Linking elements to outcomes of knowledge transfer in the project environment: Current review and future direction

doi:10.1007/s42524-022-0195-3

Front. Eng

2022, Vol. 9

Issue (2) : 221-238 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-022-0195-3

REVIEW ARTICLE

Linking elements to outcomes of knowledge transfer in the project environment: Current review and future direction

Qianwen ZHOU¹, Xiaopeng DENG¹(

), Ge WANG², Amin MAHMOUDI¹

¹. Department of Construction and Real Estate, School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China
². College of Public Administration, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China; Antai College of Economics and Management, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200030, China

Download: PDF(6315 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

A project is a specific effort to create a unique product, so it is a favorable place for knowledge creation and development. Knowledge can be transferred inside and outside projects and their parent project-based organizations, thus affecting project performance and organizational competitiveness. However, the current research on the elements and outcomes of knowledge transfer (KT) in the project environment lacks completeness and clarity, and that on the different levels of KT is fragmented. This study aims to conduct comprehensive research to determine and link the elements and outcomes of KT in the project environment. The authors systematically analyzed the relevant literature from 2000 to 2021, which showed an increasing publication trend. They divided KT in the project environment into three levels according to the transfer scenario: Intra-project, cross-project, and cross-organizational KT. Five-dimensional transfer elements and two-dimensional transfer outcomes were then identified and analyzed from previous literature. Lastly, the relationships between the transfer elements and outcomes were gathered to create a comprehensive model. Importantly, the knowledge gap in the current literature was highlighted, and future research directions were put forward. This study builds a theoretical framework linking transfer elements to outcomes that can serve as a basis for scholars and practitioners to develop effective strategies for KT in the project environment.

Keywords knowledge transfer knowledge management project management project environment literature review

Corresponding Author(s): Xiaopeng DENG

Just Accepted Date: 31 March 2022 Online First Date: 09 May 2022 Issue Date: 25 May 2022

Cite this article:

Qianwen ZHOU,Xiaopeng DENG,Ge WANG, et al. Linking elements to outcomes of knowledge transfer in the project environment: Current review and future direction[J]. Front. Eng, 2022, 9(2): 221-238.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/10.1007/s42524-022-0195-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fem/EN/Y2022/V9/I2/221

Fig.1 Research methodology.

Fig.2 Numbers of publications per research method and year (up to June 2021).

Journal	Reference	Analysis level	Research method
Research Policy	Prencipe and Tell (2001)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Case study
Research Policy	Cacciatori (2008)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Case study
Journal of Knowledge Management	Mueller (2012)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Qualitative
	Lievre and Tang (2015)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Case study
	Ren et al. (2018)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Quantitative
International Journal of Project Management	Bakker et al. (2011)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Qualitative
	Park and Lee (2014)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
	Zhao et al. (2015)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Qualitative
	Aerts et al. (2017)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Case study
	Wei and Miraglia (2017)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Case study
	Mahura and Birollo (2021)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Case study
	Stock et al. (2021)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
Automation in Construction	Alashwal and Abdul-Rahman (2014)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Quantitative
Automation in Construction	Wen and Qiang (2016)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Quantitative
Journal of Management in Engineering	Lê and Law (2009)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Simulation
	Zhang and He (2016)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
	Ni et al. (2018)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
	Sun et al. (2019)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Quantitative
	Zhou et al. (2020)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Quantitative
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management	Javernick-Will and Levitt (2010)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Qualitative
	Joseph Garcia and Mollaoglu (2020)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
	Gao et al. (2020)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Simulation
Project Management Journal	Ajmal and Koskinen (2008)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Conceptual
	Wiewiora et al. (2014)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Case study
	Mueller (2015)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Case study
	Buvik and Tvedt (2017)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
	Takahashi et al. (2018)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Quantitative
Knowledge Management Research & Practice	Decker et al. (2009)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
	Frank and Ribeiro (2014)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Conceptual
	Hermans and Castiaux (2017)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Case study
Engineering Construction & Architectural Management	Schröpfer et al. (2017)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
	Sang et al. (2019)	Intra-project (IPKT)	Quantitative
	Liu et al. (2020)	Cross-organization (COKT)	Simulation
Management Learning	Newell et al. (2006)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Qualitative
Management Learning	Cacciatori et al. (2012)	Cross-project (CPKT)	Quantitative

