Integrating Knowledge through Project Lessons Learned: A Case Study of Global NPD Projects in Company X in the Automotive Industry

(1)

Student

Umeå School of Business and Economics Autumn semester 2015

Master thesis, one-year, 15 hp

Integrating Knowledge through Project Lessons Learned:

A Case Study of Global NPD Projects in Company X in the Automotive Industry

Authors: Diaz Quintana, Edna Beatriz

Mosquera Lopez, Fernando

Supervisor: Prof. Markus Hällgren

(2)

(3)

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the people who supported and contributed to this study.

To our supervisor Markus Hällgren for his guidance in the process of writing this thesis, for sharing his knowledge and for giving us the best advice possible to strengthen our work.

To our programme coordinators of the Masters in Strategic Project Management (European): Prof. Umit Bititci, Prof. Mauro Mancini and Prof. Tomas Blomquist, as well as all the professors of this masters course who offered us invaluable teachings.

To our contact in Company X, who allowed us to do the research in the organization. We would like to thank the valuable time and opinion of all the participants of this research, this thesis could not be possible without their support.

Lastly, to all our master colleagues. Thanks for all the shared moments and for giving us the opportunity to learn from you and along with you throughout this journey.

Edna Diaz

Fernando Mosquera

(4)

iii

To my beloved family and friends, because you never stopped me from dreaming, and regardless of the distance and time, you stayed close in all possible ways. Thanks for your love…we did it!

To the people I met during this journey, you have gained a special place forever. Thanks for making this a remarkable life experience.

Edna

To my family, everything that I am and everything I have accomplished in life is because of you and for you. Thank you for your love and patience.

To my friends back home, regardless of the time apart and the distance, you have always been there by my side. Thank you for the right words at the right time.

To the people I have met throughout this masters, you have made this experience unique.

I am not only taking with me unforgettable memories but friendships for life. Thank you for the shared moments.

Fernando

(5)

iv

ABSTRACT

Knowledge integration is a fundamental capability for Global New Product Development (NPD) success that allows exploiting windows of opportunity and foster innovation.

Although Global NPD projects are recipients of project management methodologies, literature emphasizes a gap in how project management tools can support a knowledge integration capability. Therefore, this study aims to explore how project lessons learned, a project management tool, can enable knowledge integration in a global NPD context.

To this extent, this study presents the case study of Company X, applying a qualitative method which follows an interpretivist philosophical stance and an inductive approach.

The case study was conducted through semi-structured interviews with project managers and team members from two Research & Development (R&D) Centers. The data collected was analyzed using a template analysis and matrix display.

The literature review of this study introduces knowledge integration as a capability for global NPD, its mechanisms and influencing organizational factors. Project lessons learned are presented as a project management tool that encompass experiences from projects and hence serve as a source of knowledge. This results in a theoretical framework for knowledge integration and project lessons learned as an enabler of this capability, which works as a foundation for the empirical research.

The findings of the applied methodology confirmed the elements of the theoretical framework, and contributed to develop a framework that illustrates how project lessons learned enable knowledge integration capability. Moreover, the findings explored the organizational context of Global NPD projects, the tacit and explicit mechanisms to integrate knowledge in and between projects and the different levels on which the organizational factors influence the knowledge integration process. Recommendations for an effective knowledge integration are suggested for both academics and practitioners, as well as potential areas of research to continue extending the knowledge on this field.

Keywords: Project Management; Project Lessons Learned; Knowledge Management;

Knowledge Integration; Global NPD.

(6)

(7)

vi

Hoven, 2010; Gold, Malhotra, & Segars, 2001; Jaruzelski, Schwartz, & Staack, 2015; Kasvi, Vartiainen, & Hailikari, 2003; Keightley, Pickering, & Allett, 2012; Kester, Hultink, & Griffin, 2014; Kleinschmidt, de Brentani, & Salomo, 2007, 2010; Leal -Rodríguez, Roldán, Leal, & Ortega-Gutiérrez, 2013; Long, White, Friedman, & Brazeal, 2000; McDonough, Kahn, & Barczak, 2001; Morgan, Anokhin, Kretinin, & Frishammar, 2015; Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002; Mousavizadeh, Ryan, Harden, & Windsor, 2015; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001; Salomo, Kleinschmidt, & de Bretani, 2010; Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2009, 2015; Smit, Burton, Klein, & Street, 1999; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997; Todorović, Petrović, Mihić, Obradović, & Bushuyev, 2015; Wiles, Crow, Heath, & Charles, 2008)

(11)

1

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

New Product Development (NPD) has driven economic growth through new and innovative initiatives (Morgan et al., 2015, p. 733). Previous studies show that NPD projects contribute to more than 28 percent of firm’s sales and profit; still only one out of seven NPD projects are introduced successfully in the market (Barczak et al., 2009, pp.

6–7). In particular, companies recognize that dispersed and global interactions enable unique capabilities for innovation, but the challenge is to manage these global capabilities across several sites (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 85). This calls for a global NPD approach that integrates elements for sustainable processes, along with internal and external constant interactions at a global scale to foster innovation, competitive advantage and long-term growth (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 2; Morgan et al., 2015, p. 733).

NPD is regarded as a recipient of Project Management methodologies (Pons, 2008, p. 82).

However, Project Management existing tools and techniques are seldom focused on soft paradigms, as well as to the complex and uncertain nature involved in NPD projects (Gemünden, 2015, p. 2; Pollack, 2007, p. 270; Pons, 2008, p. 83). For example, the PMBOK® Guide poorly include elements related to soft perspectives such as knowledge, team dynamics, among others capabilities which enable NPD success (de Brentani &

Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 3; Pons, 2008, p. 84). These have led to a lack of knowledge on how Project Management can support the success of innovation (Pons, 2008, pp. 82–94;

Todorović et al., 2015, p. 773; Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 88).

