I would like first to adopt Terry Cooke-Davies presentation of research issues and approaches in his International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP IV) Conference paper as mine (Cooke-Davies 2000). Quoting Michael Polanyi (1959), he proposes an alternative epistemology both to
We think that,
Our vision of project management would be one of an integral function: the knowledge field is made up of differential elements, each of them being able to be defined (for example, cost control, scheduling, communication, quality, information system, temporary
" … of rightly conducting the reason, and seeking truth in the sciences" (Rene Descartes 1637).
I am in doubt as to the propriety of making my first meditations in the place above mentioned matter of discourse; for these are so metaphysical, and so uncommon, as not, perhaps, to be acceptable to every one. And yet, that it may be determined whether the foundations that I have laid are sufficiently secure, I find
myselfin a measure constrained to advert to them (Part IV).
The method we chose is the integration of inputs coming from several fields according to two dimensions. The first dimension is what we call the individual/organizational dimension. The individual level includes the aspects of project management having an impact on the person: bodies of knowledge, certifications, standards, best practices, and all project management tools, techniques, experiences, competencies, changes, and task performances. The organizational level includes the aspects of project management having an impact on the team, the organization: bodies of knowledge, maturity, standards, norms, best practices, all project management tools and techniques, project success and performance, and creation of value. The second dimension is what we call the synchronic/diachronic dimension. The synchronic dimension is made up of what has an immediate or short-
We are considering a map figuring only the first level of the inputs (fields). For example at a lower level knowledge management would include: Anthropology, Artificial Intelligence (Individual), Artificial Intelligence (Collective), Artificial Intelligence (Other), Cognitive Psychology (Individual), Cognitive Psychology (Collective), Complexity and Adaptive Systems, Linguistics, Organizational Learning and Management Science, Philosophy, and Sociology of Knowledge (Knowledge Management Consortium International [KMCI] website, last updated 06/18/99).
We have to note that we want to keep a general perspective according to the definition of the inputs; the different perspectives of each input are sources of pluralities of meaning.
Standards: Standards (including all organization standards: for example NASA 7120-5A, NSIA EVMS, United States Department of Defense (DoD) 5000, bodies of knowledge, best practices, norms, maturity models, and professional certifications) represent the social construct of the project management knowledge field
Learning aspects: We will consider the different levels of learning: individual learning (Hawrylyshyn 1977), organizational learning (Senge 1990), single loop learning, and double loop learning (Fiol and Lyles 1985; Kim 1993). They represent both the structure and the process of learning (Romme and Dillen 1997).
Performance, value: The performance measurements have to be done at the different levels and according to the different time perspectives. Normative, prescriptive, or threshold definitions can be considered. The creation of value includes here all the developments on intellectual capital, intangible assets, and the different perspectives developed in this field (Sveiby 1998; Kaplan and Norton 1992, 1996).
Knowledge management: Knowledge management (KM) is "The art of creating value from an organization's Intangible Assets" (Sveiby 1999). With Sveiby we can define KM by looking at what people in this field are doing. "Both among KM researchers and
The two levels are 1) Individual Perspective: The focus in research and practice is on the
(AI specialists, psychologists) and 2) Organizational Perspective: The focus in research and practice is on the
Crossing these two dimensions, we can capture one essential issue: There are paradigmatic differences in our understanding of what knowledge is. The researchers and practitioners in the "knowledge equals object" column tend to rely on concepts from Information Theory in their understanding of knowledge. The researchers and practitioners in the column "knowledge equals process" tend to take their concepts from philosophy, psychology, or sociology. Some development including KM and measurement of performance can be found in Bontis (1999) showing that creation of value and knowledge are closely linked, see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Mapping the Four Fields (Inputs) According to the Individual/Organizational and the Synchronic/Diachronic Dimensions
As many books and papers show it, the four fields we consider are in interrelation: for example Sveiby (1998) and Bontis (1999) integrate KM, intellectual capital, and measure and management of intangible resources. Some others (Morten et al. 1999) put forward the role of standardization to manage knowledge. Individual learning and organizational learning are the heart of
Figure 2: Interrelation between the Four Fields and Their Integration through Systems Thinking and System Dynamics
After these short insights on research issues and method, we are going to propose some insights and elements to define a systemic and dynamic conceptual framework to design a