Tab.1 Selected papers belonging to journals that has published two or more related papers

Five-dimensional transfer elements	Definition and how it affects KT	Source references			Sum
Five-dimensional transfer elements	Definition and how it affects KT	IPKT	CPKT	COKT	Sum
Knowledge sender and knowledge receiver					14
Transfer intention (TI)	The extent to which the knowledge sender is willing to send knowledge to others, which is the basis for KT	Cheng et al. (2009)	Bakker et al. (2011); Wei and Miraglia (2017); Ren et al. (2018); Zhou et al. (2020)	Sun et al. (2019); Liu et al. (2020)	7
Transfer ability (TA)	The ability of the knowledge sender to send knowledge after an effective assessment of the needs and abilities of the receiver	Joseph Garcia and Mollaoglu (2020)	Zhao et al. (2015)	Liu et al. (2020)	3
Supplier protectiveness (SP)	The degree to which the knowledge supplier protects its core competitiveness; the higher the degree of protection, the less conducive to KT			Lawson and Potter (2012); Liu et al. (2020)	2
Receive intention (RI)	The extent to which the knowledge receiver has the will to receive knowledge from others, which is also the basis for KT	Cheng et al. (2009)	Wei and Miraglia (2017); Ren et al. (2018); Zhou et al. (2020)	Sun et al. (2019); Liu et al. (2020)	6
Absorptive capacity (AC)	The receiver’s ability to acquire, evaluate, and internalize the transferred knowledge; the stronger the absorptive capacity, the better the transfer effect	Decker et al. (2009); Joseph Garcia and Mollaoglu (2020)	Zhao et al. (2015)	Svensson (2007); Lawson and Potter (2012); Liu et al. (2020)	6
Reciprocity (RE)	A common social norm that makes project members to adopt rewarding attitudes and behaviors towards people who help them	Zhang and He (2016)	Ren et al. (2019)		2
Relationship between the sender and receiver					22
Trust (TR)	The confidence that people hold in the behavior of others, which lays the foundation for knowledge exchange with others	Decker et al. (2009); Park and Lee (2014); Nesheim and Smith (2015); Zhang and He (2016); Buvik and Tvedt (2017); Ni et al. (2018)	Wiewiora et al. (2014); Ren et al. (2019); Zhou et al. (2020)	Lê and Law (2009); Bosch-Sijtsema and Postma (2010); Ko (2014); Sun et al. (2019)	13
Similarity (SI)	The degree of overlap between partners’ knowledge bases or workflows, which helps increase their willingness to participate in transfer activities	Park and Lee (2014)	Zhao et al. (2015); Mueller (2015); Ren et al. (2018; 2019)		5
Geographical distance (GD)	Projects are highly dispersed in different locations, which hinders communication and KT	Betz et al. (2014)	Ren et al. (2018)	Liu et al. (2020)	3
Relational distance (RD)	The distance between the knowledge sender and receiver in approval, obligation, and other relations		Zhao et al. (2015)	Bakker et al. (2011); Liu et al. (2020)	3
Knowledge distance (KD)	The distance between the knowledge sender and receiver in original knowledge base and knowledge level	Joseph Garcia and Mollaoglu (2020)		Liu et al. (2020)	2
Organizational distance (OD)	The distance between the knowledge sender and receiver in regulation, organizational structure, regulatory framework, etc.			Liu et al. (2020)	1
Past experience (PE)	The past cooperation experience of KT participants; the richer the experience, the more conducive to the transfer effect		Bakker et al. (2011); Andersson et al. (2015)	Ciabuschi et al. (2011)	3
Knowledge characteristics					8
Knowledge tacitness (KTA)	The degree to which the knowledge is hidden and difficult to code; the higher the degree of tacitness, the less conducive to KT	Decker et al. (2009)	Andersson et al. (2015); van Waveren et al. (2017); Tshuma et al. (2018)	Lievre and Tang (2015)	5
Knowledge complexity (KC)	The total amount of information required to describe a certain knowledge; the higher the complexity of knowledge is, the more difficult it is to transfer knowledge		Cacciatori et al. (2012); Tshuma et al. (2018)	Lievre and Tang (2015)	3
Knowledge ambiguity (KA)	The degree to which the knowledge can be clearly and precisely expressed			Lawson and Potter (2012); Liu et al. (2020)	2
Knowledge embeddability (KE)	It is highly related to the project context, participants, and transfer activities	Decker et al. (2009)	Tshuma et al. (2018)	Liu et al. (2020)	3
Transfer media					16
