.
Cooperation between project owner and project manager can contribute to set appropriate arena not
only for <strong>the</strong> handling <strong>of</strong> uncertainty and <strong>the</strong> execution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project, but also for learning and
knowledge transfer in <strong>the</strong> project organisation.
4. Methodology
During <strong>the</strong> cooperation with its main industrial partners, <strong>the</strong> PUS-project used both qualitative
research methods (for instance, interviews, document analysis and action research) and quantitative
methods (for instance, questionnaire study). In this paper, we shall look at <strong>the</strong> contribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
PUS-project to create value in one <strong>of</strong> its main industrial partners called Norwegian Directorate <strong>of</strong>
Public Construction and Property Management (Statsbygg). There were several methodological
approaches connected to this contribution: (1) Questionnaire studies conducted by <strong>the</strong> PUS-project
(2) Several interviews – both structured and semi-structured – through <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> SUS-project
(3) Document analysis (4) Action research activities connected to 5 different cases, while 3 cases
were used as testing arenas (5) Two focus-seminars per year with <strong>the</strong> intention <strong>of</strong> anchoring plans,
developing new models, procedures, routines and transfer <strong>of</strong> experience between project managers
and project owners in <strong>the</strong> organization.
Among <strong>the</strong>se methodological approaches, we would like to mention <strong>the</strong> following approaches, since
<strong>the</strong>y played a prominent role in creating knowledge and value in Statsbygg.
261