creating knowledge of end users' requirements: the interface between firm and project

122 September 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PA

PE

RS

INTRODUCTION ■

Knowledge is an important asset in a firm, and the ability to learn is essential for staying competitive in the market (Andersen &Vaagaasar, 2009; Blessing, Goerk, & Bach, 2001; Hong, Kianto, & Kylaheiko, 2008). Companies must have knowledge about their

customers (Blessing et al., 2001) and know how to manage that knowledgeefficiently (Connell, Klein, Loebbecke, & Powell, 2001), both by sourcing andsharing knowledge (Velasquez, Durcikova, & Sabherwal, 2009). The capabil-ity to learn within a firm is affected by a number of factors—for example, theorganizational structure (Hobday, 2000; Lam, 2000) and the ability to com-bine the development of knowledge with knowledge application and meas-urement (von Krogh & Roos, 1996).

A project-based firm is one that focuses strongly on the project dimen-sion and carries out most of its activities in projects (Lindkvist, 2004).Hobday (2000) discussed the concept of project-based organizations bydescribing six different kinds of organizations arranged according to theinfluence projects have on the body of knowledge within the firm: functional,functional matrix, balanced matrix, project matrix, project-led, and project-based organizations. The ability to learn is higher in a traditional functionalmatrix organization than in a project-based organization (Hobday, 2000).The project-based organization is decentralized (Lindkvist, 2004) and looselycoupled (Orton & Weick, 1990). Loose coupling occurs because the knowl-edge the individuals possess is not effectively shared (Orton & Weick, 1990),as every part of the project-based organization is a separate, isolated unit.One way to improve the learning capacity in a project-based organization isto encourage cross-project communication. Because of the cross-projectcommunication, the purely project-based firm becomes a project-led firm. A strength of project-based organizations is, for example, their capacity tomeet clients’ needs through a close engagement with the end users (Hobday,2000).

To stay competitive in a dynamic environment, it is essential for project-based firms, such as construction firms, to be able to respond to rapidchanges and new demands (Gann & Salter, 2000). The needs, requirements,and expectations of the client and the end users have to be understood inorder for the firm to be able to create value for them (Achterkamp & Vos,2008; Project Management Institute [PMI], 2008). In construction projects,the client is sometimes also an end user of the project result, but not neces-sarily. The client can be both representing a firm and be a private person. The end users are sometimes known by person, but not always. Each of thesepreconditions requires different approaches in order to create value for theclient as well as for the end user.

Creating Knowledge of End Users’Requirements: The Interface BetweenFirm and ProjectSofia Pemsel, Division of Construction Management, Lund University, Lund, SwedenKristian Widén, Division of Construction Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

ABSTRACT ■

In order to stay competitive and meet thechanging needs of the market, constructionfirms must develop efficient means of gatheringand using knowledge of end users’ require-ments. This article uses two case studies toexplore the knowledge creation of end users’requirements in project-driven firms. The focusof the study is the interface between the firmand the project. The interface is analyzed fromboth an autopoietic and cognitive, organization-al, and societal view. The findings implicate the importance of understanding (a) whatkinds of knowledge dominated in the differentorganizations, (b) what could be expected inthe exchange of data, and (c) what action needsto be taken in order to create value of it. Thestudy suggests that considering the organiza-tion as an autopoietic system could be useful tounderstand the organization’s responses to adynamic environment.

KEYWORDS: knowledge creation; end userrequirements; project-driven firms

Project Management Journal, Vol. 41, No. 4, 122–130

© 2010 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20200

September 2010 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 123

Feedback and learning loops areessential for improving the quality ofthe work provided, creating knowledge,and finding innovative solutions, butthese loops are often broken in project-based firms (Gann & Salter, 2000). Anumber of tools exist for managing endusers and their requirements in con-struction projects, but these seldomprovide any guidance about how to actupon the outcome and most common-ly focus only on one part of the process.This lack of guidance and narrow focuscomplicates the ability to use such toolsto learn and improve (Pemsel, Widén, &Hansson, 2010). The purpose of thisresearch is to explore the characteris-tics of the sourcing and sharing processin gaining information about the end users’ requirements when the endusers are unknown. To gain a deeperunderstanding of the nature of thelearning process in the firms, we con-ducted a comparative analysis of twoperspectives of learning: (1) cognitive,organizational, and societal and (2) autopoietic.