Communication (CM)	The basic way of sending and receiving information; through smooth communication, knowledge can be easily expressed to others	Park and Lee (2014)	Cacciatori et al. (2012); Ren et al. (2018; 2019)	Antwi-Afari et al. (2016); Liu et al. (2020)	6
Transfer channel (TC)	The richness of KT channels and methods, which is conducive to increasing the smoothness and convenience of communication	Decker et al. (2009); Souza da Conceição et al. (2019)	Sapsed et al. (2005); van Waveren et al. (2017); Tshuma et al. (2018); Zhou et al. (2020)		6
Meeting system (MS)	The regulations that the project holds regular meetings and members to attend on time are required		Jensen et al. (2019); Ren et al. (2019)	Javernick-Will and Levitt (2010); Aerts et al. (2017)	4
Document exchange (DE)	The extent to which the sender and receiver transfer knowledge in the form of documents, charts, reports, etc.	Decker et al. (2009); Souza da Conceição et al. (2019)	Jensen et al. (2019)	McGowan Poole (2020)	4
Transfer context					42
Temporary nature (TN)	It results in the liquidity and instability of project teams, which affects the participants’ enthusiasm for KT		Ren et al. (2018); Zhou et al. (2020)	Sun et al. (2019)	3
Time urgency (TU)	The pressure felt by project teams and members to complete project tasks within a specific time, which reduces transfer willingness		Mueller (2014); Zhao et al. (2015); Ren et al. (2018; 2019); Zhou et al. (2020)	Lê and Law (2009); Sun et al. (2019)	7
Project uncertainty (PU)	The uncertainty of project requirements, new technology and product scope	Stock et al. (2021)			1
Project type (PT)	The process of KT in different project types is different, and the effect is also different	Seres et al. (2009)	Andersson et al. (2015)	Hermans and Castiaux (2017)	3
Standardization (SD)	Many projects built by the PBO are repeated projects, and the standardized procedures are learning from past projects; in this context, the organizations are reluctant to transfer knowledge because they want projects to remain the same	Raziq et al. (2020)	Newell et al. (2006)		2
Organizational structure (OS)	The arrangement of various departments and levels within the organization formed through organizational design	Zhang and He (2016); Gopal et al. (2018); Raziq et al. (2020)	Mueller (2014)	Ciabuschi et al. (2011); Lee and Ram (2018)	6
Organizational culture (OC1)	A pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration	Ovbagbedia and Ochieng (2015)	Owen et al. (2004); Ajmal and Koskinen (2008); Mueller (2012); Wiewiora et al. (2014); Wei and Miraglia (2017); Tshuma et al. (2018); Ren et al. (2019); Mahura and Birollo (2021)	Antwi-Afari et al. (2016)	10
Organizational climate (OC2)	Code of conduct, values, ways of thinking, belief system, etc., shared by members of an organization	Chelagat et al. (2019)	Zhou et al. (2020)		2
Incentive mechanism (IM)	Taken by the organization to promote knowledge-transfer activities; the better the incentive mechanism is set, the more it is conducive to KT	Decker et al. (2009); Zhang and He (2016); Ni et al. (2018)	Andersson et al. (2015); Tshuma et al. (2018); Ren et al. (2019); Zhou et al. (2020)	Aerts et al. (2017)	8
Information technology (IT)	The wide application of IT tools can conquer communication barriers, thereby improving KT effectiveness	Decker et al. (2009); Betz et al. (2014); Zhang and He (2016); Gopal et al. (2018); Souza da Conceição et al. (2019)	Newell et al. (2006); Formentini and Romano (2011); Wei and Miraglia (2017); Ren et al. (2018)	Ciabuschi et al. (2011)	10
Coordination (CO)	Coordination mechanism that used to improve the interaction between different organizations or departments		Wen and Qiang (2016)	Zhang and Min (2021)	2
Use of codification (UC)	The extent to which the project has absorbed lessons or solutions from previous projects and stored them in best practices, databases, manuals, and reports		Cacciatori et al. (2012); Alashwal and Abdul-Rahman (2014); Mahura and Birollo (2021)	Javernick-Will and Levitt (2010)	4
Network structure (NS1)	Different network structures have different effects on KT; a strong tie promotes KT, while a weak tie hinders KT	Schröpfer et al. (2017); Gao et al. (2020)		Takahashi et al. (2018)	3
Network strength (NS2)	The number of exchanges and connections between people or organizations; the higher it is, the better the transfer effect is	Decker et al. (2009); Schröpfer et al. (2017)		Takahashi et al. (2018); Sun et al. (2019)	4

