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

Anandasivakumar Ekambaram and Agnar Johansen
most <strong>of</strong> opportunities that will provide <strong>the</strong> best outcome – seen from a lifecycle perspective. In our
view, it is important that <strong>the</strong> project organization acknowledges and communicates <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>
world is uncertain and is not always predictable, and that <strong>the</strong> project owner acknowledges this
situation. Our approach to uncertainty with <strong>the</strong> focus on knowledge transfer and learning that is
presented in this paper can be compared to <strong>the</strong> following description given by Perminova et al. (2008,
page 78), when <strong>the</strong>y describe uncertainty management in projects:
[...] key elements in managing uncertainty are reflective learning and sensemaking as
enablers <strong>of</strong> flexibility and rapidness in decision-making regarding <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> alternative
actions in response to <strong>the</strong> situation. At <strong>the</strong> same time, standardized and modularized
processes and procedures constitute a necessary basis for supporting reflective
processes. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se measures can be regarded as important tools for project
managers to recognize and establish <strong>the</strong> core competences, and thus perform ra<strong>the</strong>r
than simply conform to <strong>the</strong> plan. Continuous following <strong>of</strong> such procedures at different
stages <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project is an essential part <strong>of</strong> project success.
This description in way highlights and connects various aspects that we presented in this paper.
In this paper, we chose to present an industrial example (or a case) that describes how knowledge
transfer and learning with respect to managing uncertainty in projects could contribute to make and
facilitate organisation development. We have tried to include important issues in a coherent manner
within <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> this paper. We could have discussed more on each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research methods
associated with <strong>the</strong> cooperation between <strong>the</strong> PUS-project and Statsbygg. But, we could not do so
because <strong>of</strong> word limitation <strong>of</strong> this paper. However, we think that focusing on one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> case projects
that <strong>the</strong> PUS-project and Statsbygg considered in <strong>the</strong>ir cooperation and having a closer look at <strong>the</strong>
research methods <strong>of</strong> that particular case project can be a future study that can shed more light on <strong>the</strong>
topic <strong>of</strong> knowledge transfer and learning.
Our description <strong>of</strong> uncertainty management calls for a strong owner involvement throughout <strong>the</strong>
project phase. The PUS-project managed to create a positive culture that can promote effective and
efficient uncertainty management in projects. Organizations such as Statsbygg acknowledged <strong>the</strong>
development <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> positive culture in <strong>the</strong>ir organizations through <strong>the</strong> collaboration with <strong>the</strong> PUSproject
and <strong>the</strong> need to involve project owner more in managing uncertainty in projects (Forum-report,
2010). Fur<strong>the</strong>r more, <strong>the</strong> cooperation between <strong>the</strong> PUS-project and <strong>the</strong> involved organizations, such
as Statsbygg, illustrates how a research project attempted to create knowledge and value in <strong>the</strong>
industry – an example <strong>of</strong> collaboration between researchers and practitioners.
Acknowledgement
We sincerely thank Ms. Ragnhild Aalstad (Project Manager, Statsbygg) for her support to <strong>the</strong> PUSproject
and thus to <strong>the</strong> work related to this paper.
Reference
Andersen, Erling S (2008): Rethinking project management – An organisational perspective, Prentice Hall,
Essex, England.
Coghlan, David and Brannick, Teresa (2005): Doing action research in your organization, Second Edition, SAGE
Publications
Dalkir, Kimiz (2005): Knowledge management in <strong>the</strong>ory and practice, Elsvier Inc.
Davenport, Thomas H. and Prusak, Laurence (1998): Working Knowledge - How organizations
manage what <strong>the</strong>y know, Harvard Business School Press.
Eikeland, P. T. (2001): Teoretisk analyse av byggeprosesser, Samspill i byggeprosessen, prosjektnr.
10602, Trondheim : SiB. (“Theoretical analysis <strong>of</strong> construction processes, Cooperation in <strong>the</strong>
construction process, Project number 10602”).
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), "Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review". The Academy <strong>of</strong>
Management review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-74.
Forum-report (2010): Report on <strong>the</strong> final forum that symbolizes <strong>the</strong> formal completion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PUSproject.
The report (Norwegian version) is available at <strong>the</strong> website <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> PUS-project:
http://www.nsp.ntnu.no/PUS/.
Greenwood, Davydd J.; Levin, Morten (2007): Introduction to action research – Social research for
social change, 2 nd edition, SAGE Publications.
Hislop, Donald (2009): Knowledge management in organizations, Second Edition, Oxford University
Press
265