Knowledge and Learning inOrganizationsKnowledge is a multidimensional con-cept with various definitions and mean-ings (Nonaka, 1994; Starbuck, 1992).Knowledge has both a tacit and explicitdimension, and new organizationalknowledge is created from a constantdialogue between the tacit and theexplicit. Information turns into knowl-edge when it is interpreted and relatedto a context by its holder; it requireshuman action. Knowledge can be heldby individuals, organizations, and soci-eties (Nonaka, 1994). The organizationcan be considered as a distribution sys-tem of knowledge (Tsoukas, 1996) or anintegrator of knowledge (Grant, 1996),in which the knowledge consists ofphysical and social capital, routines,organizational cultures, and the indi-viduals (Starbuck, 1992). Learning inorganizations can be viewed as single-or double-looped. Single-loop learningoccurs within accepted routines, whiledouble-loop learning requires that the

underlying values and features bechanged. Single-loop learning is appro-priate for everyday work procedures,but improving long-term efficiency inthe organization requires double-looplearning (Argyris, 1999). Argyris (1999)said, “Learning occurs when the invent-ed solution is actually produced” (p. 68).The creation of knowledge can beviewed as a process influenced by, forexample, normative expectations in thecontext, and the past and the presentexperiences of individuals and the col-lective group (Karni & Kaner, 2008;Tsoukas, 1996).

Knowledge creation and learningcan be regarded as a social (Lundvall,1992; Mariotti, 2007) and dynamicprocess; it is not solely the transfer ofinformation and data (functional view)(Mariotti, 2007). The “input-process-output” view of information processingin organizations has been the dominantview in strategic management studies(Mariotti, 2007; Nonaka, 1994). Thisinput-process-output view is regardedas unprolific by many researchers, as itconsiders the organization to be passiveand static (Nonaka, 1994) and humans

to be passive receivers like computers(Sveiby, 1996). Sveiby argued thatknowledge is an active process of know-ing that requires human action, inter-pretation, and understanding.

Cognitive, Organizational, andSocietal PerspectiveLam (2000) presented a three-levelframework (Figure 1) “to explain howknowledge, organizational forms, andsocietal institutions interact to shapelearning and innovation” (p. 489).

The first level describes knowledgefrom a cognitive perspective. Knowl-edge is experience-based, contextuallydependent, and transmitted throughsocial networks. Four types of knowl-edge are presented based on if they aretacit-explicit or individual-collective.1. Embrained knowledge (individual-

explicit)• formal, abstract, and theoretical

2. Encoded knowledge (collective-explicit)• information, signs, and symbols

3. Embodied knowledge (individual-tacit)• practical and individual

Cumulative learning

Standardizationthrough formal

education

Narrow learning Superficial learning

Dynamic learning

Embedded

Encoded

Embodied

Embrained

Collaboration Strong corporateculture

Efficiency andcontrol

Figure 1: The relation between the knowledge type, characteristics of the organization, and learning (adapted from Lam, 2000).


Creating Knowledge of End Users’ RequirementsP

AP

ER

S

4. Embedded knowledge (collective-tacit)• organizational routines and shared

norms

Organizations possess all types ofknowledge, but one is often dominant(Lam, 2000).

The second level describes fourtypes of organizations divided afterwhat kind of knowledge is dominatedin the organization—for example, theability for coordination and learning(Lam, 2000).1. Professional bureaucracy is dominat-

ed by embrained knowledge.• high level of standardization through

the individual’s formal educationand training

2. Machine bureaucracy is dominatedby encoded knowledge.• standardization, specialization, and

control to achieve efficiency andcontrol

3. Operating adhocracy is dominatedby embodied knowledge.• dominated by collaboration of indi-

vidual experts (often project-based); low standardization and lowdegree of knowledge accumulation

4. The J-form organization is dominat-ed by embedded knowledge.• combines stability with flexibility

by a strong corporate culture and aknowledge base of the firm

The knowledge and organizationsin the third level are related to the edu-cation and training system (degree offormalization and academic bias) andto labor markets (degree of mobility forthe employee [firm-market]), whichresults in four types of models (Lam,2000):1. Professional (including professional

bureaucracy and embrained knowl-edge)• narrow learning and inhibited

innovation2. Bureaucratic (including machine

bureaucracy and encoded knowl-edge)• superficial learning and limited

innovation

3. Occupational community (operatingadhocracy and embodied knowl-edge)• dynamic learning and radical inno-

vation4. Organizational community (J-form

organization and embedded knowl-edge)• cumulative learning and incremen-

tal innovation

Autopoietic PerspectiveLam (2000) described the importance ofgetting a broader perspective of theorganization by involving the environ-ment it performs in to understand howthe organization learns and shapesinnovation. Another way to understandhow organizations learn is by looking atthem as being part of an autopoietic sys-tem (Koskinen, 2009). Autopoiesismeans self-production of the systemthrough the system (Brandhoff, 2009).Luhmann (2006) viewed organizationsas social systems held together by aclosed network of communication, butthe system is not independent of theenvironment: “a system is the differencebetween system and environment”(Luhmann, 2006, p. 38). The system con-tinuously responds to the environment,if it is meaningful to the system, by cre-ating a chain of operations with the pur-pose to adapt to changed demands andlearn (Luhmann, 2006). For example,new information in a system is onlyinformation if it initiates a change ofstate in the system. In other words, theinformation differs from the existinginformation and creates a difference inthe system: reproduction (Luhmann,2006). Input to the system is not regard-ed as knowledge but as data. The data iscontextualized and interpreted by theindividuals, which transforms the datainto knowledge. Information is not seenas knowledge; it enables communica-tion and knowledge processes to start(Koskinen, 2009).

Koskinen (2009) applied the thoughtsof autopoietic systems when analyzingproject-based organizations. The sys-tem’s capability to regenerate andrespond to a dynamic environment is

vital for projects. As projects have to beable to manage customers’ changedrequirements, that requires the abilityto develop new knowledge and newskills—for example, structural coupling(Koskinen, 2009). Knowledge from anautopoietic epistemology perspective iscreated and not directly transferable, asit is dependent on history and context.To create knowledge and communicateit both vertically and horizontally(between projects) in project-basedcompanies is vital to avoid system dis-integration (Koskinen, 2009).

MethodIn this article, we explore the character-istics of the sourcing and sharingprocess of information of end users’requirements, when the end users areunknown in two housing firms. The endusers are those who will use/occupy thebuilding. The end users have knowl-edge and opinions about the outcomeof the project in relation to their ownobjectives (Kaya, 2004; Lai & Yik, 2007).The end users, in this study, areunknown during the execution of theconstruction project; nonetheless,potential end user requirements needto be understood to enable value cre-ation for them.

The present study involved theinvestigation of the information andknowledge sharing in two housingfirms: one public and one private. Thepublic firm is a property managerwhose responsibilities include mainte-nance, refurbishment, and new con-struction. The housing firm is a publicreal estate concern, wholly owned bythe county of the city it is performingin. They supply 20,000 inhabitants with8,500 dwellings and 100,000-square-meter habitats (shop premises, officepremises, cinema premises, and geri-atric care). The business includes build-ing new houses, refurbishment, andoperation and maintenance.

The private firm has this as the maingoal: “build quality homes at prices thatallow as many people as possible to buytheir own properties.” The company isselling building concepts to licentiate


takers in Sweden, Denmark, Norway,Finland, and Great Britain. The buildingconsists of new-build villas, apart-ments, and terrace houses. Forty per-cent of their products are delivered toseveral public real estate owners asrental houses. The firm develops theconcepts, both process and product,and then sells them to a contractor. Thecontractors build and then sell them tothe end users, who become the finalowners of the property.

The similarities between the com-panies are:• The client (the housing firm) is the

“main” project manager and the linkbetween the executive project manag-er and the end users.

•When designing new houses or apart-ments, the end users are unknown. Asa result, the clients have to keep inmind the interests of both the housingfirms and the end users.

Both struggle with the difficulty inan effective knowledge “interaction”between projects and the firms.

The focus of this study is on thefirms’ ability to create knowledge fromdifferent sources of information (project-specific, surveys, experience-based,etc.) and consists of a literature study, aworkshop, and two case studies. The lit-erature review was performed first, inpreparation of the case studies, in orderto explore characteristics of the knowl-edge creation in different kinds oforganizations. Next, a workshop wascarried out involving clients from thetwo housing firms studied. During theworkshop, a discussion about similari-ties and differences that have causedstruggles was generated.

The case studies involved inter-views and studies of documents. Theinterviews were semistructured andperformed with client representativesfrom the housing firms. The purpose ofthe case studies was to determine someof the issues in the management ofunknown end users’ requirements andto gain insight into which are causes forconcern. The study is not meant to

provide a definitive account of the rela-tions or to present conclusive analysisof how a project should be managed.

ResultNo matter how a project is organized,the information about end users’requirements has to be not only gath-ered but also processed into some kindof value. In this case study of two firms,we found that value creation was consistently considered difficult. Forexample, during discussions in theworkshops, it was said, “It is not hard toask questions; the difficulty is using theinformation gathered in the value-cre-ation process.”

This study was conducted to gaininsight into how two firms responded tothis difficulty. The findings reveal twovery different ways of managing infor-mation about unknown end users inthe firms studied.

Systems for CollectingInformation From/About End Users in the Private FirmThe information flow to determine enduser requirements/values within theprivate firm is illustrated in Figure 2.There, the end users are represented asoutside the circle of the client organiza-tion, to indicate that the end users are

not in contact with the organization atthe start of the projects.

The study found that though thecustomers (e.g., end users) of the pri-vate firm were not known from thestart, the firm put a great deal of effortinto trying to understand their futurecustomer and to evaluate the fulfill-ment of the customers’ expectations inoccupancy. To do this, the marketingdepartment used a system of surveyingand evaluating methods to get theinformation needed in order toimprove and develop the product andproject process to meet the needs of thecustomers. The entire process is illus-trated in Figure 3. When the projectstarts, a survey is conducted by themarketing department to determinehow potential customers want to live inthat specific market. This survey is fol-lowed by parallel work to develop theproduct and the project performanceusing a customer perspective. Thedevelopment of the product begins andends with different kinds of surveys: Theproject is initiated with a market surveyand followed by a positive-customer-index survey. The surveys include ques-tions about the customers’ experienceof the external project executers’ per-formance. In addition to these parallel

Project executer End users

Projectdepartment

Marketingdepartment

Clientorganization

Figure 2: The information flow in the private firm between the four parties: project department, marketing department, project executer, and end users.



AP

ER

S

surveys, customer surveys are per-formed by the marketing departmenton projects that are 2 years or older ofboth product and living area.

The firm works systematically withthe different surveys, but the surveysare not linked together into an efficientsystem. In the words of the marketingmanager, “The information is not effi-ciently fed forward in the process.”

Systems for CollectingInformation From/About End Users in the Public FirmThe information flow of end userrequirements/values within the publicfirm is illustrated in Figure 4. There too,the end users are outside the circle of the

client organization, to indicate that the end users are not in contact with theorganization at the start of projects.

As with the private firm, the publicfirm was found to be working with anumber of procedures to gain an under-standing of the needs of their existingtenants and future ones. The marketingdepartment surveys the existing tenantsusing customer-satisfaction indicatorsand input from meetings with the ten-ants’ associations. Sometimes mem-bers from the marketing departmentare present as well during those meet-ings. The project department obtainsinformation about the renovation proj-ects (from working groups and ques-tionnaires).

When the company plans to buildnew housing, the marketing depart-ment sometimes performs marketingsurveys to obtain information aboutthe interest in the planned housingarea. The firm, furthermore, collectsinformation in a data bank about whatthe tenants wish their future living to belike and where they would like to live.However, the firm does not use theinformation in a systematic manner.Much of the knowledge the employeesrely on is experience-based, but thisknowledge is not systematically shared.This circumstance can be seen as a riskfactor for the firm: when someone quitsa job, a lot of knowledge disappears. Amore systematic knowledge sharingand building up of information wouldserve its purposes better.

DiscussionThe cases studied show two project-driven construction firms that want tobe competitive by building knowledge.Common characteristics of their infor-mation systems were found in theirpolicy regarding two informationprocesses:1. Knowledge gathering: They stated

that knowledge gained from the proj-ect should contribute to “the body ofknowledge” within the firm.

2. Knowledge sharing: They felt thatsharing knowledge from the com-mon body of knowledge within thefirm contributes to the improvementof projects.

In both companies, the goal in cre-ating and sharing knowledge of the endusers’ requirement was to bring valueto the end users and to stay competitivein the market. As value is a multidimen-sional concept with various definitions(Thomas & Mullaly, 2007), the focus ofvalue here is on end user satisfactionand learning about the end users in theorganizations.

The study showed that these twoknowledge-based processes were noteasily managed. It was considered diffi-cult to build up a system for knowledge

Product development Project development

Survey

Survey

Follow-up: projects that are 2 years or older

Initiating survey of how customers like tolive in the market

PKI

Market

Figure 3: The different surveys performed by the private firm to collect information about potential and in-use, existing end users.

End users

Projectdepartment

Marketingdepartment

Clientorganization

Figure 4: The information flow in the public firm between the three parties: project department, marketing department, and end users.


gathering and sharing that contributedto the body of knowledge and thereby toensure that value was created for the end users. One reason for this can bethat the relevant types of knowledge areof a different kind and hard to combine.Another aspect is whether it is possibleto transfer knowledge in a system at all.

Cognitive, Organizational, andSocietal Perspective of the CaseStudiesWe now analyze the organizationsaccording to the framework presentedby Lam (2000), and then compare thisview to the autopoietic view. Accordingto Lam (2000), a project organizationcorresponds with the so-called operat-ing adhocracy organization. The envi-ronment, in this organizational type, ischaracterized by a dynamic and com-plex environment, in which the knowl-edge is diverse, varied, and organic. The knowledge is mainly of a tacitnature and hard to accumulate, as itcannot be standardized, disembodied,or predetermined (Lam, 2000).

According to our analysis, the pri-vate company appeared to show char-acteristics that correspond with thetype of organization commonlyreferred to as a machine bureaucraticorganization, as it is dominated bystandardization, control, and attemptsto learn by corrections (performancemonitoring). The knowledge obtainedthrough surveys is explicitly coded (e.g., information). Tacit knowledge islost in the translation and aggregationprocess, and, as a consequence, thelearning becomes superficial (Lam,2000). Although the firm attempts tolearn by doing (compare with Gann &Salter, 2000) by getting feedback andthen improving work from both inter-nal and external sources, the firm hasdifficulties in creating knowledge ofwhat brings value to the end users. Thecharacteristic of superficial learning inthe machine bureaucratic organizationcould possibly explain why the privatefirm had problems in creating value ofthe gathered data from the different

surveys. The information of the endusers’ requirements still just becomesinformation in the firm. The body ofknowledge is only a database of infor-mation until the information is relatedand processed.

The public firm, on the other hand,is decentralized and has the projectmanagement function in-house. Thepublic firm is not standardized to thesame extent as the private. It attemptsto control the project’s performancewith surveys and uses market surveys tounderstand the users’ requirements inthe initial phase of new builds. Theorganization can thus be viewed as aweak machine bureaucratic organiza-tion (Lam, 2000). A problem arises,however, because much of the knowl-edge within the firm is carried indivi-dually and is of a tacit nature, whichcomplicates the learning process. Tocomplete the tasks in the public firm,both formal knowledge and practicalskills are required. The public firm facesthe same challenge as the private one:to create knowledge of the collectedinformation.

As stated previously, both project-based companies want to gain knowl-edge from the end users and share itwithin the firm in order to improvetheir relations with the end users. Theknowledge in the project is of a tacitnature, and the control of the work andthe collection process attempts to makeit explicit. In other words, the firmswant to turn tacit knowledge intoexplicit knowledge, and then they want to transfer it to the firm. Thisknowledge should build up its body of knowledge and then correct thebehaviors, processes, and products inthe project and the firm. Is this possiblewith the existing structures within thesecompanies? Are the project managersapplying policy that allows others tobecome aware of the knowledge theypossess or of how they act?

Grant (1996) found that the firm’scapability in integrating specializedknowledge is fundamental to their abil-ity to create and sustain competitive

advantages. This requires a flexibility inmanagement actions (Grant, 1996).Does the machine bureaucratic organi-zation allow this flexibility or wouldanother form, like the J-form organiza-tion, be more efficient? The J-formorganization is both stable and flexible,and learning is cumulative and knowl-edge-based on shared norms and rou-tines. The J-form could be helpful tostrengthen the body of knowledge with-in the firm and deepen it. As the projectorganization is dynamic, collaborative,and often experimental in its way ofworking, what value does superficialknowledge from surveys bring to theproject manager to improve relation tothe end users? A strong culture ofshared norms and values in a J-formorganization could possibly be moreeasily transferred to the project. Thismay be achieved through cooperationbetween the project management func-tions and other important functions(i.e., the market division within thefirm).

The private firm studied has out-sourced the project execution; theirway to impact the project managementis probably more formal. Internally,would the firm probably be more effi-cient from a knowledge-creating per-spective of a J-form organization? Asthe public firm bases its work on morediverse sources of knowledge (surveys,collaboration with end users, and expe-rience-based tacit knowledge), it isprobably easier for it to understand thecontext of its end users and, as a conse-quence, easier to create value for it thanthe private firm.

Our findings indicate that one wayto enrich the contextual understandingof the end users and thereby more easi-ly understand what they value is a focusgroup. Focus groups have an unstruc-tured nature that allows uncontrolledinformation to arise, in contrast tostandardized questionnaires. This oftenuncovers specific beliefs and values ofthe target group (Lengua et al., 1992),which gets a broader understanding ofthe contexts of possible future end



AP

ER

S

users. By understanding the context ofthe end users, it is easier to create valuefor them and knowledge of theirrequirements. Thus, not all informationneeds to be contextualized. It is impor-tant to adapt to the specific situation.Information is enough for situationsthat are more obvious, while knowledgeof more complex aspects needs to becontextualized. The need to adapt tothe situation is in line with Argyris(1999), who said that some learningdoes not require changes or governassumptions, while other learningdoes. Explicit data collected and storedby the firm may be enriched for theproject manager by using focus groups(possibly future end users or equals) tomake sense of the data for a specificcontext.

To conclude, knowledge is, fromthis point of view, regarded as trans-ferrable and has a different nature inthe projects and the firms that makes ita challenge to combine them intosomething valuable. Both companieshave difficulties transforming the col-lected information into knowledge; thesurveys bring information that is notnecessarily knowledge or learning. As aparadox, it has been found that in time,information is widely used and theneed for tacit knowledge in firms hasbecome a crucial factor for the per-formance of the firm (Lundvall &Nielsen, 2007).

The Autopoietic ViewThe autopoietic view considers theorganization as a self-producing socialsystem held together by communica-tion. One of the difficulties with the col-lected information seems to be that it isnot being communicated to the peoplewho are using it in the firms. Theprocess of reproducing does not seemto be triggered, as the firms do not knowwhat to do with or how to act upon thegathered information. Possible reasonscould be that the information does notmake a difference to the individualswithin the system, resulting in theknowledge creation not being initiated.

Creating new knowledge requireslearning, creative forgetting, or just for-getting (Lundvall, 1992). This corre-sponds with the reproduction of thesystem where there exists a flexibility tochange its actions after meaning infor-mation is received. The knowledge isdependent on history and context butnot stuck in it, which is essential for theorganization. If the organization doesnot possess this capability, the riskincreases for disintegration of the sys-tem. The concept of reproduction, to acertain degree, corresponds with theidea of double-loop learning, as it alsorequires that the system is willing tochange govern values and norms.

From an autopoietic perspective,creating knowledge of the databases inthe firms requires that the message ofthe collected data is understood, whichrequires human action, so that the dataturns into information. The informa-tion could then be used as a base for afocus-group discussion with possibleend users. By getting a contextualunderstanding of the information, itbecomes easier to interpret it and there-by receive an awareness/knowledge of how to create value to the end users.As the environment is dynamic andchanges, more data is needed to ensurethat the knowledge is current. If a dif-ference exists, this will trigger actions inthe system (organization) to adapt tothe changes (reproduction). It impliesthat if the project manager shouldmake use of the data obtained throughsurveys and other means and stored indatabases, it may be necessary to makeuse of those collecting and putting thedata in the database to ensure a fullunderstanding of the data.

Koskinen (2009) concluded that tocreate knowledge and communicate itboth vertically and horizontally (betweenprojects) in project-based companies isvital to avoid having the system disinte-grate. A challenge is to know how tocommunicate it to ensure that knowl-edge is created. Increasing communica-tion is not enough; creating informationflows and good communication inside

firms is important for learning and inno-vation (Lundvall, 1992). Is good commu-nication communicating the rightthings with the right media, and how isthat ensured? This study does notanswer that question, but it would be ofinterest for a further study.

ConclusionCreating knowledge of end users’requirements is an important but chal-lenging task to manage in project-drivenorganizations. Knowledge creation inthe interface between the firm andproject involves the contribution to thebody of knowledge within the firm fromthe projects and vice versa.

The cases showed that the firm andthe projects are different kinds oforganizations dominated by differentkinds of knowledge. This distinction isimportant in the knowledge-creatingprocess to better understand (1) whatcould be expected in the exchange ofdata and (2) what action needs to betaken in order to create value of it.Certain types of data need to be contex-tualized to bring value, while others donot. The study implies that the use ofstandardized questionnaires might be ahindrance to managing the knowledgecreation of end users’ requirementsbetween firm and project better. Thericher the data (tacit and explicit) is, the greater the opportunity to createknowledge and in return create valuefor the end users.

This study further discussed thatknowledge creation could probably beimproved in the organization by eitherdecreasing the distance between thetwo organizational forms (machinebureaucracy or operating adhocracy)by lightening the dominated knowl-edge type within them (encoded orembodied) or by adapting the embed-ded knowledge in the J-form organiza-tion to create cumulative learning.

The organization’s ability to repro-duce itself becomes of critical impor-tance to meet the dynamic ever-changingenvironment. The study highlights thevalue of analyzing the organization as


an autopoietic system to deepen theunderstanding of knowledge-creatingprocesses. The creation of knowledgeshould be seen as an ongoing anddynamic process to be able to meet thechanging requirements from the endusers.

Future research into the actions andsupport that the project manager needsis important. It is vital to create theknowledge and the tools needed for the project manager in different situa-tions to ensure that the data is correctlycontextualized. A few different mainissues are important to address:• To what extent is internal communi-

cation and cooperation utilized, andhow may it be improved?

• How can external resources (i.e., focusgroups or market evaluators) beexploited with the best result? ■

ReferencesAchterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. J. (2008).Investigating the use of the stakeholdernotion in project management litera-ture, a meta-analysis. InternationalJournal of Project Management, 26,749–757.

Andersen, E. S., & Vaagaasar, A. L.(2009). Project management improve-ment efforts—Creating project management value by uniqueness ormainstream thinking? ProjectManagement Journal, 40(1), 19–27.

Argyris, C. (1999). On organizationallearning. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Blessing, D., Goerk, M., & Bach, V.(2001). Management of customer andproject knowledge: Solutions andexperience at SAP. Knowledge andProcess Management, 8(2), 75–90.

Brandhoff, B. (2009). Autopoietic sys-tems, not corporate actors: A sketch ofNiklas Luhmann’s theory of organisa-tions. European Business OrganizationLaw Review, 10, 307–322.

Connell, C., Klein, J. H., Loebbecke,C., & Powell, P. (2001). Towards aknowledge management consultationsystem. Knowledge and ProcessManagement, 8(1), 48–54.

Gann, D. M., & Salter, A. J. (2000).Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: The construction ofcomplex products and systems.Research Policy, 29, 955–972.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering indynamically competitive environ-ments: Organizational capability asknowledge integration. OrganizationScience, 7, 375–387.

Hobday, M. (2000). The project-basedorganisation: An ideal form for manag-ing complex products and systems?Research Policy, 29, 871–893.

Hong, J., Kianto, A., & Kylaheiko, K.(2008). Moving cultures and the cre-ation of new knowledge and dynamiccapabilities in emerging markets.Knowledge and Process Management,15(3), 196–202.

Karni, R., & Kaner, M. (2008).Knowledge management of intercon-nected decisions with application toproject management. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(4),211–223.

Kaya, S. (2004). Relating buildingattributes to end user’s needs: “Theowners-designers-end users” equation.Facilities, 22(9–10), 247–252.

Koskinen, K. U. (2009). Project-basedcompany’s vital condition: Structuralcoupling. An autopoietic view.Knowledge and Process Management,16(1), 13–22.

Lai, J. H. K., & Yik, F. W. H. (2007).Perceived importance of the quality ofthe indoor environment in commercialbuildings. Indoor and BuiltEnvironment, 16, 311–321.

Lam, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societalinstitutions: An integrated framework.Organization Studies, 21, 487–513.

Lengua, L., Roosa, M. W., Schupak-Neuberg, E., Michaels, M., Berg, C., &Weschler, L. (1992). Using focus groupsto guide the development of a parent-ing program for difficult-to-reach,high-risk families. Family Relations,41(2), 163–168.

Lindkvist, L. (2004). Governing proj-ect-based firms: Promoting market-like processes within hierarchies.Journal of Management & Governance,8(1), 3–25.

Luhmann, N. (2006). System as differ-ence. Organization, 13(1), 37–57.

Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). Nationalsystems of innovation—Towards a theo-ry of innovation and interactive learn-ing. London: Pinter Publishers.

Lundvall, B.-Å., & Nielsen, P. (2007).Knowledge management and innova-tion performance. InternationalJournal of Manpower, 28(3/4), 207–223.

Mariotti, F. (2007). Learning to shareknowledge in the Italian motorsportindustry. Knowledge and ProcessManagement, 14(2), 81–94.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory oforganizational knowledge creation.Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990).Loosely coupled systems: A reconcep-tualization. Academy of ManagementReview, 15, 203–224.

Pemsel, S., Widén, K., & Hansson, B.(2010). Managing the needs of endusers in the design and delivery ofconstruction projects. Facilities,28(1/2), 17–30.

Project Management Institute (PMI).(2008). A guide to the project manage-ment body of knowledge (PMBOK®guide)—Fourth edition. NewtownSquare, PA: Author.

Starbuck, W. H. (1992). Learning byknowledge-intensive firms. Journal ofManagement Studies, 29, 713–741.

Sveiby, K.-E. (1996). Transfer of knowl-edge and the information processingprofessions. European ManagementJournal, 14, 379–389.

Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. (2007).Understanding the value of projectmanagement: First steps on an inter-national investigation in search ofvalue. Project Management Journal,38(3), 74–89.

Tsoukas, H. (1996). The firm as a distributed knowledge system:



AP

ER

S

A constructionist approach. StrategicManagement Journal, 17, 11–25.

Velasquez, N. F., Durcikova, A., &Sabherwal, R. (2009). Studying knowl-edge management system success insystem administration. Proceedings ofthe 42nd Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences (pp. 1–7).

von Krogh, G., & Roos, J. (1996). Fiveclaims on knowing. EuropeanManagement Journal, 14, 423–427.

Sofia Pemsel is a PhD student in the Division ofConstruction Management, Faculty of Engineering,Lund University. She has a master’s degree in

civil engineering and is involved in a Nordicresearch project called CREDIT. The aim of CRED-IT is to improve transparency on value creationin real estate and construction.

Kristian Widén is currently an assistant profes-sor in the Division of Construction Management,Faculty of Engineering, Lund University. Heholds a PhD in engineering from Lund University.His research focuses on sectoral competitive-ness and development in construction and oninnovation and innovation diffusion in construc-tion and project-based sectors. He has manageda project studying the effects of how theEuropean Community (EC) Public Procurement

Act has been implemented in the EC memberstates by the construction sector and he is alsoworking on a project measuring the change inthe civil engineering sector in Sweden. He isconducting a study on how the large Norwegianpublic client affects and drives the construction-related innovation system in Norway. He is alsoinvolved in another, larger Nordic research proj-ect looking at benchmarking the fulfillment ofend user values; he is one of two Swedish repre-sentatives on the steering committee. Currentlyhe is a member of the International Council forResearch and Innovation in Building andConstruction Task Group 58 on the role of clientsin construction innovation. He is also a volun-teer in the PMI Sweden chapter.

creating knowledge of end users' requirements: the interface between firm and project

Documents