Tab.2 Five-dimensional elements of KT in the project environment

Tab.3 Outcomes of KT in the project environment

Fig.3 Framework of KT elements and outcomes in the project environment.

Fig.4 Relationship between the transfer elements and outcomes.

Fig.5 Comprehensive framework of KT in the project environment.

1	G Aerts, M Dooms, E Haezendonck, (2017). Knowledge transfers and project-based learning in large scale infrastructure development projects: An exploratory and comparative ex-post analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 35( 3): 224– 240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.010
2	M M Ajmal, K U Koskinen, (2008). Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: An organizational culture perspective. Project Management Journal, 39( 1): 7– 15 https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20031
3	A M Alashwal, H Abdul-Rahman, (2014). Using PLS–PM to model the process of inter-project learning in construction projects. Automation in Construction, 44: 176– 182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.11.010
4	T C Ambos, B Ambos, (2009). The impact of distance on knowledge transfer effectiveness in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management, 15( 1): 1– 14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2008.02.002
5	U Andersson, A Gaur, R Mudambi, M Persson, (2015). Unpacking interunit knowledge transfer in multinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal, 5( 3): 241– 255 https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1100
6	M F Antwi-Afari, E A Pärn, D G Owusu-Manu, D J Edwards, (2016). Conceptualization of the absorptive capability paradox in technology transfer projects: A study of the Ghanaian construction industry. Mindanao Journal of Science and Technology, 14: 57– 78
7	R M Bakker, B Cambré, L Korlaar, J Raab, (2011). Managing the project learning paradox: A set-theoretic approach toward project knowledge transfer. International Journal of Project Management, 29( 5): 494– 503 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.002
8	S Betz, A Oberweis, R Stephan, (2014). Knowledge transfer in offshore outsourcing software development projects: An analysis of the challenges and solutions from German clients. Expert Systems: International Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Neural Networks, 31( 3): 282– 297 https://doi.org/10.1111/exsy.12005
9	P M Bosch-Sijtsema, T J B M Postma, (2010). Governance factors enabling knowledge transfer in interorganisational development projects. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22( 5): 593– 608 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2010.488064
10	M P Buvik, S D Tvedt, (2017). The influence of project commitment and team commitment on the relationship between trust and knowledge sharing in project teams. Project Management Journal, 48( 2): 5– 21 https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281704800202
11	E Cacciatori, (2008). Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms. Research Policy, 37( 9): 1591– 1601 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.028
12	E Cacciatori, D Tamoschus, G Grabher, (2012). Knowledge transfer across projects: Codification in creative, high-tech and engineering industries. Management Learning, 43( 3): 309– 331 https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611426240
13	T Chelagat, J Onyango, G Kokwaro, J Rice, (2019). From strategy to action: A qualitative study on salient factors influencing knowledge transfer in project-based experiential learning in healthcare organisations in Kenya. BMJ Open, 9( 9): e031100 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031100 pmid: 31575577
14	M M Cheng, K D Schulz, P Booth, (2009). Knowledge transfer in project reviews: The effect of self-justification bias and moral hazard. Accounting and Finance, 49( 1): 75– 93 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-629X.2008.00271.x
15	F Ciabuschi, H Dellestrand, P Kappen, (2011). Exploring the effects of vertical and lateral mechanisms in international knowledge transfer projects. Management International Review, 51( 2): 129– 155 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0068-1
16	J L Cummings, B S Teng, (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20( 1–2): 39– 68 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(03)00004-3
17	T Davenport, L Prusak, (1998). Learn how valuable knowledge is acquired, created, bought and bartered. Australian Library Journal, 47( 3): 268– 272 https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.1998.10755852
18	B Decker, R E Landaeta, T G Kotnour, (2009). Exploring the relationships between emotional intelligence and the use of knowledge transfer methods in the project environment. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 7( 1): 15– 36 https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2008.29
19	Dip J A (2021). What does U-multirank tell us about knowledge transfer and research? Scientometrics, 126(4): 3011–3039
20	M Formentini, P Romano, (2011). Using value analysis to support knowledge transfer in the multi-project setting. International Journal of Production Economics, 131( 2): 545– 560 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2011.01.023
21	A G Frank, J Ribeiro, (2014). An integrative model for knowledge transfer between new product development project teams. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 12( 2): 215– 225 https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2012.57
