Upload
devy-dwi-orshella
View
7
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Critical Review of Knowledge ManagementJournal
Exploring the performance of transnational projects:
Shared knowledge, coord ina t ion and communication
Maria AdenfeltSWEDEN
Amalia Kiswandari
Asgar Ali
Catur Wijanarko
Devy Dwi Orshella
Setiowati
Motivation
Method
Result
Critical Review
Aim
Future Works
The knowledge sharing process is important for the performance
of transnational project as it determines theextent to which knowledge of the diverse units comes touse in the transnational product development process,
and subsequently the final product launched (Murray and Chao, 2005; Subramaniam and Venkatraman, 2001)
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Why it is a Transnational Project?
Motivation
Challenges
physical distance
cultural diversity
language barriers
technological infrastructure
differences
Motivation
The AimKnowledge
Sharingtransnational
project performance
effects
Case
Study
5 Countries
Intervie
w
&Surve
y
Question
s:
4
Categorie
s
actual
develop
men
t of th
e
transnatio
n
al prod
uct
Phase
Method
Classification of
interviewsNo. of
interviews
No. of survey responses
Project managemen
t
4
5
Sub-projet groups
6
6
Case Study
• “Up-to-date” Company• regional structure with the objectives of enhancing
integration between the subsidiaries in each region1
• InfoAccess Project• new product offering, based on two existing offerings2
• functional backgrounds:• information analysis, business dvelopment or IT3
• Structure:• Project Manager - Sub-Project Manager - Member4
WINTERTemplateRESULT
01Managing coordination and communication
1At the beginning regular teleconferences
the past six months less meetings “everybody has been developing their own part of the product.”
2
sharing information communicationBUT
the content not always was in line with the information needs
3The communication complicated &time consuming
Geographically = so many different persons + units involved. “We have had so many misunderstandings”
02Initiation of the InfoAccess project
kick-off meetings
• every sub-project
• “It would have been wrong to start with a kick-off meeting”
• each sub-project independently
forked tongues
• standardize the products VS
• local customer requirements and preferences
Skills
• how to address business requirements differed between the sub-project teams
• “The problem is that we do not have the skills or resources for doing so”
02Initiation of the InfoAccess project
dialogue between the different sub-projects
• Very little• ‘‘Each sub-project
did what they were assigned to do without giving much thought to the overall project”.
silo mentality
• standardize the products VS
• local customer requirements and preferences
• “There is no learning between the sub-projects but as long as they are committed and take responsibility”
03Developing the product
time scheduled for testing was not in line
the sub-project managers did not approve or give
feed-back
the development of the product had
to proceed without approval from the sub-
projects
development process were highly technical
andproject members with a non-
technical background
difficulties in interpreting and giving feed-back
the development of the product had
to proceed without approval from the sub-projects
03Developing the product
Additional sophisticated
features
product more
competitive
Harmonizing the
terminology between the
countries.
04Finalizing the projectIntegrate sub-
projects a final product
interpreted the scope differently
Features were not in line with the
specifications
delay in launching
Not become market leader
F I N D I N G S
interdependencebetween shared knowledge, communication and coordination
frequent and continuousinteractions
coordination and communication
mechanisms that reliedon frequent interaction and communication
Case Study > one specific domain
The relationship between knowledge processesand transnational project performance further
how frequently cross-functionaltransnational project teams are used in productdevelopment, the impact of cross-functionality, knowledge sharing and subsequently project performance subject
Future Works
Cr i t i ca l Rev iew
The Theory (Coordination)
This Paper• Coordination of
activities across subsidiaries becomes an important organizational issue
• For example to solve a variety of problems and ensuring that the activities – often performed separately from each other – of the common solution harmonize and integrate properly.
• (Faraj and Sproull, 2000)
Others• The coordination of
geographically dispersed R&D activities has become an important challenge for MNEs (Arzumanyan dkk., 2011)
• Since companies need to access knowledge developed in different countries to remain competitive, more research focuses on the issue of knowledge management within MNEs (Adenfelt and Lagerstrom, 2008; Bouquet et al., 2009) and the importance of coordinating learning (Reger, 1999)
The Method (Number of Interview)
This Paper• A total of ten
interviews were performed
Others• Bernard (2000)
states that most studies are based on samples between 30-60 interviews
• Creswell (1998) 5 to 25
• Morse (1994) at least six;
• all qualitative research: Bertaux (1981) 15 is the smallest acceptable sample.
THE METHODThis Paper• s• The question
focusing on communication & coordination, but not present organizational structure characteristics.
Others• Wen-Bao Lin (2008)
shows there are 3 elements to run the knowledge sharing :• Organizational
Structure• Culture• Interaction
among the variables in there.
THE METHODThis Paper• the questions
focused on two sets of inquiries; how and why, with the intent of exploring the phenomena in-depth
• (Yin, 1994).
Others• Jang dkk (2005)
5W1H to get the complete information.
• Yang dkk (2014): “who” team member & leader leadership style communication and cooridnation
• Each sub-project was then expected to take responsibility of the activities on a local level.
• The scope of the transnational project was to develop a product with a common core that allowed for adaptations to local market needs.
• The scope of the transnational project was to develop a product with a common core that allowed for adaptations to local market needs.
In order to be selected, the transnational projecthad to encompass units and members from several countries.(Ratcheva, 2009)
Case Study Theory
Scale
This PaperJust focused on coordintion and communication, not explain bout who is the leader of the project and
how to manage the transnational
project.
Yang dan Wu, 2008The Success of
Knowledge Sharing or knowledge transfer not depends on document or any information, but
the success of Knowledge sharing is
depends on interaction between members of
the project.
Ochieng dan Price, 2010Contex of the problems from
communiction process in member of the multicultural
project is how project manager and clien
eliminate the constrain because of the difference in culture of project member
by develop the infrastructure
Planning of The Project
Root Cause of
Knowledge Sharing Failure
?
ThankYou