Contemporary innovation research denotes global knowledge integration as a primary capability of global NPD projects’ success, as it lays the foundation for ensuing phases of the NPD process (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, pp. 433–434). This capability is used in projects to exploit windows of opportunity, generate a competing strategy, and reach high levels of maturity in Project Management (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 110; Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, pp. 433–434; Todorović et al., 2015, p. 772). Yet, the inherent change in NPD projects creates a tangled accumulation of knowledge that can result in fragmentation and/or loss of organizational knowledge (Kasvi et al., 2003, p. 572).

In this regard, project lessons learned aim to document relevant knowledge in the organization (APM, 2015). Project management literature suggests that project lessons learned can be used as experiences to increase project performance (Duffield & Whitty, 2015, p. 314; Schindler & Eppler, 2003, p. 221). However, existing literature is focused on project lessons learned creation and storage, rather than means for integrating identified project lessons learned. For instance, the information systems, aimed to support transfer of knowledge from past to future projects, are still mostly limited to document storing (Kasvi et al., 2003, p. 571). This missing integration exposes firms to repeat past mistakes and affect projects performance (Duffield & Whitty, 2015, p. 314; Schindler &

Eppler, 2003, p. 221).

This evidences the existing opportunity towards a proper and effective knowledge management in innovation processes such as NPD; in specific, how knowledge

(12)

2

integration is handled in global NPD projects requires deeper exploration (Bartsch et al., 2013, p. 239; Pons, 2008, p. 94; Todorović et al., 2015, p. 773). This study focuses on exploring how project lessons learned can be used to facilitate knowledge integration in global NPD projects, particularly in the automobile industry.

1.2. Research Question

The research question is key to define the purpose and contribution to literature or practitioners (Hällgren, 2012, p. 804). For this study, the research question is constructed based on discovered gaps in literature (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011, p. 30); in specific, a neglected area in literature on how project management tools can be used for learning and integrating knowledge from projects. This type of construction is considered neglect gap- spotting (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011, p. 28). Hence, the following research question has been formulated:

How can project lessons learned enable knowledge integration in global NPD projects?

1.3. Research Purpose and Objective

The purpose of this research is to develop a framework that enables knowledge integration through project lessons learned in global NPD. This study contributes to literature by proposing a framework that comprehensively articulates how a project management tool, project lessons learned, can support the performance of global NPD projects. To accomplish this purpose, the research main objective is to explore the way project lessons learned can be used to integrate knowledge in global NPD projects.

This objective is achieved through a single case study of knowledge integration practices in the automotive industry, in specific two Research & Development (R&D) Centers in Company X. Qualitative research methods have been used in this study with the application of semi-structured interviews to project management practitioners and project team members within the company.

1.4. Limitations of the Study

This study gathers information from the R&D Center in Company X. Therefore, the results obtained do not intend to provide universal conclusions or to generalize across other business or industries, but to gain understanding on the usage of project lessons learned as an enabler for knowledge integration.

1.5. Relevant Definitions

This research is built on some key concepts that are used repeatedly throughout the study.

Hence, the authors consider relevant to establish a common definition and understanding of these terms.

Global New Product Development (NPD)

Global NPD is “an organizational process that brings new product and services to the market at a global scale” (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 24).

(13)

3

NPD is regarded as a fundamental organizational activity for business success as it targets future market opportunities for the firm (Kumar & Phrommathed, 2005, p. 129; Pons, 2008, p. 82). This contributes to the growth and competitiveness of the organization in the marketplace (Morgan et al., 2015, p. 733).

Capability

Capabilities are distinctive competences strengthened and adapted by the organization in parallel with context dynamics in the short term (Teece et al., 1997, p. 512).

Knowledge Integration

The authors use the definition of de Brentani and Kleinschmidt (2015, p. 18):

“Capability by which firms access and integrate globally and functionally dispersed information about customers, technologies, and company expertise/resources throughout the NPD process in order to respond to customer needs and preferences, worldwide”.

Knowledge has the power to join behaviors’ in the organizations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 110). Knowledge integration is connected to the level of difficulty involved in combining knowledge from different sources (Huang & Newell, 2003, p. 169). Huang and Newell (2003, p. 169) perceive knowledge integration as an ongoing social process of building, joining and redefining hypothesis through social interaction. Hence, knowledge integration can be seen as a capability used by organizations to put together scattered data to engage organizational members (Huang & Newell, 2003, p. 167;

Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 426).

Project Lessons Learned

The definition used by the authors is given by the Association of Project Management, APM (2015):

“Documented experiences that can be used to improve the future management of projects, programmes and portfolios”.

Project lessons learned are considered as the knowledge generated usually after project performance, but these lessons can be recognized and file at any time in the project (PMI, 2015). Project lessons learned are generated by identifying project experience and the organizational background, being useful at any stage of the project either to be used as feedback to change current performance direction or to enrich other projects (Huang &

Newell, 2003, p. 175; PRINCE2, 2012).

(14)

4

1.6. Study Structure

This thesis is divided in six chapters.

Chapter 1. Introduction: The Introduction chapter provides a background of the research topic, the research gaps that it attempts to cover and its relevance. Based on the research question, the research purpose and objective of this study are introduced, as well as limitations and key definitions in the field.

Chapter 2. Literature Review: The Literature Review chapter establishes the theoretical framework of the research. It is supported on literature in the fields of project management, knowledge management, and NPD. The layout of the topics intends to progressively familiarize and engage the reader with the frame of reference. The first section conceptualizes and explains Knowledge Integration within the Knowledge Management literature. The second and third section provides the settings of Knowledge Integration as a capability for Global NPD success and the organizational factors surrounding this context. The fourth section discusses the knowledge integration mechanisms applicable in a Global NPD environment. The fifth section argues the case of Project Lessons Learned as a source of knowledge. Consequently, the following section explores the interaction between Project Lessons Learned and Knowledge Integration and its contribution to the organization. Lastly, the theoretical diagram is built and presented as this study’s overall theoretical frame of reference.

Chapter 3. Methodology: The Methodology chapter outlines and justifies the theoretical and empirical methodology for this research. The theoretical methodology discusses the research philosophy, approach and strategy. The empirical methodology describes the practical considerations of the research design. It provides the rationale for the choice of subject, the taken approach to select the reviewed literature, the method of data collection, and the quality criteria the study is adhering to. The chapter concludes by covering the ethical considerations of the research. The advantages of the methodological choices are highlighted, and specific actions to overcome the limitations of the authors’ selection are addressed.

Chapter 4. Data Analysis: The Data Analysis chapter applies the chosen method to analyze the collected data. It displays the data matrix selected for this study to interpret the qualitative method outcomes.

Chapter 5. Discussion: The Discussion chapter analyzes and explains the results of the study. The main findings are weighted against the theoretical framework and compared with previous studies. A revised research model is introduced as the end product of this study.

Chapter 6. Conclusions: The Conclusions chapter summarizes the research findings and discussion points, and ultimately provides the answer to the research question. Final comments and reflections on the research are provided along with recommendations for both academics and practitioners in accordance to the findings. Likewise, the limitations of the research are acknowledged and potential areas for future research are proposed.

(15)

5

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Knowledge Integration and the Knowledge Management Process

Knowledge is considered one of the most critical competitive assets for firms (Gardner &

Staats, 2012, p. 1001). In a business environment, where the only certainty is uncertainty, successful firms are those who manage to continuously create knowledge, efficiently distribute it throughout the organization and rapidly integrate it in new products, services and technology (Nonaka, 2007, p. 162) . Putting knowledge at the service of people within organizations brings a continued ability to create and deliver high quality and innovative products (Wiig, 1997b, pp. 2–3). This has led to a growing interest on treating knowledge as a significant organizational asset (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 107).

They are different notions on how to view knowledge; it can be regarded as a state of mind, an object to be stored and manipulated, a process, a condition of having access to information, or a capability to use information (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 109). From these perspectives, diverse taxonomies of knowledge have been unfolded. Knowledge may dwell in individuals or groups (Nonaka, 2007, p. 165); it may be tacit or explicit (Nonaka, 2007, p. 162); it may be declarative (know-about), procedural (know-how), casual (know-why), conditional (know-when), and relational (know-with) (Alavi &

Leidner, 2001, p. 112). Individual knowledge is originated and dwells in the individual, while group knowledge is generated by collective action under a social system (Alavi &

Leidner, 2001, p. 111). Explicit knowledge is formal and systematic knowledge that can be expressed, stored and shared, while tacit knowledge is hard to formalize, represent and communicate to others (Nonaka, 2007, p. 165; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 12).

The concepts of coding, storing, and transferring different types of knowledge in organizations have been around for a long time, but organizations have become more knowledge-focused in the recent years (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 108). A knowledge- based perspective of the firm has emerged to understand existing and new knowledge, to apply it in decision-making, problem-solving and innovation development (Leal- Rodríguez et al., 2013, p. 1296). Firms attempt to identify the organizational knowledge management approach and the type of knowledge that are useful to them from both

This chapter establishes the theoretical framework of the research. It is supported on literature in the fields of project management, knowledge management, and NPD. The layout of the topics intends to progressively familiarize and engage the reader with the frame of reference. The first section conceptualizes and explains Knowledge Integration within the Knowledge Management literature. The second and third section provides the settings of Knowledge Integration as a capability for Global NPD success and the organizational factors surrounding this context. The fourth section discusses the knowledge integration mechanisms applicable in a Global NPD environment. The fifth section argues the case of Project Lessons Learned as a source of knowledge. Consequently, the following section explores the interaction between Project Lessons Learned and Knowledge Integration and its contribution to the organization. Lastly, the theoretical diagram is built and presented as this study’s overall theoretical frame of reference.

(16)

6

economic and market-driven requirements (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 131; Wiig, 1997b, p. 5).

Knowledge management allows the organization to leverage knowledge both internally and externally to stakeholders, increase innovativeness and responsiveness, and act as intelligently as possible to ensure overall success (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 113;

Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 5; Wiig, 1997b, p. 1). It comprises value creation from the firm’s intangible assets (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 5). Thus, knowledge management plays an important role by setting up a system that coordinates and translates resources into capabilities (Darroch, 2005, p. 101). In this sense, resources refer to tacit and soft factors for long term competitive advantage, while capabilities concern to more explicit and harder factors for results on performance in the short them (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 13).

This reality has brought about the adoption of various tools and methods to manage knowledge (Wiig, 1997b, p. 1). Thus, different approaches have been proposed to convey how knowledge should be managed in organizations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 110). For instance, if knowledge is seen as an object, its approach should focuses on administering knowledge stocks. As a process, it would center on the process flow of creating, transferring and distributing knowledge. As a capability, the focus would be set on understanding the competitive advantage of the know-how and developing core competencies through intellectual capital (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 110). Hence, knowledge management can be regarded as an umbrella for a wide range of scholastic orientations such as organizational learning, information systems, strategic management and innovation (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2001, p. 996).

To date, many frameworks for knowledge management have been developed. The majority of existing frameworks tend to be task-oriented by focusing on the knowledge cycle process –the movement of knowledge throughout the firm and the tasks necessary for such movement (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 7). A knowledge-based firm engages in a dynamic organizational phenomenon, where not monolithic but simultaneous knowledge management processes are addressed (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 131). In general, at a minimum, knowledge management considers four distinct but interdependent processes: creation, storage (retrieval), transfer, and application (use/re- use) (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 131).

To this aim, knowledge resources must be assembled and converted into a valuable capability, a process known as integration or bundling (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 1001).

According to de Brentani and Kleinschmidt (2015, p. 18), knowledge integration refers to a capability by which organizations access and integrate dispersed information in a global and functional way. The integration of internal capabilities with external activities and technology fosters the development of competitive advantages and the ability to better respond to opportunities and threats (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 426).

Knowledge integration sets an ongoing collective process of social interaction of organizational members through which shared beliefs are constructed, articulated and redefined (Huang & Newell, 2003, p. 167). It comprises an alignment of interests and actions as well as the development of relationship-specific memories by which knowledge derived from that relationship is appended to the firm’s collective cognitions (Leal-Rodríguez et al., 2013, p. 1302). Firms that focus on knowledge integration

(17)

7

improve team performance by ensuring that the right information is moving back and forth at the right time among team members (Gardner & Staats, 2012, pp. 1005–1006).

This enables teams to have a better understanding of processes to integrate resources for enhanced performance, especially in complex innovation projects (Baxter et al., 2013, p.

411; Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 999).

On this regard, it is important to emphasize a clear distinction between knowledge integration and the processes within the knowledge cycle. Knowledge integration has been defined in terms of knowledge transfer and knowledge application as a component of these processes or as an interchangeable term for these processes (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002, p. 1030; Baxter et al., 2013, p. 410). However, knowledge integration goes beyond, as it is a capability in its own right that enables the development of other capabilities (Darroch, 2005, p. 103). A solid and well-established knowledge integration capability sets the stage for ensuing organizational tasks, thus becoming the primary mediator that allow firms to benefit from organizational resources and ultimately influencing firm performance (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, pp. 433–434). Knowledge transfer and knowledge application are knowledge processes that do not contribute to organizational performance just by executing them within the firm (Baxter et al., 2013, p. 410).

Furthermore, tacit knowledge is a key element of knowledge integration due to its limited transferability nature (Baxter et al., 2013, p. 410). This shows the difference between knowledge integration and the knowledge cycle processes, namely knowledge transfer and knowledge application.

The integration of knowledge is considered a fundamental role for organizations as the essence of organizational capability (Grant, 1996a, p. 375). Firm competitiveness relies on the strategic value and diversity of knowledge (Huang & Newell, 2003, pp. 168–169).

The potential capability of a firm for creating and sustaining competitive advantage maximizes with the span and effectiveness of knowledge integration (Grant, 1996a, pp.

384–385). A deeper understanding of how knowledge integration can be used as a capability, in specific, in a global NPD context is required and explored in the next section.

2.2. Knowledge Integration as a Capability for Global NPD Success

NPD is a relevant process for companies that represents the possibility to create new business, thence, new trades and profits for the firm (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 137).

NPD can be perceived as a fundamental organizational activity for business success as it targets future market opportunities to be exploited by the company (Kumar &

Phrommathed, 2005, p. 129; Pons, 2008, p. 82). The way in which NPD is managed has evolved during the last decades (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 137). This transformation aims to vision and anticipate to market and industry trends (Choo, 1996, p. 330). Further, it seeks to maximize the abilities and performance of diverse resources to produce competitive advantages (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 420). As a result, companies have been pushed to be more flexible and integrate great amount of resources to go beyond the pursuit of high quality, low costs and gaining marketplace (Morgan et al., 2015, p. 735;

Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 136).

It is relevant to understand how NPD has evolved to grasp the inception of Global NPD, and the forces enabling its success. During the NPD early stages, it consisted on a sequential approach where the innovation tasks were passed from one group of specialists

(18)

8

to another one. Later, the NPD approach had an overlapping in phases, as it required to integrate multidisciplinary teams where individuals had an end-to-end project participation (Eppinger & Chitkara, 2006, p. 22; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, pp. 137–

138). Hence, there was a transformation from clear and controlled phases to an interactive process among different members of the organization. Figure 1 presents the differences in product development approaches (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 139). This clearly shows how the NPD process has moved from static and well-defined boundaries, into dynamic relations where resources and outcomes have a constant interaction. Therefore, the level of complexity of this kind of projects has increased, considering the high number of elements affecting the project success at the same time.

Figure 1. Evolution of Product Development Approaches

As a result of the NPD process evolution, companies have progressively change their approach when implementing NPD, in order to support the teamwork between various clusters of people and phases (Eppinger & Chitkara, 2006, p. 22; Kester et al., 2014, p.

1199). For example, organizations rely nowadays on exploring international markets to establish a social network to perform globally (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 12).

Likewise, the usage of global teams tries to integrate resources and its capabilities at an international level to uncover and enhance business opportunities (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 420). Therefore, global NPD can be described as an organizational process that brings new product and services to the market at a global scale (de Brentani &

Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 24).

The global NPD process requires technical expertise dispersed in different countries, combined with low-cost resources to fuel efficiency (Eppinger & Chitkara, 2006, p. 23).

Also, teams demand wide-ranging knowledge and the development of different competences to solve problems in a fast way (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 141). Given the diverse elements involved in these projects, many studies have been conducted to identify the capabilities that lead to global NPD success. In specific, research has been conducted to identify the capabilities that can be actioned by management and derived on successful NPD projects (Ernst, 2002, p. 3).

Different authors define a capability as “unique, distinctive, difficult to imitate or superior to competition” (Leonard-Barton, 1993, p. 111). In recent studies, capabilities are perceived as a main enabler to reach a superior position, which are adjusted depending

(19)

9

on the dynamics in short-term (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 13; Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 420). Leonard-Barton (1993, pp. 111–113) highlights that a capability is the capacity which characterizes and contributes for a dominating position to differentiate the firm. For the purpose of this paper, capabilities will be framed as distinctive competences strengthened and adapted by the organization in parallel with context dynamics in the short term (Teece et al., 1997, p. 512).

In this regard, global NPD process capabilities, in particular the routines to integrate, change, exploit and deliver resources are critical to create competitive advantage as they are controlled and improved through the usage of internal resources (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000, p. 21; Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 420). These process capabilities for Global NPD success were examined by different researches. Different criteria and methodologies to measure success in NPD projects were used; however, all studies converge that management can implement efforts in numerous activities to enact success in NPD (Ernst, 2002, pp. 3–4). A comparison of the most relevant authors’ results on this extent is presented in Table 1 (Ernst, 2002, pp. 3–5; Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 423). The table presents the identified capabilities that contribute to NPD success.

Table 1. Comparison of Global NPD Process Capabilities Publication Main Results: Identified Capabilities Kleinschmidt et al., 2007

- Global knowledge integration - Homework activities

- Launch preparation Balbontin et al., 1999

- Good proficiency of marketing and design activities - Accurate market forecasts and predictions about

customer requirements Barczak, 1995 - Screening ideas process

Griffin, 1997 - Existence of NPD formal process where it is important to include steps in the process

Souder et al., 1997

- Proficiency of marketing activities during the NPD process

- Knowledge about the market

Sond and Parry, 1996 - Market and technological information - Proficiency and concept development Rubenstein et al, 1996

- Availability of technical information

- Availability of information about the characteristics of potential market

Atuahene-Gima, 1995

- Collection and use of market information

- Development and implementation of market-oriented strategy

Source: Ernst (2002); Kleinschdmidt et al. (2007)

Table 1 advocates that information management is a key element in the NPD Process. As it can be seen, findings present slight differences among authors. Most of the NPD research addresses one or few of these elements, with only a limited number of studies using a wider approach (Gemünden, 2015, p. 2). In this regard, Kleinschmidt et al., have conducted the most relevant empirical studies on the field (Ernst, 2002, p. 5; Kester et al., 2014, p. 1199). Different from similar studies, they have considered the different levels

(20)

10

at which these elements operate and influence NPD performance (de Brentani &

Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 13).

Based on these studies, the main capabilities of global NPD process for NPD success are:

global knowledge integration, homework activities and global launch preparation (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 15). In particular, knowledge integration outcomes reflects to be the most important capability as it provides a strategic advantage, supports the creation of core competences and builds future knowledge for the organization (Chronéer & Backlund, 2015, p. 110; de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 18).

De Brentani and Kleinschmidt (2015, p. 18) define knowledge integration in a NPD environment as the “capability by which firms access and integrate globally and functionally dispersed information about customers, technologies, and company expertise/resources throughout the NPD process in order to respond to customer needs and preferences, worldwide”. In the same line, literature emphasizes that this knowledge integration capability allows the company to enhance its services, as well as contributes to foster innovation and achieve higher performance (Carlile, 2002, p. 442; Darroch, 2005, p. 112). Also, it can be used by organizations to put together scattered data to engage organizational members (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 426).

Takeuchi and Nonaka (1986, p. 139) state that projects start with limited information, so it is crucial that knowledge about technical and market aspects is transferred to other individuals to be able to interact as a system. To this extent, it is proposed that the knowledge integration capability starts by creating and interconnecting data through social cooperation (Huang & Newell, 2003, p. 167). This interaction will result on connecting behaviors and expertise to develop incremental innovations, strength industry insights and enhance organizational processes (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 110; Choo, 1996, p. 330; Darroch, 2005, pp. 107–110).

Research suggests that knowledge integration supports Global NPD success, as it transforms project activities into general practices while exploiting local resources competences to produce global responses for the market (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p.

425; Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 144). Still, as knowledge might be ambiguous, individuals can have several translations of it (Choo, 1996, p. 330). Organizational factors that facilitate or inhibit knowledge integration are addressed in the next section to seize the underlying conditions that surround global NPD success.

2.3. Organizational Factors for Knowledge Integration in Global NPD

Success in global NPD programmes builds on organizational factors operating at different organizational levels. Organizational factors are the elements that influence the outcome and performance of global NPD projects (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 12). This entails a dynamic interaction between softer and long term ‘resources’ and actionable initiatives or ‘capabilities’ (Salomo et al., 2010, p. 955). In this sense, organizational factors can be catalogued as a resource or a capability. Resources are the tacit, ‘softer’

and difficult-to-imitate factors that must be embraced by a firm to sustain long-term competitive advantage (Gemünden, 2015, p. 2). Capabilities comprises actionable and specific competencies, skills and routines that firms create and develop in the short term to impact on performance (Gemünden, 2015, p. 2).

(21)

11

Kleinschmidt et al. (2007, p. 419) state that the global NPD resources of the firm include the organization’s global innovation culture, attitude to resource commitment, senior management involvement, and NPD process formality. These organizational resources enable long-term behavioral environment and high performance (Gemünden, 2015, p. 2).

NPD-related capabilities moderates the organizational resources by influencing their magnitude and direction (Gemünden, 2015, p. 3). NPD programmes incorporate elements arranged in global NPD strategy, process, team and IT/Communication capabilities (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 13). Research suggests that global NPD team and IT/Communication are the capability constructs that enable an efficient way of integrating knowledge (Kleinschmidt et al., 2010, p. 202; Salomo et al., 2010, p. 957).

Literature emphasizes that these organizational factors are key for the effective deployment of knowledge integration routines (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 18;

Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 89). Iteratively, a global knowledge integration capability mediates the positive influence of the organizational resources and capabilities over windows of opportunity and financial performance (Gemünden, 2015, p. 3). This means that developing a capability that integrates functionally dispersed information leads to new products that respond better to diverse market needs and characteristics globally (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 433).

Conversely, a faulty knowledge integration can be an obstacle for innovation if it inhibits creative thinking to solve problems across functions (Carlile, 2002, p. 442). It is argued that knowledge integration turns out a relevant capability for the company only when it allows individuals to utilize specific data and transform it into new information in order to promote learning in the company (Chronéer & Backlund, 2015, p. 110). Knowledge management research has highlighted that knowledge should be used by all levels and areas of management to enact learning and function effectively (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 146). Yet, when different constructs of organizational factors are combined, knowledge integration becomes difficult (Huang & Newell, 2003, p. 169; Takeuchi &

Nonaka, 1986, p. 138).

Therefore, organizations should create a proper organizational context to drive global innovation (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 87). Thus, a layout of key organizational factors that puts in place an effective knowledge integration capability should be set up in order to produce superior global NPD outcomes (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 420). Figure 2 presents an adapted model based on the work of de Brentani, et al. (2015, pp. 13–17) displaying the relationship between NPD resources and capabilities as organizational factors in terms of knowledge integration.

Figure 2. Organizational Factors of Knowledge Integration for Global NPD Success Source: de Brentani and Kleinschmidt (2015)

(22)

12 Global Innovation Culture

In terms of global NPD resources, knowledge integration should be erected on organizational culture as a foundation (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 12). A global innovation culture represents a relevant intangible resource that influences the gathering, coordination, and integration of dispersed information across products and markets (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 423).

Resource Commitment

In this aspect, resource commitment aids in reinforcing organizational culture by coping with the international scope of NPD programmes through a senior management attitude that finds, dedicates and deploys resources for knowledge integration tasks (de Brentani

& Kleinschmidt, 2015, pp. 16–18). Nevertheless, instituting a global culture implies higher managerial skills to reduce differences and integrate individuals (McDonough et al., 2001, p. 111).

Senior Management Involvement

Senior management involvement enhances the knowledge integration capability through its visioning, championing and sponsoring roles (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p.

18). The tacit knowledge of senior management plays a critical role as these managers act as leaders and facilitators for articulating organizational values, objectives, and strategy, reducing cultural distance, and bringing together dispersed elements of NPD programmes (Kleinschmidt et al., 2010, p. 205). Nevertheless, excessive involvement from top management can be detrimental (Gemünden, 2015, p. 3). Here it may be a question of focus rather than amount or intensity; senior management involvement should not be indiscriminate and should not meddle or lack delegation in the NPD process (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 435).

NPD Process Formality

In a similar vein, the formality of the global NPD process is a measure of maturity of the NPD programmes (Gemünden, 2015, p. 3). Process formality helps to harness windows of opportunity (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 433). It is necessary to establish structure, discipline, and a shared sense of purpose across different locations (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 87). However, too much formality could create increased rigidities, causing too strict adherence to pre-defined procedures that bring no further improvement, but conversely affects performance (Kleinschmidt et al., 2007, p. 433). This means that over- formalization may lead to losing opportunities and hampers radical innovations and entrepreneurial initiatives (Gemünden, 2015, p. 3). Managers must find a good balance between formal and informal practices in the NPD process (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 85).

IT/Communication

In terms of capabilities, many studies suggest that IT and Communication can be a key factor to learning and supporting information sharing (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 111).

The implementation of information systems is related to the ease of storage and transfer of knowledge (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 5). Information and communication

(23)

13

technologies play a role to support everyday collaboration, share knowledge, and reinforce trust (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 90).

Conversely, Newell (2004, pp. 12–13) discusses the ineffectiveness of relying on IT to capture and share knowledge. Knowledge integration comprises much more than technologies for knowledge sharing (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 5); IT is only part of the knowledge management process (Duffield & Whitty, 2015, p. 315). Focusing mainly in technology potentially narrows the view on knowledge management and inhibits the reach of knowledge integration (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 5).

Maqsood and Finegan (2009, p. 306) indicate that knowledge management is 10%

technical related with the remaining 90% related to human capital. Therefore, an approach must be taken towards integrating knowledge through a more aligned and balanced people, process, and technology scheme (Duffield & Whitty, 2015, p. 315)

Global NPD Team

In this line, firms make use of global teams to exploit the knowledge dispersed globally (McDonough et al., 2001, p. 110). People are driving factors that influence the success or failure of knowledge initiatives (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 5). In a global NPD context, organizations assemble teams to deliver innovative outputs (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 1014). However, if the firm is unable to capitalize on its knowledge pool, teams will fail to achieve their project objectives (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 1014).

In this regard, converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (articulation) and expanding the existing tacit knowledge through that explicit knowledge (internalization) are critical for knowledge integration (Nonaka, 2007, p. 166). Given that tacit knowledge consists not only of the know-how but of mental models, beliefs, and perspectives, the knowledge can be so deeply embedded that it can be taken for granted and not easy to articulate (Nonaka, 2007, p. 165). In this aspect, experiential resources must be taken into consideration. Experiences are seldom transferred to other team members during the course of a project and are not necessarily part of the project’s documentation, making these experiences often available only through informal networks (Schindler & Eppler, 2003, p. 220). In this way, the risk of knowledge loss at a project’s end is raised leading to a permanent organizational amnesia (Schindler & Eppler, 2003, p. 220).

This issue equates the complexity to articulate knowledge with its worth, which could lead to the assumption that tacit knowledge is more important than explicit knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 111). Other authors prompt to suggest that explicit knowledge might be more significant than tacit knowledge, under the assumption of legitimacy of recorded knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, pp. 111–112). However, both types are not mutually exclusive, but rather they are interdependent and reinforcing qualities of knowledge; tacit knowledge lays the groundwork for structuring and developing explicit knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 111).

In addition, teams face an environment of higher uncertainty in a global NPD context than in other kind of projects in terms of the team tasks, the individual work to be carried out, the steps and knowledge required to complete the task, and the shifting demands of stakeholders (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 1004). These lead to varying strategies, readjustment of needs and behavior, changes in technology, and time constraints, which set barriers that disrupt the knowledge integration flow (Leal-Rodríguez et al., 2013, p.

(24)

14

1307). Task uncertainty induces restricted control and lessened cognitive function (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 1004). This reduces information sharing, and focus efforts on decision making at the expense of knowledge reflection (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p.

1004).

Likewise, managers should be prepared to cope with geographic dispersion and diversity, which includes dealing with different time zones, languages, nationalities and cultural backgrounds (Salomo et al., 2010, pp. 959–960). This preparation is critical to create an organizational context appropriate for global teams (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 85). In global NPD, teams, in addition to cross-functionality, must position the talent and knowledge across different parts of the organization in order to leverage on competencies, experiences, and also cultural sensitivities (Salomo et al., 2010, p. 956).

Yet, firms struggle to assemble teams that work properly with the global nature of the NPD effort (McDonough et al., 2001, p. 110). In teams with high number of geographically dispersed resources, companies face issues to align them in a same trail of organizational knowledge (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002, p. 1029). Cohesive and supportive global NPD teams offer a gateway for coordinating and consolidating dispersed knowledge with internal knowledge and other capabilities (Gemünden, 2015, p. 4). An effective use of global teams will add to the firm’s creativity and understanding of global and local markets (Salomo et al., 2010, p. 968).

To increase the positive effect of organizational factors and offset their potential issues, managers can pursuit different types of approaches (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 85). Teams must communicate in an open and clear way by exchanging information and action plans to minimize wasted time and duplication of work, and by conveying individual and group preferences to avoid conflict over tasks (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 1004). Managers should acknowledge that integration efforts results on reducing the dispersion complexity, by joining knowledge from diverse sites worldwide (Salomo et al., 2010, p.

966). Relational resources further aids to counteract knowledge integration disruption through the assembling of familiar groups and with strong interpersonal relations, which make members disinhibit and feel more comfortable under the constricted control present in projects with a high degree of uncertainty (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 1004).

Based on this, it can be perceived how organizational factors can be a double-edged sword, where some factors might improve the performance of knowledge integration initiatives while others may harm it (Gardner & Staats, 2012, p. 1005). Firms should build on organizational factors to develop a capability to leverage dispersed knowledge for successful global innovation projects (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p. 90). In this regard, both sets of factors, resources and capabilities, are highly interrelated and pivotal to set the stage for an effective knowledge integration and ultimately success in global NPD (de Brentani & Kleinschmidt, 2015, p. 12). The challenge for successful global NPD becomes how to replicate the positive aspects of organizational factors across multiple locations while harnessing the knowledge derived from global initiatives (Wilson & Doz, 2012, p.

86).

(25)

15

2.4. Knowledge Integration Mechanisms

Global NPD is a field where knowledge is relevant to foster new innovations and organizational capabilities (Goffin & Koners, 2011). Hence, knowledge integration should see beyond the knowledge cycle or knowledge management tasks to exploit firms’

opportunities (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002, p. 1031; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 12).

Several and different types of approaches have been implemented in firms to manage knowledge (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 5). However, the development of holistic mechanisms that incorporate the organizational and cultural aspects of knowledge integration needs to be addressed (Goffin et al., 2010, p. 41; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 12). In this sense, mechanisms are the practices used to capture and distribute the knowledge to subsequent projects (Schindler & Eppler, 2003, p. 219).

Existing approaches work as a process looking to efficiently collect, enrich, and transfer knowledge throughout all the organization to enable learning (Gold et al., 2001, p. 188).

In particular, a knowledge integration mechanism aims to structure and implement knowledge to exploit and support companies’ competences (Wiig, 1997a, p. 404). In this regard, Grant (1996b, p. 379) emphasizes that the way knowledge is integrated relies on three main dimensions: efficiency, scope and flexibility. In his study is suggested that firms that frequently perform integration of knowledge are more efficient. Yet, if the used mechanisms to integrate knowledge are not standard or change the scope, the integration maybe less effective (Grant, 1996b, pp. 389–381)

Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001, p. 7) states that knowledge mechanisms can be prescriptive, descriptive or a combination of both. Prescriptive process offers guidelines with no specific details to be considered while implementing: while, descriptive models intend to describe factors which affect the success or failure of the activities (Rubenstein- Montano et al., 2001, p. 8). Literature distinguishes prescriptive mechanisms as the most useful for management (Chronéer & Backlund, 2015, p. 63; Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 7). Knowledge integration is achieved by implementing coordinated activities as well as using sense making routines (Ahern et al., 2014, p. 1425; Huang & Newell, 2003, p. 174), which suggests the usage of a hybrid process. To this extent, Schindler and Eppler (2003, p. 220) recognizes that during the integration of knowledge it is difficult to express “know-how”, but particularly the “know-why” (personal views, experiences).

There are limited mechanisms suggested by literature to integrate knowledge, still, only few of them are suggested by literature as relevant or well-grounded. Hence, table 2 aims to present the most cited mechanisms mentioned in literature, considering their scope and main characteristics. A critical comparison of them is presented in the subsequent paragraphs.

Alavi and Tiwana (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002, pp. 1033–1034) proposed an integration mechanism based on empirical research in virtual teams where it is assumed that there is no common knowledge between members in an early stage of the process. Therefore, they suggest to use a messaging system and electronic whiteboard in the initial stage to easily communicate between members. Later, knowledge repositories should be created to connect, search and interact with other members to create a common language (Alavi &

Tiwana, 2002, p. 1035). However, one limitation of this author’s mechanism is that it only describes the activities to do by managers, rather than considering all project team

(26)

16

levels to contribute. In addition, it fails to mention which are the possible elements positive or negatively influencing these mechanisms.

Another relevant knowledge integration mechanism considered in this research is proposed by Baxter et al. (2013, p. 417), as it intends to understand how different elements interact in the knowledge integration process. They identified individual expertise and working together as two key mechanisms in knowledge integration. Individual expertise comprises individual competences such as feeling valued and unfamiliar areas, whereas working together refers to the extents through which individuals integrate knowledge:

good social relations, cultural distance and negotiation skills (Baxter et al., 2013, pp. 418–

420). Based on the interaction of these variables knowledge integration can be enriched or reduced (Baxter et al., 2013, p. 417). These components converge with the mechanisms suggested by other authors as individual knowledge is integrated through social routines in specific systems (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002, p. 1030; Grant, 1996a, p. 379).

Table 2. Comparison of Knowledge Integration Mechanisms Category Alavi & Tiwana,

2002

Baxter et al.,

2013 Grant, 1996

Mechanism to integrate knowledge

Messages System Repository

Individual Expertise and

Working Together

Direction and Organizational

Routines Type of knowledge

scope Tacit Tacit Tacit/Explicit

Type of mechanism Descriptive Prescriptive Prescriptive

Considers global

context Yes Yes No

On the other hand, Grant (1996a, p. 379) proposes two mechanisms to integrate knowledge: direction and organizational routines. Direction relates to the way knowledge is connected to craft a good, highlighting that the more complex the good to create the higher the knowledge direction required (Demsetz, 1988, p. 157). For instance, it is emphasized that direction implies deep management involvement as it integrates several specialists’ knowledge (Baxter et al., 2013, p. 408; Grant, 1996a, p. 379). Nonetheless, literature on knowledge processes states that direction within levels and functions is not the only element driving to learning (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986).

Organizational routines, as the second mechanism suggested by Grant (1996a, p. 379), refer to the explicit norms and guidelines an organization uses on a daily basis. These routines consider know-how expertise and individual views to codify procedures, documents and instruments to guide the organization (Alavi & Tiwana, 2002, p. 1029). It is argued by literature that even the relevance of these mechanisms, there is not concrete procedure provided to use these mechanisms to integrate knowledge (Baxter et al., 2013, p. 408). Also, direction and organizational routines implementation supposed to be long and costly for a company (Mathew & Kavitha, 2008, p. 25).

Knowledge integration processes should focus on the tasks to connect strategic goals with individuals’ expertise (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 7). Even though literature does not emphasize or converge on a unique mechanism to integrate knowledge, it is

(27)

17

crucial to generate a mechanism that supports learning between projects from the individual, social and organizational point or view (Hartmann & Dorée, 2015, p. 350).

Also, it is vital the creation of hybrid models where cultural factors are considered to enhance the outcomes (Rubenstein-Montano et al., 2001, p. 10).

2.5. Project Lessons Learned as a Source of Knowledge

Project lessons learned are relevant experiences obtained during the project which can be important for future projects (Schindler & Eppler, 2003, p. 220). These experiences are usually translated in documents within the organization. In this sense, the Association of Project Management (2015) defines project lessons learned as “documented experiences that can be used to improve the future management of projects, programmes and portfolios” (APM, 2015). Literature emphasizes that the knowledge in the project lessons learned document offers to project teams an opportunity to promote learning and incorporate knowledge (Anbari et al., 2008, p. 633). This means that all project members interact in a learning process to transfer their cumulative knowledge obtained during the project (Ayas, 1996, p. 131).

These lessons are generated assessing project experience and used as feedback to change current project performance or to enrich other projects (Huang & Newell, 2003, p. 175;

PRINCE2, 2012). They aim to summarize the knowledge generated by involved people throughout the project duration to benefit future projects (Kasvi et al., 2003, p. 571; von Zedtwitz, 2002, p. 255). It is recommended this document is generated during all the project phases, as it is critical to reflect on insightful lessons at any stage of the project (Anbari et al., 2008, p. 634; Huang & Newell, 2003; Schindler & Eppler, 2003, p. 224).

In project management, lessons learned emerge from Post-Project Reviews (PPRs) (Goffin & Koners, 2011, p. 300). PPRs intend to gather information to improve projects through lessons learned and generate learning across the organization, which make them different from project audits or meeting reviews (von Zedtwitz, 2002, pp. 255–256).

There are diverse type of experiences captured in PPRs. Table 3 shows the results of the research conducted by Goffin et al. (2010, p. 45) where experienced staff in NPD projects determined the most significant categories of lessons learned they have input during PPRs. This illustrates how project lessons learned are a useful tool to identify key experiences to be transmitted to other teams (von Zedtwitz, 2002, p. 256).

However, these experiences might be difficult to be transferred as they are the result of individual and collective interactions (Goffin & Koners, 2011, p. 314). For instance, even though lessons learned in PPRs work as a means to encourage learning, it is not clear how to activate this mechanism (Goffin & Koners, 2011, p. 304; Hall & Andriani, 2002, p.

29). Also, it is emphasized that people usually transmit knowledge by word of mouth instead of consulting documented project lessons learned (Gulliver, 2009, p. 129). Hence, as experiences contained in project lessons learned enhance the performance of NPD teams (Goffin et al., 2010, p. 40), it is critical for organizations to understand how to assimilate project experiences effectively to support global NPD success.

To this extent, experiences contained in lessons learned can be catalogued as tacit knowledge (Ahern et al., 2014, p. 1429; Goffin & Koners, 2011, p. 316). On one hand, tacit knowledge encloses individual’s models based on architypes and points of view, as well as a technical component integrated by skills and know-how in particular settings

(28)

18

(Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 110; Nonaka, 1994, p. 16). When this tacit knowledge is expressed in numbers or text, it is converted into explicit knowledge (Alavi & Leidner, 2001, p. 110). In this line, Choo (1996, p. 335) states that firms which are able to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge are proficient to develop new products.

Also, Nonaka (1994, pp. 14–15) highlighted that an effective interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge can stimulate innovation.

Even though tacit knowledge is evidently a source for innovation (Goffin & Koners, 2011, p. 300; Nonaka, 1994, p. 14), it is difficult to communicate and translate it into explicit knowledge (Choo, 1996, p. 334). Moreover, even when the knowledge is successfully transformed into explicit information, it is seldom shared and integrated in the organizational processes and projects (Chronéer & Backlund, 2015, p. 63; Goffin &

Koners, 2011, p. 303). Literature notes that it seems that firms are not generating proper connections between the generation and implementation of project lessons learned (Duffield & Whitty, 2015, p. 312).

Table 3. Significant Categories of Project Lessons Learned for Global NPD

Category Explanation

Budget and costs

NPD staff perceives project budgeting and cost control as something that can only be mastered with practice.

Ability to apply learning It takes experience to recognize the learning that can be applied from one project to the next.

Organizational complexity A complex organization can hinder knowledge flow.

Problem solving Problem solving is critical and time consuming.

Product specifications

Anticipating changes in product specifications and knowing how to deal with the implications for managing the project are crucial.

Project objectives Project objectives are critical and must be clearly communicated.

Resources

In commercial projects, resources are tightly

controlled. This often impacts the project schedule as well as the project deliverable.

Schedule Time is a key constraint and the time needed for a project is frequently underestimated.

Source: Goffin et al. (2010)

Under this view, lessons learned can be conceived as explicit knowledge which reflect relevant experiences (tacit knowledge) gained during a project. To this extent, lessons learned are seen as a powerful tool to stimulate learning in NPD teams (Goffin & Koners, 2011, p. 300). For instance, while converting tacit into explicit knowledge, information and learning from strategic and unique initiatives can be passed to subsequent projects to enact corporate change (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986, p. 146). However, it is vital organizations learn how to learn from organizational and individual knowledge for future projects (Goffin & Koners, 2011, p. 300; Schindler & Eppler, 2003, p. 220).

Different authors have suggested means to seize upon lessons learned to promote knowledge in organizations. For example, Ayas (1996, p. 29) highlighted an information- approach is required for projects with large number of interdependencies and technical