22	S C Gao, X Y Song, R G Ding, (2020). Promoting information transfer in collaborative projects through network structure adjustment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146( 2): 04019108 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001772
23	A C Garavelli, M Gorgoglione, B Scozzi, (2002). Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge technologies. Technovation, 22( 5): 269– 279 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00009-8
24	J Gopal, A K Sangaiah, A Basu, X Z Gao, (2018). Integration of fuzzy DEMATEL and FMCDM approach for evaluating knowledge transfer effectiveness with reference to GSD project outcome. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 9: 225– 241 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-015-0370-5
25	A Gupta, V Govindarajan, (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21( 4): 473– 496 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200004)21:4<473::AID-SMJ84>3.0.CO;2-I
26	B Hanisch, F Lindner, A Müller, A Wald, (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13( 4): 148– 160 https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270910971897
27	Q He, J Xu, T Wang, A P C Chan, (2021). Identifying the driving factors of successful megaproject construction management: Findings from three Chinese cases. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 8( 1): 5– 16 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0058-8
28	J Hermans, A Castiaux, (2017). Contingent knowledge transfers in university–industry R&D projects. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 15( 1): 68– 77 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41275-016-0002-1
29	H F Hsieh, S E Shannon, (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15( 9): 1277– 1288 https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 pmid: 16204405
30	N Jafari Navimipour, Y Charband, (2016). Knowledge sharing mechanisms and techniques in project teams: Literature review, classification, and current trends. Computers in Human Behavior, 62: 730– 742 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.003
31	A Javernick-Will, R E Levitt, (2010). Mobilizing institutional knowledge for international projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136( 4): 430– 441 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000110
32	P A Jensen, H L Rasmussen, S Chatzilazarou, (2019). Knowledge transfer between building operation and building projects. Journal of Facilities Management, 17( 2): 208– 219 https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-05-2018-0030
33	A Joseph Garcia, S Mollaoglu, (2020). Individuals’ capacities to apply transferred knowledge in AEC project teams. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146( 4): 04020016 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001791
34	S Kivrak, G Arslan, I Dikmen, M T Birgonul, (2008). Capturing knowledge in construction projects: Knowledge platform for contractors. Journal of Management Engineering, 24( 2): 87– 95 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2008)24:2(87
35	D G Ko, (2014). The mediating role of knowledge transfer and the effects of client–consultant mutual trust on the performance of enterprise implementation projects. Information & Management, 51( 5): 541– 550 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.04.001
36	R E Landaeta, (2008). Evaluating benefits and challenges of knowledge transfer across projects. Engineering Management Journal, 20( 1): 29– 38 https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2008.11431753
37	B Lawson, A Potter, (2012). Determinants of knowledge transfer in inter-firm new product development projects. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32( 10): 1228– 1247 https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571211274530
38	M A T Lê, K H Law, (2009). System dynamic approach for simulation of experience transfer in the AEC industry. Journal of Management Engineering, 25( 4): 195– 203 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2009)25:4(195
39	N S Lee, J Ram, (2018). New product development processes and knowledge transfer in automotive projects: An empirical study. Knowledge and Process Management, 25( 4): 279– 291 https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1589
40	Y Li, Q Yang, B Pasian, Y Zhang, (2020). Project management maturity in construction consulting services: Case of Expo in China. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 7( 3): 384– 395 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0070-z
41	P Lievre, J Tang, (2015). SECI and inter-organizational and intercultural knowledge transfer: A case-study of controversies around a project of co-operation between France and China in the health sector. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19( 5): 1069– 1086 https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-02-2015-0054
42	H Liu Y Yu Y Sun X (2020) Yan. A system dynamic approach for simulation of a knowledge transfer model of heterogeneous senders in mega project innovation. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 28(3): 681– 705
43	A Mahura, G Birollo, (2021). Organizational practices that enable and disable knowledge transfer: The case of a public sector project-based organization. International Journal of Project Management, 39( 3): 270– 281 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.12.002
44	I Martinkenaite, (2011). Antecedents and consequences of inter-organizational knowledge transfer: Emerging themes and openings for further research. Baltic Journal of Management, 6( 1): 53– 70 https://doi.org/10.1108/17465261111100888
45	C D McGowan Poole, (2020). IT outsourcing, knowledge transfer and project transition phases. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 50( 2): 219– 246 https://doi.org/10.1108/VJIKMS-04-2019-0053
46	Milagres R, Burcharth A (2019). Knowledge transfer in interorganizational partnerships: What do we know? Business Process Management Journal, 25(1): 27–68
47	A Mohammadi, M Tavakolan, Y Khosravi, (2018). Factors influencing safety performance on construction projects: A review. Safety Science, 109: 382– 397 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.017
48	D Moher, A Liberati, J Tetzlaff, D G Altman, Group PRISMA, (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8( 5): 336– 341 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 pmid: 20171303
49	J Mueller, (2012). Knowledge sharing between project teams and its cultural antecedents. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16( 3): 435– 447 https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271211238751
50	J Mueller, (2014). A specific knowledge culture: Cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between project teams. European Management Journal, 32( 2): 190– 202 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.05.006
51	J Mueller, (2015). Formal and informal practices of knowledge sharing between project teams and enacted cultural characteristics. Project Management Journal, 46( 1): 53– 68 https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21471
52	Nesheim T, Smith J (2015). Knowledge sharing in projects: Does employment arrangement matter? Personnel Review, 44(2): 255–269
53	S Newell, M Bresnen, L Edelman, H Scarbrough, J Swan, (2006). Sharing knowledge across projects: Limits to ICT-led project review practices. Management Learning, 37( 2): 167– 185 https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507606063441
54	G D Ni, Q B Cui, L H Sang, W S Wang, D C Xia, (2018). Knowledge-sharing culture, project-team interaction, and knowledge-sharing performance among project members. Journal of Management Engineering, 34( 2): 04017065 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000590
55	O O Ovbagbedia, E G Ochieng, (2015). Impact of organisational culture on knowledge transfer in Nigerian heavy engineering projects. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Management Procurement and Law, 168( 5): 241– 247 https://doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.2015.14.00030
56	J Owen, F Burstein, S Mitchell, (2004). Knowledge reuse and transfer in a project management environment. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 6( 4): 21– 35 https://doi.org/10.1080/15228053.2004.10856052
57	J Park, J Lee, (2014). Knowledge sharing in information systems development projects: Explicating the role of dependence and trust. International Journal of Project Management, 32( 1): 153– 165 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.02.004
58	A Prencipe, F Tell, (2001). Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms. Research Policy, 30( 9): 1373– 1394 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00157-3
59	M M Raziq, M Ahmad, M Z Iqbal, M Ikramullah, M David, (2020). Organizational structure and project success: The mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management, 19( 2): 2050007 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649220500070
60	X Ren, X Deng, L Liang, (2018). Knowledge transfer between projects within project-based organizations: The project nature perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22( 5): 1082– 1103 https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-05-2017-0184
61	X Ren, Z Yan, Z Wang, J He, (2019). Inter-project knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: An organizational context perspective. Management Decision, 58( 5): 844– 863 https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2018-1211
62	L Sang D Xia G Ni Q Cui J Wang W (2019) Wang. Influence mechanism of job satisfaction and positive affect on knowledge sharing among project members: Moderator role of organizational commitment. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 27(1): 245– 269
63	J Sapsed, D Gann, N Marshall, A Salter, (2005). From here to eternity? The practice of knowledge transfer in dispersed and co-located project organizations. European Planning Studies, 13( 6): 831– 851 https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310500187938
64	M Schindler, M Eppler, (2003). Harvesting project knowledge: A review of project learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21( 3): 219– 228 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00096-0
65	V Schröpfer J Tah E (2017) Kurul. Mapping the knowledge flow in sustainable construction project teams using social network analysis. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, 24(2): 229– 259
66	S Seres, E Haites, K Murphy, (2009). Analysis of technology transfer in CDM projects: An update. Energy Policy, 37( 11): 4919– 4926 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.052
67	H Shahbaznezhad, M Rashidirad, I Vaghefi, (2019). A systematic review of the antecedents of knowledge transfer: An actant-object view. European Business Review, 31( 6): 970– 995 https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-07-2018-0133
68	K Skovvang Christensen, H Kaasgaard Bang, (2003). Knowledge management in a project-oriented organization: Three perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7( 3): 116– 128 https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310485686
69	da Conceição C Souza, O Broberg, E Paravizo, A R Jensen, (2019). A four-step model for diagnosing knowledge transfer challenges from operations into engineering design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 69: 163– 172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.11.005
70	G N Stock, J C A Tsai, J J Jiang, G Klein, (2021). Coping with uncertainty: Knowledge sharing in new product development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 39( 1): 59– 70 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.10.001
71	J Sun, X Ren, C J Anumba, (2019). Analysis of knowledge-transfer mechanisms in construction project cooperation networks. Journal of Management Engineering, 35( 2): 04018061 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000663
72	R Svensson, (2007). Knowledge transfer to emerging markets via consulting projects. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32( 5): 545– 559 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9034-2
73	G Szulanski, (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17( S2): 27– 43 https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171105
74	M Takahashi, M Indulska, J Steen, (2018). Collaborative research project networks: Knowledge transfer at the fuzzy front end of innovation. Project Management Journal, 49( 4): 36– 52 https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818781630
75	D J Teece, (1977). Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological know-how. Economic Journal, 87( 346): 242– 261 https://doi.org/10.2307/2232084
76	T S H Teo, A Bhattacherjee, (2014). Knowledge transfer and utilization in it outsourcing partnerships: A preliminary model of antecedents and outcomes. Information & Management, 51( 2): 177– 186 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.12.001
77	B Tshuma, H Steyn, C van Waveren, (2018). The role played by PMOs in the transfer of knowledge between projects: A conceptual framework. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 29( 2): 127– 140 https://doi.org/10.7166/29-2-1966
78	C van Waveren, L Oerlemans, T Pretorius, (2017). Refining the classification of knowledge transfer mechanisms for project-to-project knowledge sharing. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 20( 1): a1642 https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v20i1.1642
79	R van Wijk, J J P Jansen, M A Lyles, (2008). Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45( 4): 830– 853 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x
80	Y Wei, S Miraglia, (2017). Organizational culture and knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: Theoretical insights from a Chinese construction firm. International Journal of Project Management, 35( 4): 571– 585 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.010
81	Q Wen, M Qiang, (2016). Coordination and knowledge sharing in construction project-based organization: A longitudinal structural equation model analysis. Automation in Construction, 72( 3): 309– 320 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.06.002
82	A Wiewiora, G Murphy, B Trigunarsyah, K Brown, (2014). Interactions between organizational culture, trustworthiness, and mechanisms for inter-project knowledge sharing. Project Management Journal, 45( 2): 48– 65 https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21407
83	X X Xu, P Zou, (2021). System dynamics analytical modeling approach for construction project management research: A critical review and future directions. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 8( 1): 17– 31 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0091-7
84	L Zhang, J He, (2016). Critical factors affecting tacit-knowledge sharing within the integrated project team. Journal of Management Engineering, 32( 2): 04015045 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000402
85	L Zhang, S Huang, (2020). New technology foresight method based on intelligent knowledge management. Frontiers of Engineering Management, 7( 2): 238– 247 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42524-019-0062-z
86	Z Zhang M (2021) Min. Research on the NPD coordination, knowledge transfer process and innovation performance of interfirm projects in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, in press, doi:10.1007/s10490-021-09755-z
87	D Zhao, M Zuo, X N Deng, (2015). Examining the factors influencing cross-project knowledge transfer: An empirical study of IT services firms in China. International Journal of Project Management, 33( 2): 325– 340 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.05.003
88	Q W Zhou S Chen X P Deng A (2022a) Mahmoudi. Knowledge transfer among members within cross-cultural teams of international construction projects. Engineering, Construction, and Architectural Management, in press, doi:10.1108/ECAM-09-2021-0838
89	Q W Zhou, X P Deng, B G Hwang, W Y Ji, (2020). Integrated framework of horizontal and vertical cross-project knowledge transfer mechanism within project-based organizations. Journal of Management Engineering, 36( 5): 04020062 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000828
90	Q W Zhou, X P Deng, B G Hwang, M Yu, (2022b). System dynamics approach of knowledge transfer from projects to the project-based organization. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 15( 2): 324– 349 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2021-0142

[1]	Jizhong LIU, Hao HU, Zhaoyu PEI, Qiong WANG, Qiang MAI. Management innovation of Chang’e-5 project[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(4): 620-626.
[2]	Ningshuang ZENG, Yan LIU, Pan GONG, Marcel HERTOGH, Markus KÖNIG. Do right PLS and do PLS right: A critical review of the application of PLS-SEM in construction management research[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(3): 356-369.
[3]	Mingyue LI, Zhuoling MA, Xi TANG. Owner-dominated building information modeling and lean construction in a megaproject[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(1): 60-71.
[4]	Xiaoxiao XU, Patrick X. W. ZOU. System dynamics analytical modeling approach for construction project management research: A critical review and future directions[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(1): 17-31.
[5]	Qinghua HE, Junyan XU, Ting WANG, Albert P. C. CHAN. Identifying the driving factors of successful megaproject construction management: Findings from three Chinese cases[J]. Front. Eng, 2021, 8(1): 5-16.
[6]	Algan TEZEL, Eleni PAPADONIKOLAKI, Ibrahim YITMEN, Per HILLETOFTH. Preparing construction supply chains for blockchain technology: An investigation of its potential and future directions[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(4): 547-563.
[7]	Yongkui LI, Qing YANG, Beverly PASIAN, Yan ZHANG. Project management maturity in construction consulting services: Case of Expo in China[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(3): 384-395.
[8]	Lingling ZHANG, Siting HUANG. New technology foresight method based on intelligent knowledge management[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(2): 238-247.
[9]	Elodie HOCHSCHEID, Gilles HALIN. Generic and SME-specific factors that influence the BIM adoption process: An overview that highlights gaps in the literature[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(1): 119-130.
[10]	Veronika BOLSHAKOVA, Annie GUERRIERO, Gilles HALIN. Identifying stakeholders’ roles and relevant project documents for 4D-based collaborative decision making[J]. Front. Eng, 2020, 7(1): 104-118.
[11]	Yang YU, Jiafu TANG. *Review of seru* production**[J]. Front. Eng, 2019, 6(2): 183-192.
[12]	Albert P. C. CHAN, Xiaozhi MA, Wen YI, Xin ZHOU, Feng XIONG. Critical review of studies on building information modeling (BIM) in project management[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(3): 394-406.
[13]	Mario VANHOUCKE. Planning projects with scarce resources: Yesterday, today and tomorrow’s research challenges[J]. Front. Eng, 2018, 5(2): 133-149.
[14]	Takashi KANETA, Shuzo FURUSAKA, Nisi DENG. Overview and problems of BIM implementation in Japan[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(2): 146-155.
[15]	SangHyun LEE. Applying system dynamics to strategic decision making in construction[J]. Front. Eng, 2017, 4(1): 35-40.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed