________________________________________________________ Exploring Knowledge Implementation in Project Teams Insights from a Qualitative Case Study in a High-Tech Industry MNC ________________________________________________________ Torben Daut & Eric Klang Spring 2023 M Sc International Business and Trade Supervisor: Johan Jakobsson Date of Submission: 2 023-05-25 G raduate School A bstract Existing literature underscores t he significance of knowledge management (KM) in organisations for enhancing performance and gaining competitive advantages. Despite scholars acknowledging that k nowledge implementation a ctivities realise the value of KM, little is known of how these activities c an be a ffected through organisational structures. With a n increasing amount of assessing knowledge-related activities in project teams, the need for uncovering the relationship between project teams and knowledge i mplementation should no longer b e neglected. Yet, there is limited research on how project teams affect knowledge implementation. By c onducting a qualitative case study within a high-tech i ndustry MNC, this study illuminates knowledge implementation within project teams and u ncovers how this organisational structure affects knowledge implementation activities. This study identified 15 d eterminants of h ow project teams affect knowledge implementation, sorted in three groups: individual, team, and socialisation d eterminants. The analysis of these findings showed that a holistic assessment o f these groups is necessary to understand the interplay between project team c ontext a nd knowledge implementation. In line with existing KM t heory, this study found that k nowledge implementation i s directly affected by determinants that reside within the individual. This study identified intrinsic motivation, time allocation, prioritisation and t he ability to a lign new knowledge with existing operations as directly affecting knowledge implementation. This study develops existing literature by finding that synergies w ithin teams and between teams a ffect these individual d eterminants, therefore having indirect effects on knowledge implementation. This implies that managers n eed to account for the influence of project teams, if KM strategies are expected to increase performance. Key Words: Knowledge Implementation, Knowledge Management, P roject T eams, Knowledge, Absorptive Capacity, Case Study, Multinational Corporation Acknowledgements To begin with, w e would like to express our deepest gratitude t o the c ase company for g ranting us access t o their organisation and providing the necessary r esources and i nformation e ssential for the successful c ompletion of t his study. We extend our heartfelt appreciation to our company supervisors, for their cooperation, valuable i nsights, and w illingness t o share their expertise. T he c ontribution of your support, insightful feedback, and dedication of y our t ime h as played a c rucial role in shaping the direction and quality of this research. Furthermore, w e are immensely g rateful for the contributions of our r espondents f or this study. Y our v aluable i nsights a nd engagement has b een o f great value to the findings of this study. We w ould l ike t o extend our appreciation to o ur supervisor Johan Jakobsson, f or his invaluable guidance, support and continuous encouragement during t his time period. Your input has b een instrumental i n enhancing the quality and relevance of this study. Furthermore, we would like to extend our appreciation to the faculty m embers, l ecturers and s tudents a t Graduate School for their support and assistance throughout our academic journey. Last b ut not least, we w ould like t o thank our f amily, f riends and fellow classmates for t heir support and engagement during our studies. Thank you, Gothenburg, 25th of May, 2023 _ __⑲______________________ _________________________ Torben Daut Eric Klang L ist of Abbreviations KM Knowledge Management MNC Multinational Corporation KT K nowledge Transfer KS Knowledge Sharing D CAP Disseminative Capacity A CAP Absorptive Capacity PACAP Potential Absorptive Capacity RACAP Realised Absorptive Capacity O L Organisational Learning List of Figures Figure 1 Absorptive Capacity 16 F igure 2 P rocedural Perspective on KM and OL in the intra-organisational context 21 F igure 3 C onceptual Framework of Knowledge Implementation in Project Teams 22 F igure 4 S ending Unit and Project Teams 26 Figure 5 Thematic Network Analysis 33 Figure 6 Background of the Case Study 38 F igure 7 R elationship between Indirect Determinants, Direct Determinants, and 6 4 Knowledge Implementation in Project Team Setting Figure 8 Structure of the Direct and Indirect Determinants on Knowledge 65 Implementation in the Case Figure 9 Intrinsic Motivation of Individuals as a Determinant for Knowledge 69 Implementation F igure 10 Time Resources of Individuals as a Determinant for Knowledge Implementation 73 F igure 11 Prioritisation Issues of Individuals as a Determinant for Knowledge 76 Implementation F igure 12 Alignment with Operations as a Determinant for Knowledge Implementation 83 F igure 13 R evised Conceptual Model 8 5 List of Tables Table 1 List of Respondents 3 0 List of Appendices Appendix 1 I nterview Guide 97 T able of Content 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Problem Discussion. ....................................................................................................... 3 1 .3 P urpose and R esearch Q uestion ..................................................................................... 5 1.4 D elimitations .................................................................................................................. 6 1.5 Disposition ..................................................................................................................... 6 2 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................. 8 2.1 T eams in Organisations .................................................................................................. 8 2.1.1 Project Teams ........................................................................................................ 9 2.2 Knowledge Management Concept ............................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Definition of knowledge ...................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Knowledge Management ..................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Knowledge Transfer ............................................................................................ 12 2.2.3.1 Multilevel dimension o f KT. ....................................................................... 1 2 2.2.3.2 Attributes of K nowledge, Units and R elationships ..................................... 13 2.2.3.3 Disseminative Capacity .............................................................................. 14 2.2.3.4 A bsorptive Capacity ................................................................................... 15 2.2.4 Knowledge I mplementation ................................................................................ 17 2.2.4.1 Knowledge Implementation in Teams. ........................................................ 17 2 .2.5 Organisational Learning a nd K nowledge Management ...................................... 18 2.2.6 RACAP, Knowledge Implementation and Organisational L earning ................... 19 2.3 C onceptual Model ........................................................................................................ 2 0 3 Methodology. ............................................................................................................ 24 3 .1 Scientific Approach ...................................................................................................... 24 3 .1.1 Qualitative Research Design ............................................................................... 24 3.1.2 A bductive Research Approach ............................................................................ 24 3.1.3 C ase Study. ......................................................................................................... 25 3 .1.3.1 Introduction of Case Company ................................................................... 25 3.2 Conceptualisation of the Theoretical Framework ........................................................ 26 3.3 Empirical D ata Collection ............................................................................................ 27 3 .3.1 Sources ................................................................................................................ 27 3 .3.2 Sampling .............................................................................................................. 28 3.3.2.1 Sampling Criteria ....................................................................................... 28 3 .3.2.2 Sampling A pproach .................................................................................... 2 9 3.3.2.3 Compilation of Sample ............................................................................... 29 3.3.3 I nterviews ............................................................................................................ 30 3.4 Data Analysis. .............................................................................................................. 32 3.5 Quality o f research ....................................................................................................... 33 3.6 Ethical considerations .................................................................................................. 35 4 E mpirics .................................................................................................................... 37 4 .1 B ackground of the Case Study. .................................................................................... 37 4.2 Individual Determinants on Knowledge Implementation ............................................ 39 4.2.1 Prior Experience .................................................................................................. 3 9 4.2.2 Strategic Fit. ........................................................................................................ 40 4.2.3 Alignment with Operations ................................................................................. 42 4 .2.4 Intrinsic Motivation ............................................................................................. 43 4.2.5 Extrinsic Motivation ............................................................................................ 44 4 .2.6 Time ..................................................................................................................... 45 4.2.7 Prioritisation ........................................................................................................ 47 4.2.8 P erception of Learning A ctivities ....................................................................... 48 4.3 Team Determinants ....................................................................................................... 50 4.3.1 Cross-Functionality ............................................................................................. 50 4.3.2 Managerial S upport. ............................................................................................ 51 4.3.3 T eam Proximity ................................................................................................... 53 4.3.4 Staffing ................................................................................................................ 5 6 4.4 Socialisation Determinants ........................................................................................... 57 4.4.1 Proximity b etween Sender and Receiver ............................................................. 57 4 .4.2 Feedback .............................................................................................................. 60 4 .4.3 Collaboration among Project Teams ................................................................... 61 5 Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 63 5.1 Direct a nd I ndirect D eterminants of Knowledge Implementation i n Project Teams ... 63 5.1.1 Intrinsic m otivation ............................................................................................. 6 5 5.1.1.1 Direct .......................................................................................................... 65 5 .1.1.2 Indirect ....................................................................................................... 66 5.1.1.3 S ummary. .................................................................................................... 69 5.1.2 Time ..................................................................................................................... 69 5.1.2.1 Direct .......................................................................................................... 69 5 .1.2.2 Indirect ....................................................................................................... 70 5 .1.2.3 Summary. .................................................................................................... 72 5.1.3 Prioritisation ........................................................................................................ 73 5.1.3.1 Direct .......................................................................................................... 73 5.1.3.2 Indirect ....................................................................................................... 74 5.1.3.3 Summary. .................................................................................................... 76 5 .1.4 Alignment with Operations ................................................................................. 77 5 .1.4.1 Direct .......................................................................................................... 7 7 5.1.4.2 I ndirect ....................................................................................................... 78 5.1.4.3 Summary. .................................................................................................... 82 5.2 Interpretation of the Analysis ....................................................................................... 8 3 5.3 Revision of t he Conceptual Model ............................................................................... 84 6 Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 8 6 6.1 Main Findings. ............................................................................................................. 86 6 .2 Theoretical Contributions ............................................................................................. 87 6 .3 Managerial Implications ............................................................................................... 88 6.4 L imitations and Future Research .................................................................................. 89 References .................................................................................................................... 91 Appendix ...................................................................................................................... 97 1 Introduction 1.1 Background In r ecent years a nd decades, r esearchers as well as m anagers have increasingly a cknowledged the significance o f successful knowledge m anagement (KM) within o rganisations ( Liao, Chen, H u, Chung, & Yang 2017; Ahmad & K arim 2019). T his e mphasis on KM h as been further strengthened as multinational corporations (MNCs) have recognized the c ritical role of managing, transferring a nd coordinating knowledge f or creating a c ompetitive advantage ( Minbaeva, P edersen, Björkman, Fey & Park 2003; Balle, Oliveira & Marques Curado 2020). D ue to t he growing emphasis on creating a nd exploiting firm-specific capabilities within o rganisations, KM has become a strategic a ctivity that enhances the competitiveness o f the o rganisation (Tan, S u, Mahoney & Kor 2020; Ferreira, Mueller & Papa 2020; Riege 2 005; Volberda, Foss & Lyles 2010). K M can b e characterised as a concept of i mmense c omplexity a nd richness, whose origins can be traced back to the 1960s (Gaviria-Marin, Merigó & B aier-Fuentes 2019). T he concept then grew exponentially in t he 1990s w ith t he publication o f literature by Kogut a nd Zander (1992), Nonaka ( 1994) and Grant’s (1996a; 1996b) theory o f the k nowledge-based view which e mphasises k nowledge as a s trategic resource in organisations. U ntil today, t he concept of K M has s pread over various disciplines (Inkinen 2016), including o rganisational management, computer s cience, social s cience, and m edicine (Sroka, Cygler & G ajdzik 2 014). Consequently, multiple d efinitions and perspectives o n KM have emerged over time. I t is therefore necessary to clearly define key concepts, to create a mutual understanding. From an organisational m anagement standpoint, KM i s usually understood from a process perspective (Mudambi 2 002; Lin 2 007; Alavi & Leidner 2001; B alle, Oliveira & M arques C urado 2020). In that sense, Lin (2007) d efines K M as “strategies a nd processes of acquiring, converting, a pplying, a nd protecting knowledge to improve firm’s competitiveness” (Lin 2007, p. 1 ). Accordingly, Alavi a nd Leidner (2001) argue that KM c onsists of four processes, being t he creation o f knowledge, storing and r etrieving k nowledge, t ransferring knowledge, a nd applying k nowledge. B alle, Oliveira a nd Marques Curado (2020) a pply a very similar description t o KM and account for c reation, retaining, transfer, and u se of knowledge a s being the core parts of K M. Based o n the d ifferent definitions o f KM in t he literature (Mudambi 2 002; Lin 2 007; Alavi & Leidner 2001; B alle, Oliviera & Marques Curado 2 020), this study d efines K M as a comprehensive and multi-tiered approach adopted by a n organisation t o gain a competitive edge through strategic 1 creation, dissemination, absorption, and implementation of knowledge . Arguably t he most studied f ield of these processes i s that o f knowledge transfer or k nowledge sharing. It i s an integral part of KM and spans over various actors, p rocesses, mechanisms, and dimensions (Ahmad & Karim 2019; Wang & Noe 2010). In line with the general problem of a lacking consensus on terminology and vocabulary t hat i s used i n KM theory, knowledge transfer (KT) and k nowledge sharing (KS) a re often used interchangeably and lack clear distinction from each o ther. This thesis adapts the elaboration by W ang a nd Noe ( 2010), emphasising that sharing primarily involves the sender providing knowledge to others, while transfer i mplies b oth sending and r eceiving units. P art of t his transfer i s thus t he distribution of k nowledge as well as the acquisition and implementation of i t. An important distinction is often made of KT between different o rganisations and KT within organisations. Inter-organisational KT can, for example, take p lace between f irms and universities ( Siegel, W aldmann, Atwater & Link 2003; Cassiman & Veugelers 2006) o r between d ifferent firms (Easterby-Smith, L yles & Tsang 2008). Intra-organisational KT describes the transfer of k nowledge between different units of a firm (Argote, Ingram, Levine & M oreland 2 000), for e xample between subsidiaries (Foss & P edersen 2 002; Minbaeva 2007) or intra-organisational networks (Sroka, Cygler & G ajdzik 2014; Tang 2011). KT as part of KM i n itself can therefore be described as a multidimensional concept that can b e applied t o various levels of the organisational context, both inter- and intra-organisationally. I ntra-organisational KT i nvolves t he sender, receiver, the knowledge being transferred and the o rganisational context in which t he transfer occurs. These components collectively determine t o what e xtent KT takes place ( Minbaeva 2007). The sender and receiver’s r ole i n this c ontext has received considerable attention i n the literature, including the sender’s disseminative capacity (DCAP) a nd the r eceiver's absorptive capacity (ACAP). Together, DCAP and A CAP a re critical for r ealising the b enefits o f KM and gaining a c ompetitive a dvantage (Minbaeva 2007; G upta & G ovindarajan 2000; Tang 2011; Lowik, K raaijenbrink & Groen 2016; Mariano & Walter 2 015; Minbaeva et al. 2 003). DCAP captures the s ender's a bility and motivation t o effectively transfer knowledge (Minbaeva 2 007). The c oncept of A CAP h as been introduced b y Cohen and L evinthal (1990) who view ACAP a s “the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, a ssimilate it, and apply it t o commercial e nds” (Cohen & Levinthal 1 990, p . 128). Zahra and George (2002) h ave f urther developed t he concept, categorising A CAP into the four d imensions of a cquisition, assimilation, t ransformation, and exploitation. However, scholars acknowledged that the final 2 d imension, e xploitation o f knowledge, is t he critical k ey for value c reation through KM ( Alavi & Tiwana 2002; Minbaeva et al. 2003). O rganisations are a dopting a new approach t o KM as they increasingly structure " knowledge-intensive work" within project teams (Mueller 2014, p. 1 90). Teams a re groups of i ndividuals working t ogether towards shared objectives through assigned r oles (Cohen & Bailey 1997). They promote interdependence, shared responsibility, and o ffer advantages s uch as reduced supervision costs, i ncreased employee commitment, and a favourable e nvironment for creativity and innovation (Curado, O liveira, Maçada & Nodari 2017). Du P lessis a nd Hoole (2006) a rgue that project-based work is incorporated i nto organisations to create a competitive a dvantage. In addition, the authors argue that successful project teams a re created w hen t here is a supportive organisational c ulture. From a KM p erspective, this s etting p uts a dditional emphasis o n the engagement between teams t hat r epresent e ither sending or receiving units as they contribute to the process by e ither d isseminating o r absorbing knowledge with the intention t o contribute to t he creation of firm-specific c apabilities a nd c ompetitive advantage. Hence, this argues for t he importance o f viewing the exchange o f knowledge from a KT perspective to address both the DCAP of t he sending u nit a nd the ACAP of t he receiving unit. W ith t he ambition to create unique capabilities to the organisation, the intention with KT is to contribute t o the exploitation o r implementation o f knowledge to create organisational learning (OL), including new routines and processes that are c rucial to the creation of competitive a dvantage ( Argote & M iron-Spektor 2011, King 2009). 1.2 Problem Discussion Although the importance of K M has been widely a cknowledged, numerous f irms continue t o encounter challenges in realising its benefits, primarily due t o inadequate realisation of its value, w hich involves t he implementation of transferred knowledge i nto routines and processes at the receiving side to improve b usiness performance ( Ahmad & K arim 2019; Gaviria-Marin, Merigó & Baier-Fuentes 2019; Jonsson 2012, Inkinen 2 016). Several studies h ave b een c onducted t o investigate what determinants influence t he transfer of knowledge from one unit to a nother, resulting in diverse f indings and a pproaches, such as m otivation and transmission channels (Gupta & Govindarajan 2000; P edersen, Petersen & Sharma 2003), a bility (Minbaeva et al. 2003), or status, personal ties, and proximity (Jasimuddin 2007). 3 However, r esearchers have p aid s ignificantly less attention to how organisations implement the knowledge o nce i t has b een t ransferred ( Ahmad & Karim 2 019). The implementation activity includes t hat t he knowledge is just not a cquired but a lso a pplied a ccordingly b y the r eceiving unit into their o perations, r outines, and processes. Adapting the conceptualisation of ACAP by Zahra a nd George ( 2002), i t can b e seen as a subsequent step of successful knowledge transfer. T he authors further argue that it i s decisive for o rganisational learning processes and business p erformance that knowledge i s not only transferred t o the r ecipient, b ut also implemented to a s ufficient e xtent (Selivanovskikh, Latukha, Mitskevich & Pitinov 2020; Lowik, K raaijenbrink & G roen 2016). T his implies that the implementation of k nowledge plays an i mportant role in s uccessful K M strategies o f organisations (Alavi & T iwana 2002) and emphasises further academic attention t o contribute to the literature on knowledge m anagement. Implementation of a cquired k nowledge into the receiver’s operations is further seen as the critical element of knowledge transfer, a s there is n o value in knowledge transfer per se if t he knowledge i s not i mplemented (Minbaeva e t al. 2003). Furthermore, r esearchers rarely f ocus on a team-level perspective when studying KM, even though t he importance of k nowledge-intensive teams i s widely recognised (Lowik, Kraaijenbrink & Groen 2016; M ueller 2 014). Teams are growing in importance in o rganisations (Sung & C hoi 2 012), and particularly the organisational structure of project teams (Mueller 2 014). Although p roject t eams have g rown rapidly, organisations face challenges managing such constellations . T he challenges include the s ituation in w hich an employee is o nly i nvolved part-time i n a project t eam, since they still h ave t heir line o rganisation, a nd a lack of o rganisational c ompetence a nd culture that support such constellations (Du Plessis & Hoole, 2006). Furthermore, studies on knowledge management in the c ontext o f teams have mainly focused o n individual team studies. This implies that e xisting research focuses on h ow one team e nables k nowledge sharing of i ndividuals, or that scholars h ave u sed t eams as a bounded space to c onduct a s tudy, but rarely studied implementation o f knowledge t hat has been acquired from other u nits. Several studies have focused on the creation of knowledge within t eams (Curado, Oliveira, Maçada & Nodari 2017) or o n knowledge s haring within teams (Wang & N oe 2010), there has, however, been less attention on the implementation of knowledge that comes from outside a team, despite a wide awareness of its c ontribution to v alue realisation of knowledge management (Alavi & Tiwana 2002). 4 T his l eaves a gap for f urther r esearch that this study a ims t o fill. For once, t here has s o far b een l imited r esearch on k nowledge transfer b etween t eams (Mueller 2 014). Secondly, if studies focus o n knowledge transfer between teams, there is seldomly a focus o n the k nowledge implementation activities. T o address this gap, this study a ims t o explore the r ole of project teams a s knowledge r eceivers and how this affects knowledge i mplementation. F urthermore, it i s essential t o recognise that knowledge i mplementation plays a c rucial r ole i n value creation, as emphasised b y previous research ( Alavi & Tiwana, 2 002; Wang & Noe, 2010) and it should receive appropriate attention in the research field. B esides t hese contextual problematisations o f the t opic, there a re also methodological issues t hat n eed t o be taken into consideration. The overrepresentation of quantitative studies in the field of KM poses s ignificant limitations to d etailed studies of t he organisational context in w hich KM takes p lace (Wang & Noe 2010). It further restricts new f indings to c ontribute t o the c omprehension o f the determinants t hat a re crucial for the e fficacious conversion of K M into business outcomes. Despite the extensive r esearch on K M in the business context, t he methodological gap o f qualitative, rich-in-detail s tudies o f the p henomenon r esults i n an a bsence o f understanding why s ome k nowledge r elated a ctivities p rovide t he aspired o utcome w hile others f ail ( Ahmad & Karim 2019). T his t ransformation unclarity o f how to realise the value for businesses of t ransferred knowledge c an be d rawn back to t he concept of ACAP, justifying the qualitative a pproach that is used to investigate this phenomenon. R iege (2005) further emphasises that best practices o f KM t hat c an be g eneralised barely e xist. I t is therefore of significant i mportance that firms evaluate t heir individual KM and respective measures, mechanisms, and tools. 1 .3 Purpose and Research Question T he purpose o f this study is t o add t o existing l iterature a nd fill contextual and methodological g aps b y investigating how p roject teams affect knowledge i mplementation in a n MNC. To address these a spects, this paper i nvestigates qualitatively how members of p roject t eams experience their knowledge implementation activities in these teams, i dentifies t he determinants that influence these activities and examines their relationship w ith k nowledge implementation. Based o n this purpose and previous elaborations, t he following research question is presented and will be further investigated in this study: RQ: How are project teams affecting knowledge implementation in an MNC? 5 1.4 Delimitations T he boundaries of t he research are defined by a number of delimitations made in this study. These boundaries are shaped b y the t heoretical framework, the research q uestion, and the c hoice of t he case study. Firstly, in o rder to define a c lear focus area and remain w ithin the disciplinary f ield of this study, delimitations h ave b een m ade o n the s cope of theory on KM t o organisational and business studies, thus excluding other disciplines s uch a s medicine and computer science. S econdly, with the a im to e xplore a nd analyse how project teams affect implementation of knowledge that has b een r eceived from another unit, the analysis of t he sending unit will be limited to a n extent t o allow for a c omprehensive a nd rich-in-detail i nvestigation of t he receiver’s perspectives. Finally, t his s tudy is conducted in a qualitative approach b y conducting a case study in a n MNC, using interviews and observation practices t o receive the e mpirical data. A s a result, this study aims to d eliver context-dependent i nsights and f indings specifically a pplicable t o the u nit u nder study and t herefore only generalizable to a limited extent. 1.5 Disposition Chapter one i ntroduces the research topic o f knowledge i mplementation in project teams a s a part of KM and provides a problem discussion that outlines t heoretical and m ethodological gaps as well as determinants for i mplementation in the p ractical context. I t continues w ith the purpose and r esearch questions o f this study as w ell a s associated delimitations. The s econd chapter reviews existing l iterature o n teams in o rganisations a nd KM. The chapter further elaborates on r elated l iterature a nd concepts o f KM, i ncluding knowledge t ransfer, absorptive capacity a nd organisational l earning to show the interconnectedness and motivate their i mportance f or the research. A s a conclusion, a conceptual model for knowledge i mplementation in project teams i s presented. The e laborations on the underlying methodology of t his s tudy in chapter three c larify t he research process of t his s tudy, motivate w hy the chosen approach o f qualitative research h as been selected and introduce t he sample and t he method of data collection. T he fourth chapter c ontains the e mpirical findings w hich are p resented based o n a thematic networks analysis. The s tructured p resentation relates to t he conceptual model p resented in chapter two. Reflecting the structure f rom t he empirical findings, c hapter f ive a nalyses t he determinants found in t he empirical data and h ow these a ffect knowledge implementation in project teams. Further, a revised conceptual model i s presented, integrating the n ew findings. The s tudy is concluded in chapter six with the a nswer 6 t o the research q uestion, theoretical c ontributions, managerial implementations and the possibilities for further studies of this topic. 7 2 Theoretical Framework This chapter is divided into a review of literature on p roject t eams in organisations, k nowledge management and related concepts, t hat s hape the theoretical framework of this study. To conclude t he theoretical f ramework, a c onceptual m odel is presented that captures relevant theory and concepts for the context of this study. 2.1 Teams in Organisations A ‘team’ refers t o a group of t wo or m ore i ndividuals who e ngage in a daptive and d ynamic i nteraction through specific roles t o achieve shared and v alued objectives. T he team’s members are i nterdependent in their tasks and share the responsibility for the p erformance outcome (Cohen & B ailey 1997). Many companies use t his a pproach to organise t heir employees. The a dvantages o f teamwork include reduced supervision e xpenses, increased employee commitment, a nd a better environment f or creativity and innovation (Curado, Oliveira, Maçada & N odari 2017). Teams are also seen as quick r esponse and a daptation u nits to the dynamics of business (Waller 1999). The o rganisational approach of u sing teams is b ased on the advantage t hat t eams can a ccomplish t asks in a more time efficient manner t han individual employees o r, if m ore t han o ne employee p articipates in t asks, than several e mployees working in a s equential p rocess o rder (Edmondson & Nembhard 2009). In t imes of exponentially increasing creation o f new k nowledge, e specially i n the f ield of new technologies a nd data management, c ollaboration b y specialists is m ore a nd m ore r equired to keep up w ith k nowledge evolution and d evelop t he firm (Edmondson & Nembhard 2 009). Scholars h ave a cknowledged the importance of teams f or organisational learning processes and h ave e xperienced an increasing use of teams i n organisations for k nowledge-related activities (Cohen & B ailey 1997; H uang & Newell 2 003; Salas, Cooke & Rosen 2 008; Sung & Choi 2012). S uch a n organisational design allows corporations t o reduce t he need of c omplex o rganisational restructuring while benefiting f rom c ollective e xpertise to d evelop s olutions to o rganisational challenges. Teams a re used for a wide range of a ctivities, particularly w hen o rganisations a re facing complex challenges (Salas, Cooke & R osen 2008), i ncluding knowledge management (Huang & N ewell 2003). The e ffectiveness o f teams can be measured o n different l evels. Cohen and Bailey ( 1997) review literature on team effectiveness on f our d ifferent levels: individual, g roup, business u nit, and o rganisational level. S uch a p erspective is i mportant, a s the e ffectiveness o f teams is i nterrelated between these d ifferent l evels, m eaning t hat t he different levels c an interfere with each other and 8 should therefore n ot be a ssessed in isolation. For e xample, if the team is effective on a group-level, i t might not automatically m ean t hat i t is effective on a business unit level ( Cohen & Bailey 1997). D ifferent themes o f studies on teams i n organisations f ocused o n different a spects o f teams and demonstrate the importance of assessing both i ndividual a nd team characteristics.. One stream o f research focuses on T eam C omposition, including d iversity and size (Cohen & Bailey 1997). B ell, Vilado, Lukasik, Belau and Briggs ( 2011), f or example, i nvestigated the r elationship between demographic diversity in teams a nd their p erformance. Composition o f teams and different c haracter traits o f individuals has further been paid m uch a ttention to b y psychology researchers. Another stream of research o n teams focuses on the virtuality of teams, i.e. teams that consist of members that are globally spread a nd communicate a nd collaborate based o n virtual environments ( Jarvenpaa & L eidner 1 999; Gilson, Maynard, Jones Y oung, Vartiainen & Hakonen 2015, Hoch & Kozlowski 2 014). A third s tream of r esearch focuses o n tasks of t eams (Cohen & B ailey 1997). H uang and N ewell (2003) elaborate o n three different g roups of t asks that cross-functional t eams, i.e. teams w ith m embers f rom different organisational backgrounds, engage i n. Firstly, c ross-functional t eams are used for creativity and i nnovation t asks, secondly, t hey a re used to g enerate consensus, m eaning t hat p erspectives from different organisational units are transformed into one consensus, and thirdly for strategy change initiatives. 2.1.1 Project Teams As a special organisation o f teams that might b ring unique c hallenges t o knowledge i mplementation, this study focuses on a p articular f orm o f teams, something in this study r eferred to as project teams . Project teams a re often referred t o in the literature to have the s peciality t hat t hey c onsist o f members that h ave t he project team work as a n add-on to t heir line organisation w ork a nd do n ot have the mandate to commit 100 p er cent of workload t o these project teams (Du Plessis & Hoole 2006). Rather, the t eam members work in a f orm o f hybrid c onstellation, w here they switch b etween t he different t asks of line organisation and p roject team, p roviding a certain level o f independence and flexibility (Mueller 2 014). With an i ncreased emphasis f rom o rganisations to s tructure activities and tasks around project t eams, including knowledge-related activities, the organisational structure supporting these teams h as increased in their i mportance (Mueller 2 014; Du Plessis & Hoole 2006). This includes the organisation's ability to structure the t eams successfully a nd contribute with supporting activities. 9 2 .2 Knowledge Management Concept 2.2.1 Definition of knowledge With the complex and various interpretations of t he d efinition of knowledge, there is neither s ense nor intention t o provide a single true a nswer to t he question: what i s knowledge ? H owever, it is important to clarify t he context of knowledge for t he purpose o f this study. Because of i ts complexity i n definition, k nowledge i n an o rganisational setting can be s ummarised as that knowledge is a n essential resource t hat e xists in a variety of f orms that are associated with different characteristics, s uch as transferability or appropriability ( Grant 1 996a). In order to contribute to a mutual u nderstanding of knowledge, its association to information should l ikewise be c larified. Without context, i nformation is only data (Nonaka & Teece 2 001; Nonaka 1994), thus, v alue is created w hen i nformation is used in a strategic setting. Considered to p rimarily reside within individuals, it i s imperative for organisations to make personal knowledge available to the r est o f the o rganisation (Grant 1 996a; N onaka 1991). 2.2.2 Knowledge Management Theoretical c onsiderations, modelisations and elaborations on the concept of knowledge m anagement have started to d evelop in the 1960s with s everal generations o f literature that followed a nd accumulated insights and knowledge about t he t heoretical discipline (Gaviria-Marin, Merigó & Baier-Fuentes 2 019). It was h owever until the 1990s t hat t he m ost i nfluential publications in t he KM field emerged. Kogut and Zander (1992) explore combinative c apabilities i n the organisational c ontext t hat allow organisations to efficiently c reate a nd transfer knowledge and t hus b ecome t he reason for the existence o f the firm. Nonaka (1991) further published a discussion o f knowledge creation in f irms that describes the constant i nteraction and exchange o f tacit a nd explicit knowledge and l ater introduced the concept of t he k nowledge s piral (Nonaka 1994). Tacit knowledge is characterised by its d ifficulty to communicate and t ransfer, a s it i s very individual knowledge. E xplicit knowledge on t he other h and, is c haracterised by i ts ability to b e communicated and transferred a s it is a rather standardised and m ethodical t ype of knowledge (Nonaka 1 991). Grant ( 1996a) later p resents the knowledge-based theory o f the firm, w hich is built o n organisational capabilities of integrating individual knowledge (Grant 1996b). As a n extension to the resource-based v iew (Barney 1991) w ith an additional focus on knowledge, 1 0 the knowledge-based theory o f the firm transformed as a way to justify the s trategic importance of knowledge w ithin organisations, because of its special c haracteristics and i mitability ( Grant 1996a). The author further a pproaches the question of what is knowledge by acknowledging the intangibility and i ntricacy of knowledge and argues that t he firm’s primary t ask i s to integrate specialised knowledge of multiple individuals. Over the years, K M has spanned across v arious theoretical d isciplines, including, a mong others, B usiness Economics, C omputer S cience, Education, Psychology, Health Care and Geography. The g rowing i mportance of K M in theoretical conceptualisations can further be observed with the e mergence of influential journals solely publishing K M related l iterature, s uch as t he Journal of K nowledge Management o r Knowledge Management Research Practice (Gaviria-Marin, M erigó & Baier-Fuentes 2019). From the business perspective, KM as a c oncept has gained its influence a nd improved its importance for the s trategic management of firms, d ue to its capabilities o f creating a sustained competitive advantage ( Grant 1996a; Lin 2007; Argote & I ngram 2000; Liao, C hen, Hu, Chung & Yang 2017; L in & Wu 2014; M udambi 2002). Alvesson and K ärreman (2001) acknowledge the complexity o f the c oncept and argue for a contradiction between knowledge a nd management, as knowledge per s e “is an a mbiguous, unspecific and d ynamic p henomenon” ( Alvesson & Kärreman 2001, p. 995) that makes it difficult to manage. With several a ttempts to provide a d efinition o f the concept of KM ( Lin 2 007; A lavi & Leidner 2001; Balle, Oliveira & Marques Curado 2 020), there is s till a n ambiguity in i ts definition, with some authors focusing on extensive use of I T infrastructure, while others acknowledging t he role and s ignificance of people o r communities (Alvesson & Kärman 2 001). However, a shared interpretation b y the a cademic literature i s that K M is widely r ecognised a s a p rocess (Mudambi 2 002; L in 2007; A lavi & Leidner 2 001; B alle, Oliveira & Marques Curado 2 020). The p rocess perspective o f KM as seen by A lavi a nd Leidner (2001) c onsists of four main stages: c reating, storing a nd retrieving, transferring, and applying k nowledge. Furthermore, building on Nonaka’s (1994) description of how o rganisational k nowledge is c reated, L in (2007) a rgues that KM can b e defined a s the process where “individuals and g roups both within and between f irms managing tacit and explicit knowledge to m ake b etter decisions, take a ctions and deliver results t o support t he underlying business strategy” (Lin 2007, p.2) To summarise the understanding of the concept of KM in the context of this study, K M is perceived as t he holistic, multilevel c oncept of a f irm to c reate a competitive advantage by strategically creating, disseminating, absorbing and implementing knowledge. 11 2.2.3 Knowledge Transfer An essential c omponent of knowledge management, and often used synonymously, is the concept o f knowledge t ransfer ( KT). KT is, similar to KM, often seen from a process perspective (Minbaeva 2 007), but h as, i n the u nderstanding o f the authors of t his s tudy, clear b oundaries t hat can certainly b e attributed to the terminology. While t he management of knowledge spans several boundaries and a dapts a holistic view on t he topic of k nowledge in f irms, including f or example the creation and storing o f knowledge, knowledge transfer c an be defined as a “ dual process [...] which covers knowledge d issemination a nd absorption” (Tang 2 011, p. 270). M inbaeva (2007) h as a similar view and defines KT “ as a process of dyadic exchanges o f knowledge b etween the sender a nd the receiver” (Minbaeva 2007, p. 569) that consists o f the e lements “source, message, recipient a nd context” ( Minbaeva 2007, p. 5 69). Szulanski d escribes KT “as a process in which a n organization recreates and m aintains a complex, c ausally ambiguous set of routines in a n ew setting” (Szulanski 2000, p . 10). Pedersen, P etersen & S harma (2003) add that it i s conducted via different m edia and m echanisms a nd therefore i mportant that characteristics o f the transferred k nowledge and the t ransfer mechanism align. They argue that more tacit knowledge requires face-to-face communication, while explicit k nowledge should b e transferred via w ritten m edia, such as m anuals o r reports. Misaligned knowledge characteristics and transfer m echanisms l ead t o reduced organisational performance (Pedersen, Petersen & Sharma 2 003). Furthermore, the s uccess o f transferring knowledge is often d ependent on the sender’s disseminative capacity ( DCAP) and t he receiver’s absorptive capacity (ACAP) ( Minbaeva 2007, T ang 2 011, Gupta & Govindarajan 2 000), two concepts that will be elaborated on further down in t he theoretical framework. Based o n these definitions and elaborations and within t he scope o f this study, knowledge transfer will further be seen as a c oncept t hat d escribes the process o f exchanging knowledge between a sending and a r eceiving unit, o f which the success i s influenced by the r espective d isseminative and absorptive capacity. K M on the other hand has a m ore holistic v iew o n knowledge and the o rganisation and also incorporates how knowledge i s created, stored, and implemented, thus covering p receding and consequent a ctions to the setting of KT. 2 .2.3.1 Multilevel dimension of KT Knowledge transfer as a concept is f urther often d ifferentiated on different m acro and m icro levels. One branch of research o n KT discusses t he concept on an i nter-organisational level within, for e xample, strategic a lliances (Mowery, Oxley & S ilverman 1996) o r inter-firm 12 networks ( Giudice & Maggioni 2014). A s econd branch f ocuses o n intra-organisational KT (Tsai 2 001, Szulanski 2 000, Minbaeva 2007). The scope o f intra-organisational studies spans across cross-boundary HQ-Subsidiary transfer (Gupta & Govindarajan 2 000; Mahnke, Pedersen & Venzin 2 005; Minbaeva 2007), intra-organisational networks (Tang, Mu & MacLachlan 2010; Tang 2011; S roka, Cygler & Gajdzik 2 014), teams ( Mueller 2014), a nd individuals (Nonaka 1991; Tang 2011). As discussed by Zhao & Ananad ( 2009), t hese levels a re connected a nd complement each other t o a certain e xtent. T he authors argue t hat c ollective knowledge transfer and learning usually goes beyond s imply the sum o f individuals, as t hese collectives consist not solely of i ndependent individuals, b ut rather exist as an i nterdependent collective, in w hich members u se combination s kills to r each a level beyond t he pure sum of individual knowledge. Such collective knowledge i s defined a s “embedded a mong organizational members regarding h ow to c oordinate, share, d istribute, a nd recombine individual knowledge” (Zhao & Anand 2009, p. 964). These e laborations on the multilevel perspective of k nowledge transfer clearly demonstrate t hat a p romising yet s till lacking approach to K M research is a multilevel study t hat incorporates both the individual and collective level (Zhao & Anand 2009). 2.2.3.2 Attributes of Knowledge, Units and Relationships In the a cademic literature, Minbaeva (2007) and A rgote, M cEvily a nd Reagans (2003) h ave c ontributed to a conceptualisation on t he attributes of k nowledge, units a nd the relationship b etween t hem. Minbaeva (2007) a rgues that there a re four determinants t hat a re decisive i n the i ntra-organisational s etting o f KT. T hese determinants consist of c haracteristics of k nowledge, characteristics of knowledge senders, characteristics o f knowledge r eceivers, a nd the relationship between these u nits (Minbaeva 2007). Argote, McEvily and R eagans ( 2003) have a similar view and a rgue for t hree properties: properties of knowledge, properties of units a nd properties of r elationships between units. Although there a re differences in t erminology, they show similarities in their implication. The f irst determinant, characteristics of knowledge (Minbaeva 2 007) can be c ompared to properties of k nowledge (Argote, McEvily and Reagans 2003). A n attribute connected to the first determinant with a big influence o n the k nowledge transfer is t he tacitness of knowledge. As p reviously mentioned, knowledge can b e divided into e xplicit and t acit forms to d escribe the ability of k nowledge itself to be t ransferred. Tacitness c an be s een a s a liability for organisations in their t ransferring process, as a h igh d egree of t acitness can n egatively a ffect the potential o f 13 knowledge to be t ransferred (Minbaeva 2 007; Argote, McEvily and R eagans 2 003). Furthermore, s imilar a ttributes t o tacitness o f knowledge e xists, i ncluding the complexity of the k nowledge, i ts accessibility and specificity (Minbaeva 2007; Argote, McEvily and Reagans 2003). The s econd determinant t hat M inbaeva (2007) a nd Argote, McEvily and Reagans ( 2003) discuss is t he attributes of t he units, being the sender a nd receiver. Argote, M cEvily a nd Reagans (2003) mention primarily s tatus as a d ecisive attribute, being deeply r ooted in a s ociological view on K T. The authors argue for the a ttribute’s importance as it i s found across various conceptualisations ( Argote, McEvily and Reagans 2003). Nevertheless, in order t o provide a comprehensive perspective, a dditional attributes are outlined by M inbaeva (2007). In her article, the attributes of the u nits are d ivided i nto s enders a nd receivers. Compared t o the s ociological viewpoint b y Argote, McEvily and R eagans ( 2003), M inbaeva (2007) a ddresses the aspects of ability and m otivation w hich can b e related to the disseminative capacity (sending unit) and the absorptive capacity (receiving unit) (Minbaeva 2007). A s the c oncluding d eterminant, the r elationship between the units (senders a nd receivers) is a ddressed (Minbaeva 2007; Argote, McEvily & Reagans 2003). In both conceptualizations, it c an be c oncluded that the d egree to w hich knowledge i s transferred successfully is related to t he intensity o f the r elationship between the units. T his i ntensity can be further divided into the d yadic relationship between social u nits and t he pattern of c onnections between m ultiple units (Argote, M cEvily & R eagans 2 003). Several aspects of t he dyadic relationship between units c an affect knowledge t ransfer, starting w ith t he relationship b etween u nits. Among t hese aspects are i ntensity of c onnection, communication, frequency o f contact, and social s imilarity ( Argote, McEvily, Reagans, 2 003). The second a pproach considers t he various types o f connections that the units have with each other, i ncluding units i n a network or owned b y the s ame p arent organisation (Argote, McEvily, Reagans 2003). 2 .2.3.3 Disseminative Capacity Described by Tang, M u and M acLachlan (2010), the disseminative capacity (DCAP) encapsules the s ending u nit’s ability to “efficiently, effectively a nd convincingly frame knowledge in a way that other people c an understand accurately and put i nto p ractice” (Tang, Mu & MacLachlan 2010, p .1586). H ence, the disseminative capacity of t he sending unit is a n important p art o f a s uccessful k nowledge transfer p rocess. Limitations of t he sending unit comprise o f both the c haracteristics of t he knowledge such as tacit k nowledge, c omplexity, 14 specificity a nd availability (Minbaeva 2 007) and the ability of the sender s uch a s language barriers, c ompetence a nd communicative skills (Tang, M u & MacLachlan 2010). F urthermore, DCAP should a lso b e determined by the sender's motivation to s hare and t ransfer k nowledge. T he lack of c onnection t o the r eceiving unit’s and m utual benefits in a n etwork s etting o r the r isk o f knowledge leakage may decrease the sending unit’s motivation to share and transfer knowledge (Minbaeva 2007). 2.2.3.4 Absorptive Capacity T he concept of absorptive capacity ( ACAP) was first introduced by C ohen and L evinthal (1990). The a uthors d efine ACAP as “ the a bility o f a firm to recognize the v alue of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it t o commercial ends” (Cohen & Levinthal 1990, p . 128). Based o n their elaborations, ACAP can be seen as a c ritical d eterminant of innovation and organisational performance. They further argue that a firm’s d evelopment of ACAP is d ependent on p rior related knowledge a nd R&D spendings (Cohen & Levinthal 1 990). The concept of ACAP has f ound increasing interest in r esearch i n the l ast y ear, with researchers and scientists utilising t he concept of A CAP multidimensionally across t he disciplines o f, among o thers, o rganisational learning, knowledge, dynamic capabilities, social cognition, networks, ( Apriliyanti & Alon 2017). To limit the concept’s c omplexity a nd richness, A CAP w ill b e viewed i n this study through a multilevel lens that encompassess A CAP i n the c ontext o f organisational learning (Cohen & Levinthal 1 990), ACAP as a f irm’s dynamic capability (Zahra & George 2002), and A CAP i n the k nowledge management context (Gupta & Govindarajan 2000; Minbaeva 2007). B esides C oven and L evinthal’s (1990) influential i nsights on ACAP, t he concept was f urther d eveloped by Z ahra & George ( 2002), w ho proposed t hat A CAP c onsists mainly of f our d istinct dimensions that can b e split into two components, the potential absorptive capacity ( PACAP) a nd the realised absorptive capacity ( RACAP) ( see F igure 1). P ACAP consists of a cquisition , w hich implies t he identification a nd acquisition o f external knowledge, and a ssimilation , which comprises the f irm’s routines a nd processes t hat a llow for i nternalising, processing and u nderstanding o f acquired knowledge. The a uthors’ procedural perspective on A CAP t hen i mplies R ACAP as a subsequent component t o PACAP, e mbracing the transformation and exploitation d imensions. Transformation hereby r efers to t he firm’s capability to modify the c haracters o f knowledge t o achieve a f it with the organisational context in w hich knowledge i s implemented into, b ased o n the p reexisting knowledge frame of the firm and the newly assimilated knowledge. 15 F igure 1: Absorptive Capacity. Adopted by Zahra & George (2002, p. 192) The concluding exploitation dimension stresses the actual implementation of knowledge. T he outcome of that capability is the systematic creation of new routines, processes, capabilities, or knowledge. In combination, PACAP and RACAP form the dynamic c apabilities of a firm that lead to competitive advantage in the form of strategic flexibility, innovation, and performance improvement (Zahra & George 2002). Approached i n isolation however, the dimensions of PACAP and RACAP may lead to insufficient outcomes, as one dimension alone does not ensure competitive advantage to the firm. Firms that a re lacking RACAP may well be in the position to be able to identify and internalise e xternal knowledge, they might however lack the capabilities to utilise the knowledge to a sufficient extent and will t hus suffer from the costs of acquisition and assimilation. In contrast to this, firms t hat have an overdeveloped RACAP in relation to their PACAP may benefit from short-term p rofits of knowledge exploitation but might be stuck in a c ompetence gap a fter a while, because they lack competence t o recognise new knowledge sources (Jansen, Van Den Bosch & Volberda 2005; Volberda, Foss & Lyles 2010). Jansen, Van D en Bosch and V olberda (2005) analysed the effects of different organisational antecedents on PACAP and R ACAP and found empirical evidence for their hypotheses that coordination c apabilities such as cross-functional interfaces, participation and job rotation positively a ffect PACAP, while socialisation capabilities such as connectedness and socialisation tactics rather affect RACAP of a firm’s unit. In addition to M inbaeva (2007) arguing that motivation is an important element of the disseminative capacity of the sender, Osterloh and Frey (2000) further argue t hat motivation is also a significant element in the 16 absorptive capacity o f the r eceiver. According t o them, such motivation can lead to increased e ngagement in knowledge-related activities if knowledge receivers perceive the benefits of it. 2.2.4 Knowledge Implementation Application (Cohen & Levinthal 1 990), integration (Grant 1996b), exploitation ( Zahra & George 2002), i mplementation (Akgün, Lynn & Byrne 2003), u se (Kulkarni, Ravindran & Freeze 2 006), or u tilisation (Minbaeva e t al. 2 003; S elivanovskikh et al. 2020) of k nowledge all describe a similar stage i n the k nowledge management process and a r ange of certain activities that is, from a procedural p erspective, often s een a s an overlapping b ut still c onsequent s tep o f successfully transferring knowledge b etween a s ender and a receiver. S uccessful h ereby implies not o nly t he pure transfer, i.e. the d issemination a nd assimilation, but goes beyond that and investigates t he actual implementation of w hat h as been received b y the r ecipient into the r ecipient’s operations (Minbaeva e t al. 2 003). Solely creating, s toring and transferring k nowledge without actually i mplementing it l eads to the potential loss of t he advantage generated b y that knowledge ( Minbaeva et a l. 2003). Knowledge implementation i s therefore c onsidered t he key to value c reation and i ncreased organisational performance t hrough K M (Alavi & T iwana 2002; M inbaeva et al. 2003; Mills & Smith 2 011). The existence o f diverse terminology within t he literature (apply, exploit, utilise, i mplement, i mplicate, e tc.) on this subject gives r ise t o difficulties i n comprehending t he underlying concept and may r esult in t he reader experiencing u ncertainty. Henceforth, implementation o f knowledge w ill r efer to the concluding stage of the knowledge t ransfer process, which d escribes the implementation of t he assimilated knowledge into the r ecipient’s operations (Alavi & Tiwana 2002). 2.2.4.1 Knowledge Implementation in Teams Alavi & Tiwana (2002) a rgue that knowledge r esides i n individuals. K nowledge is therefore only metaphorically found o n a firm- or g roup-level. Rather, the collectives of individuals, such as teams, provide a context that can f acilitate k nowledge application in i ndividual’s operations and processes. Teams serve a s a viable mechanism for i ntegrating knowledge i n complex and n onroutine o rganisational tasks, p articularly when the u se of e xisting routines or p rocesses is h indered by task uncertainty, n ovelty, and c omplexity. Through a team structure, diverse expertise a nd knowledge f rom i ndividuals located throughout the o rganisation can be assembled, integrated, and applied to the task at hand. T his i ntegration process is facilitated b y communication, collaboration, and the c onstructive resolution of c onflicts, a ll of w hich 17 contribute to the creative implementation of knowledge w ithin teams (Alavi & T iwana 2002). Similar to this view, Sarin a nd McDermott ( 2003) argue that the i mplementation of t he knowledge o f the individual is facilitated by o rganisational structures through, for example, the provision of incentives o r direction. M ueller (2014) focuses o n cultural antecedents of organisations on knowledge s haring between project teams. Mueller (2014) d id not clearly d ifferentiate between the pure transfer of k nowledge and t he implementation of it. The a uthors results give insights into facilitating and hampering factors of knowledge s haring and implementation between t eams o f an organisation, including lack of time, level o f flexibility of the organisational structure, output orientation, and openness towards c hange, opportunities, and improvement (Mueller 2014). Similar to that, R iege ( 2005) elaborated on knowledge-sharing barriers, b ut, in c ontrast to the d efinition that knowledge sharing focuses on the sender (Wang & Noe 2010), he a lso included the receiving side. R iege ( 2005) identified lack of time, lack of trust i n the value o f the transferred knowledge, lack of leadership and competitiveness b etween units as p otential barriers to knowledge sharing f rom a r eceiver’s point of v iew, which might influence k nowledge implementation activities. Kulkarni, Ravindran, and Freeze’s ( 2006) conceptualisation of a KM Success Model tests several relations between e ncouraging a nd daunting factors and the degree of k nowledge implementation. They identified perceived usefulness of knowledge a nd user satisfaction, i .e. how satisfied users of K M systems a re with these applications, as two k ey aspects when assessing the l evel of implemented knowledge within an organisation. These two variables are in t hemselves i nfluenced by o ther v ariables, including organisational c onditions including leadership, incentives, coworkers, and supervisors (Kulkarni, R avindran & Freeze 2006). Related t o this, Sarin a nd McDermott (2003) found that a democratic l eadership style and a goal-structure initiated by the team leader positively affect knowledge implementation. 2.2.5 Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management Organisational l earning (OL) a nd KM literature have for several decades aroused the interest of r esearchers a nd scientists but, h owever, have b een studied mainly as two separated streams in the o rganisational d iscipline. R eviewing both concepts nevertheless shows a certain interdependency between the t wo, as t o which one d oes not occur without the other (Brix 2017). O L is often defined “as a change in the o rganization’s k nowledge that occurs as a function of e xperience” ( Argote & Miron-Spektor 2011, p. 1124) w hich has f ound w ide a cceptance among scholars. According to Argote and Miron-Spekter (2011), researchers have o bserved t hat k nowledge is embedded in organisational routines and processes. A 18 m odification to t hese routines and processes t herefore signifies a change i n the k nowledge, w hich in turn is a n indicator t hat O L has t aken place. I t can t herefore be s ummarised t hat O L takes place a fter knowledge h as been transferred a nd implemented b y an organisational u nit. King (2009) m otivates a nd reviews further ways to i llustrate t he relationship between the t wo concepts, one o f which is t he view of t he dependency between OL a nd KM a s that OL is p erceived as t he goal of K M. The KM processes support the o rganisation in e mbedding knowledge into its o rganisational routines and practices a nd thus provides c ontinuous i mprovement to the firm (King 2009). In the context of this study, the c oncept o f OL will therefore be interpreted a s the o utcome o f KM processes that occurs t hrough s uccessful i mplementation of knowledge. Organisational u nits have an existing k nowledge stock t hat i s embedded in t heir operations, routines, and p rocesses (Argote & Miron-Spekter 2011). When new k nowledge is t ransferred to the unit, the unit changes its o perations, routines, a nd processes, when implementing the n ew knowledge (Minbaeva e t al. 2 003). This indicates that organisational learning h as occurred ( Argote & M iron-Spekter 2 011). The new k nowledge becomes a part of t he unit's existing knowledge stock, l eading t o ongoing improvement and adaptation. 2.2.6 RACAP, Knowledge Implementation and Organisational Learning T here is ambiguity in the academic literature when describing the differences between realised a bsorptive c apacity (RACAP), knowledge implementation and OL. A s a means of c larifying t he relationship between these three e lements within k nowledge management, t he definition of R ACAP can b e used as a foundation that consists o f the t ransformation and e xploitation of t he knowledge that is transferred. The c oncept o f knowledge i mplementation is clearly connected to the activity of e xploitation, s ince knowledge c annot be e xploited if i t is not implemented. A s a result, it is i mportant to v iew k nowledge implementation a s the f inal component of RACAP in order to ensure clarity between the two concepts. The intention t o implement t he transferred k nowledge can be construed as the fundamental building b lock of OL, since ACAP determines a firm's ability to learn ( Apriliyanti & Alon 2017). According t o Zahra and George ( 2002), e xploiting k nowledge leads t o the s ystematic c reation of new routines, p rocesses, a nd capabilities. It i s similar to Argote and M iron-Spektor's (2011) argument that OL c an be v iewed as a f unction of experience. F urthermore, OL c an be s een a s the g oal o f KM (King 2 009), thus the final part of KM and a successful knowledge transfer. 19 2 .3 Conceptual Model This section summarises the l iterature review on teams, KM a nd related subtopics to eventually develop a c onceptual model that guides both authors and readers during this work and creates a mutual u nderstanding of the underlying theoretical and practical implementation. As seen above, knowledge in firms is a highly complex, multidimensional, and rich-in-detail t opic for which many approaches have been created in t he past (Lin 2007; Alavi & Leidner 2001; Balle, Oliveira & M arques C urado 2020). Looking at the concept from a process-perspective (Mudambi 2002; L in 2007; Alavi & Leidner 2001; Balle, Oliveira & Marques Curado 2020), it becomes evident that its multifaceted dimensions all have significant impact on organisational p erformance. The research gap on how project teams affect knowledge implementation however leaves uncertainties that this study aims to illuminate. The theoretical framework presented existing literature on teams, clarified this s tudy’s understanding of project teams a nd emphasised the multidimensionality of teams. Furthermore, an overview of the concept of knowledge m anagement was provided, including the related concepts of knowledge transfer and knowledge implementation, with a focus on knowledge implementation in teams. Based o n this, ACAP and its d imensions were c haracterised for the scope of t his study as a n ability of the receiving unit, that is significant for successful K M, as i t includes the ability to acquire and implement knowledge. Additionally, the i nterrelatedness b etween O L and K M has b een reviewed and interpreted as a subsequent process i n which OL is an outcome of s uccessful KM (Akgün, Lynn & Byrne 2003). Figure 2 firstly illustrates the understanding of t he broad concept of knowledge t ransfer within f irms and places knowledge implementation into that concept, whereas Figure 3 t hen shows a detailed understanding of h ow knowledge implementation in a project team context is perceived by the authors. 20 Figure 2: Procedural Perspective on KM and OL in the intra-organisational context. Compiled b y authors. As summarised in the above f igure, the scope of this s tudy focuses on knowledge i n an intra-organisational c ontext. The sending unit disseminates knowledge by transferring it to the receiving unit (Minbaeva 2007; Tang 2011). The receiving unit absorbs that knowledge and implements it into its o perations (Alavi & Tiwana 2002), here visualised as a cquisition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation of the transferred knowledge (Zahra & George 2002). Within that organisational context, successful knowledge transfer enables organisational learning, as the successful implementation of knowledge allows for a change of routines and processes. To reach that stage, knowledge needs t o be transferred firm-internally. The ability to disseminate is influenced by the DCAP of the sending unit (Tang, Mu & MacLachlan 2010). The knowledge sending activates two processes within the receiving unit that can be referred back to PACAP and RACAP (Zahra & G eorge 2002). The receiver’s ACAP is in so far decisive, as it influences the extent to which the absorbed knowledge enables organisational learning (Kim 1998). Organisational learning processes affect organisational performance ( King 2009), which is then creating a competitive advantage through knowledge management. Derived f rom the above presented model, the receiving unit will get further attention and a presentation of a conceptualisation t hat focuses on knowledge implementation in project teams is shown in Figure 3. E xisting literature on teams and knowledge implementation emphasise t hat knowledge resides within individuals (Alavi & Tiwana 2002). 21 It is however further stressed that the team context affects knowledge implementation, through, for example, leadership styles, coworkers, and collaboration (Sarin and McDermott 2003; Mueller 2014; Zhao & Anand 2009). Based on knowledge transfer literature, it is further evident that also the relation between sender and receiver is of importance in managing knowledge in organisations (Argote, McEvily and Reagans 2003; Minbaeva 2007). T herefore it can be argued that three dimensions must b e incorporated, to assess how project teams affect knowledge implementation. Firstly, individual determinants are identified as having a potential influence on knowledge implementation. Secondly, team determinants need to b e considered. And thirdly, to illustrate the relationship between the sending team and the receiving team, socialisation determinants that reflect this relationship b etween sender and receiver, are part of the below presented conceptual model. Figure 3: Conceptual Framework of Knowledge Implementation in Project Teams, compiled by authors Figure 3 shows the conceptual model of how project t eams affect knowledge implementation, representing the focus of the study. Knowledge implementation is a central aspect of that model, with knowledge transfer and knowledge reception as preceding processes, and organisational learning as an outcome of knowledge implementation. In the context of this study, a prerequisite for knowledge to be implemented is that a unit has disseminated knowledge through one or more channels provided in the organisational context. The transferred knowledge enters the project team context and is, in a first step, received by the project team members. This reception is reflected by activities such as reading through 22 l earning m aterial, conducting training, personal teaching, d igital learning c ourses, e tc. This stage can be referred back to PACAP. As a subsequent step in the model, knowledge i s implemented into operations, routines, and processes, r epresenting RACAP. The degree o f knowledge implementation is affected by i ndividual, team, a nd s ocialisation determinants t hat reside within the project team context. As a concluding step, following s uccessful knowledge implementation, t he c hange in operations, routines, and processes reflects organisational learning. 23 3 Methodology 3 .1 Scientific Approach 3.1.1 Qualitative Research Design A qualitative approach was c hosen for the r esearch design of this study. Qualitative research i s particularly suitable for “opening the black b ox” ( Doz 2 011, p. 583) of t he firm a nd shed light o nto p henomena that are difficult to detect when taking a quantitative approach. A s a gap w as identified i n existing literature on h ow project teams affect k nowledge implementation, a quantitative study was less suitable to e xplore this phenomenon. Rather, the aim w as t o provide insights into this field b y exploring and p roviding “thick descriptions” (Doz 2011, p . 586) of t he determinants that affect the i mplementation of knowledge transferred a cross teams w ithin an MNC. By taking a qualitative approach, the study could c ontribute t o the d eclining s tudies o f intra-organisational issues of M NCs a nd illuminate informal a nd subjective p rocesses that strongly i nfluence the organisational o utcome. This approach f urther enabled the r esearch to account for the complexity and c ontextuality o f the topic by t he ability to e xplore d eep, personal a ttitudes and perceptions t hat i n a quantitative study would most probably not be taken into account (Birkinshaw, Brannen & Tung 2011). 3.1.2 Abductive Research Approach The s tudy has b een based on a n abductive research approach a nd systematic combining (Dubois & Gadde 2 002). The abductive research approach i s characterised by a constant revision and combination of t heory a nd empirics, thus a constant back-and-forth engagement with literature, conceptual f ramework, e mpirics, and analysis (Dubois & G adde 2002). T he r esearch began by gathering r elevant literature and r eviewing t he relevant t heoretical fields o f knowledge implementation and project teams as the o rganisational context. T his i nitial literature review w as crucial for acquiring a suitable knowledge stock and creating a c onceptual m odel to derive the i nterview g uide from. During the data collection process, s ome a lignments w ere f ound to b e necessary. This included a stronger emphasis on p roject t eams in terms o f that for the t eams' members this is a n extra t ask i n addition to t heir line organisation. Furthermore, after analysing the findings, i t became e vident t hat t he theoretical framework l acked r evision of research on the importance of individuals i n KM. Such an alignment of theory and e mpirical d ata s upported the understanding of b oth t heory and empirics, as empirical observations help understanding the t heory a nd vice versa ( Dubois & G adde 2002). Furthermore, t he observations made during the c ollection o f the empirical d ata 2 4 s upported the abductive r esearch process by identifying n ew phenomena that needed to be c onsidered in the theoretical framework. Furthermore, w ith t he limited existence of q ualitative studies within t he topic of knowledge management, the abductive a pproach facilitated t he opportunity t o be more o pen a bout the f indings in the data and allowed the c ollection o f it to a ffect t he prior i nterpretation of the researchers ( Bell, Bryman & Harley 2 019). This f lexibility allowed the d ata t o be explored more freely a nd identify p atterns and meanings as t hey a rose. Thus, t he abductive approach was applicable to the setting of this study. 3.1.3 Case Study A case study was s elected as an a ppropriate research d esign for this study in o rder to meet t he need for an in-depth r esearch approach. A case study is a n appropriate research method f or a study f ocusing on contemporary events in a real-life context and aiming t o explore ‘how’ research q uestions ( Yin 2 009), as i n the u nderlying s tudy. A c ase s tudy consists of a d etailed and intensive a nalysis of a single case and the f ocus is more on t he particular s etting a nd characteristics of the specific c ase t han o n other aspects (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2 019). By c losely e xamining t he case and its c ontext, researchers are able to i dentify patterns and insights t hat t hey w ould not b e able to uncover w ith a m ore c omprehensive a pproach. By taking t his a pproach for t his s tudy, it allowed the r esearchers to get a deeper understanding of the particular case and thus, draw more accurate a nd insightful conclusions. The research approach s howed to be especially important for u nderstanding the c omplexity o f KM and knowledge i mplementation in t his s pecific project team setting. T his a pproach represents an idiographic approach, a s it highlights unique features o f the c ase s tudy (Bell, B ryman & H arley 2019). 3 .1.3.1 Introduction of Case Company T his s tudy was c onducted through a c ase s tudy with the p urpose o f investigating a single case at a multinational f irm. The m ultinational f irm w as a Swedish M NC that operated i n the h igh t ech-industry with far m ore t han 1 0,000 employees. W ithin that firm, o ne department was responsible f or developing a data strategy and t eaching other teams a bout the s trategy and related frameworks and t ools that were supposed t o be implemented i nto the t eam m embers’ daily operations. T his team represents the k nowledge sending unit. The m embers o f the s ending u nit c ontribute 100 p er cent of t heir workload to the p roject. The s ending u nit i s transferring knowledge a bout data strategy, h ow to apply it, strategic f rameworks, and 2 5 a ssociated tools to project teams (see Figure 4). These project teams are organised by the organisational background (e.g. marketing, customer service, or technical fields) and consist of team members who usually have the project team w ork as an add-on task to their line organisation work. The work in the teams includes the absorption of knowledge a bout the data strategy, strategic frameworks and tools related to that. F urthermore, they are supposed to implement t hat knowledge i nto their operations, routines and processes and also share the application of strategy and tools with a wider audience in their line organisation and related d epartments. Figure 4: Sending Unit and Project Teams, compiled by authors 3.2 Conceptualisation of the Theoretical Framework In order to establish the theoretical framework for this study, the research process was initiated by examining existing literature by conducting an extensive review of relevant articles and theories on knowledge implementation and teams. The intention was to build a thorough understanding of teams in organisations and illuminate the overarching concept of knowledge management and related activities and concepts, to serve as a f oundation for t he research agenda and the research question (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). To facilitate a structured process o f exploring and reading the literature, a n umber of keywords was used to find relevant articles, including, among others, ‘teams’, ‘project teams’, ‘knowledge management’, ‘knowledge transfer’, ‘disseminative capacity’, ‘absorptive capacity’, ‘organi*ational learning’, ‘knowledge implementation’ and ‘multi-level knowledge transfer’. These keywords created a f oundation that could be further elaborated by finding additional keywords i n the process. With a strong emphasis on K M in several o f the courses of the International Business and Trade programme previous to this 26 a cademic paper, t he r esearchers had a lready established a basic insight in t he l iterature. By that, a prior understanding o f essential k eywords was developed. T o increase the understanding of t he research within t he field, several l iterature reviews (Wang & N oe 2010; Z ahra & George 2002; Basten & Haamann 2 018; Michailova & Mustaffa 2012; Argote, McEvily & R eagans 2 003; Ahmad & K arim 2019; Gaviria-Marin, Merigó & Baier-Fuentes 2019) were used as well t o ensure that the holistic approach to this topic w as captured in an a ppropriate way, including relevant authors, articles, journals, and books. The majority of literature search was conducted u sing Scopus, Google Scholar and the S upersearch tool provided by the Gothenburg University L ibrary. A lot of emphasis w as put on s olely u sing peer-reviewed articles with an appropriate number o f citations. Additionally, t he Field-Weighted Citation I mpact provided b y Scopus served a s a metrics to ensure credibility. F urthermore, t he collecting and structuring o f literature was facilitated through the u se o f EndNote. By d oing so t he literature c ould be s tructured in several different ways by d ividing the articles in d ifferent s ub-topics, such a s absorptive capacity, KM i n teams, methodology, a nd team-level knowledge transfer, a mong others. Furthermore, EndNote enabled each article t o be u ploaded in a s hared library. This allowed collaborative reading among the r esearchers, including m arking a nd n oting on e ach a rticle to facilitate an effective and m utual u nderstanding o f the literature. The use of bibliographic s oftware such as EndNote also minimised the r isk o f potential faults i n referencing ( Bell, B ryman & H arley 2019). 3.3 Empirical Data Collection 3.3.1 Sources The empirical data of t his s tudy was m ainly b ased on primary d ata c ollected through s emi-structured interviews with different actors of the case company, l ed by an interview guide (see Appendix 1). The primary data was collected i n interviews either virtually or o n-site. Semi-structured interviews were a suitable m ethod f or data c ollection for t his s tudy, a s they allowed for detailed insights into personal p erceptions and experiences a nd facilitated the understanding of the respondents’ point-of-view ( Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). Data was f urther c ollected f rom secondary sources, including company-internal documentation a nd information that contributed to increasing the understanding of t he c ase s cenario and the d ifferent a ctors. Particularly i n the beginning of the research w ork i n the case company, 2 7 c ompany e mployees from t he sending unit h eld p resentations about the case setting a nd background, which provided valuable insights and contributed to the overall understanding. 3 .3.2 Sampling 3.3.2.1 Sampling Criteria S ampling Criteria for Case Company The sampling c riteria for the case-company were for o nce t he s ize o f the company, a s it was perceived by the researchers a s being influential for large scale project team activities. F or t he purpose o f finding an appropriate context for knowledge implementation i n project teams, small firms w ere not d eemed a ppropriate. F urthermore, collaboration in intercultural t eams and across b orders was perceived t o potentially p rovide v aluable insights f or knowledge implementation determinants, something the researchers expected to take place rather i n large m ultinationals than smaller f irms. Second, the sampling c riteria focused on cooperating w ith a S wedish multinational, a s this would f acilitate communication and physical p resence at the firm's facilities. T hirdly, the c ase company was supposed t o provide a suitable s etting for t his study, m eaning t hat an organisational structure of teams that receive knowledge from other units was a n ecessity. Lastly, this study a imed at a nalysing a company from the h igh-tech i ndustry. F irms in t his i ndustry need to c reate teams with a special focus o n learning a nd k nowledge activities, because they are facing h igh u ncertainties in their environment a nd compressed l ifecycles o f their p roducts (Sarin & McDermott 2003), a nd t hus p roviding a suitable and interesting context for this study. Sampling Criteria for Teams and Respondents To g ather valuable insights that eventually c ould answer the research question, several s ampling criteria f or teams and r espondents needed to b e fulfilled. The teams needed to a ct as k nowledge receivers. It was further a criteria t hat the p roject teams h ave r eached d ifferent s tages i n their m aturity, as t he researchers expected that t his m ight potentially i nfluence k nowledge i mplementation activities. To clarify b ackground i nformation and increase the r esearcher’s understanding, a part of t he sample was a lso the s ending team. T herefore, s ampling criteria for t he respondents included that t hey were part of e ither the sending unit or t he receiving project teams. Furthermore, to e nsure a w ide i nsight into the research topic, another sampling criteria w as that t he respondents r eflected b oth m anaging and regular team member positions in the receiving units. Related to t hat, different duration of participation in 2 8 the teams was another criteria for the respondents, t o ensure wide insights into different backgrounds of respondents. 3.3.2.2 Sampling Approach The three-folded sampling criteria of case company, teams, and participants reflect three different levels of sampling, an approach that can often be found in case studies (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). The sampling of case company, teams, and participants was guided by the research topic and question and thus followed the approach of purposive sampling (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). The sample consisted of twelve employees of the case company that are working either in project teams (receivers of knowledge) o r in the department that is responsible for a strategy rollout through teaching these project teams (senders of knowledge). The respondents were targeted by the researchers considering who fulfilled the sampling criteria mentioned above. All of the respondents fulfilled the criteria by either being part of the sending unit or the project teams, and therefore they had first-hand e xperience and insights into the determinants affecting knowledge implementation. 3.3.2.3 Compilation of Sample The sample size of twelve respondents (see Table 1) seemed to be suitable for the case study, as the aim was to gain insights into a very specific case situation within one MNC. The number of employees working in that scenario is therefore limited. Out of the twelve respondents, three were part of the sending department, while nine respondents were part of three different project teams. Two of the nine respondents were team managers. This broadly spread approach of interviewing members of different teams and different functions allowed for different perceptions and points-of-view to be taken into account. 29 Respondent Team Sender 1 S ending Unit Sender 2 Sending Unit Sender 3 Sending Unit Project Team Manager A1 Project Team A Project Team Member A1 Project Team A Project Team Member A2 Project Team A Project Team Member A3 Project Team A Project Team Manager B1 Project Team B Project Team Member B1 Project Team B Project Team Member B2 Project Team B Project Team Member C1 Project Team C Project Team Member C2 P roject Team C Table 1: List of Respondents Table 1 provides an overview of the respondents that have been interviewed. The respective n umber does not indicate the order in which the interviews were conducted. 3 .3.3 Interviews A commonly used method t o collect empirical data in a qualitative study are semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews o ften follow a n interview guide, which covers only a few questions and specific topics that the interviewer wants to b e answered during the interview. It provides a frame to the interviewees’ responses to ensure applicability and relevance and also h elps the interviewer to ensure that focus on the research topic is maintained during the interview (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). T he semi-structured approach was suitable for this study, as it allowed exploration of the respondents' perceptions. Yet, it still supported the i nterviews with a certain degree of focus. In terms o f the relevance of the research, it helped steer the interviews in the right direction whenever it was anticipated that respondents needed some guidance in their answers, as they were approaching topics that w ere not part of the scope of the study. In line w ith this, a more structured approach was ruled out. This was to ensure that the respondents were not l imited in 30 expressing their perceptions and p ain points relevant to the study. With t he research question in mind, it w as crucial that a certain l evel o f openness i n the respondents' responses was a chieved to obtain the most accurate view of the results. The interview guide (Appendix 1 ) also supported the interviews, by e nsuring t hat a ll topics w ere covered that were perceived as being important. It was however n ot always f ollowed strictly, a s the topics were connected to each other to a certain extent, and often covered by the r espondent without specifically asking for it. D uring the i nterviews, i t was crucial to be mindful of the study's r elevance and to s tay updated on any modifications t o the question sequence, as stressed by Bell, Bryman, and Harley (2019). T hus, it was i mperative to listen c losely and engage in t he discussion. This was to n ot miss any crucial parts but also to d ig deeper i nto t opics that have o nly been touched upon b riefly. A f acilitator f or this was that all i nterviews were conducted by b oth authors together to ensure an equal distribution o f questions and comprehension. T he interview guide in A ppendix 1 s lightly differs to the one t hat was actually used, since the o riginal i nterview guide was m ore c ase specific. To not d isclose a ny sensitive i nformation, t he interview guide i n Appendix 1 has been rewritten in a more general way. The interviews took place between 2023-03-29 a nd 2023-04-25 and were scheduled i n advance v ia email. I nitial contact with suitable respondents was established through representatives at the case c ompany, including an introduction of t he study and r esearchers t o increase the responsiveness rate. In the next step, the potential respondents w ere contacted directly by the r esearchers. This approach e nsured a responsiveness rate of 100 per cent. All of the selected respondents r eceived a n email a few days in a dvance of the scheduled meetings. T his included a formal i ntroduction of the r esearchers, the purpose of the r esearch and important p arts such a s recordings, t ranscription, c onfidentiality and anonymity were addressed a ccordingly. The aim of this approach was to s ave some time during t he interview i tself, as w ell as m aking the interview p rocess as t ransparent a s possible for the respondents. In the beginning of each interview, a r eferral t o that email was made, including a sking for t heir consent t o record the i nterview. As emphasised by Bell, B ryman and Harley ( 2019), an i ntroduction before commencing an interview is c rucial as i t establishes a clear understanding o f the interview's objectives and scope. Four interviews could be conducted on-site at the case-company’s H Qs. T he remaining interviews were c onducted using Microsoft T eams, as other respondents were spread globally, including other parts o f Sweden, I reland, Mexico, or the United States. To save time and costs, t hese interviews w ere conducted online. E xcept one, all of t he virtual 31 interviews were conducted with the c amera on, w hich was n ot required b ut it w as noticed that it contributed t o a more casual atmosphere and a better d ialogue. In n on face-to-face i nterviews, technological tools in meeting software, such as cameras or v isual aids, enable a normal a nd natural way for p eople to i nteract (Bell, B ryman & Harley 2 019). All of the interviews lasted between 30 a nd 45 m inutes a nd were audio-recorded. T o facilitate an effective transcription, a speech-dictating tool provided b y Microsoft Word was used in support of m anual transcription depending o n the a udio quality o f the i nterviews. The u tilisation of audio r ecorders and transcription programs is crucial as i t enhances the interviewer's engagement during the interview (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). 3.4 Data Analysis The large amount of unstructured data in the form of transcripts has been analysed by c onducting thematic a nalysis. The data was t herefore analysed for certain themes t hat r ecurred and w ere e xpressed similarly or themes that r espondents perceived v ery d ifferently compared to each other (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). The thematic analysis w as organised by conducting a thematic n etworks analysis (Attride-Stirling 2001). Thematic networks a nalysis a ids i n presenting empirical f indings in a structured approach and on different levels. It consists o f three layers of themes, being basic t hemes, o rganising t hemes, and a global t heme. First, the d ata w as coded to i dentify the b asic themes. The c oding process started as early a s possible and b efore all interviews were conducted, to increase the understanding of the data and facilitate the handling of t he large a mount of d ata ( Bell, Bryman & Harley 2 019). By reading and taking n otes at the same time, recurring p atterns of themes that were b rought u p by the respondents were identified. A ll codes w ere c ollected in a n Excel Spreadsheet and the r espective p arts from t he transcripts w ere s orted accordingly. After that, the coding w as reviewed a nd repetitive themes that were describing the same phenomena were identified and m erged (Bell, B ryman & Harley 2019). S ome o f the identified codes w ere b ased on existing k nowledge management literature, s ome o thers were based on t he empirical findings. S trategic Fit ( Kulkarni, R avindran & Freeze 2006), Motivation (Minbaeva et al. 2003; Gupta & G ovindarajan 2000; S arin & McDermott 2 003), Time (Mueller 2014; R iege 2005), P erception of L earning Activities (Kulkarni, Ravindran & Freeze 2006), M anagerial S upport ( Kulkarni, R avindran & Freeze 2006; Sarin a nd McDermott 2 003), and Proximity b etween S ender and R eceiver (Riege 2 005; Jansen, Van Den Bosch & Volberda 2 005), are affecting l earning and k nowledge management and 32 t herefore c ould have had an impact o n knowledge implementation t oo. The remaining codes are based o n recurring p atterns i n the data. The three c ategories from t he c onceptual framework, “individual”, “team”, and “socialisation”, then f unctioned as organising themes. These three organising t hemes w ere grouped u nder the global theme of k nowledge implementation in p roject teams. Figure 5 below p rovides a n overview of the thematic n etwork analysis. Figure 5: Thematic Network Analysis, compiled by authors 3.5 Quality of research In order to uphold research quality, the authors h ave i mplemented the trustworthiness c riteria, s tressed b y Bell, Bryman, a nd Harley (2019) a s a relevant method f or e valuating quality in q ualitative research. Trustworthiness i s divided into four s ub-criterias b eing credibility, t ransferability, dependability and confirmability (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). C redibility of the study was ensured through careful c onsideration of the study s etting and respondents. To align the researchers' i nterpretations of the organisational setting and team descriptions with the case company's p erspective, discussions were initiated with 3 3 representatives of the company, which increased the u nderstanding of the case context. Furthermore, t o increase c redibility, r espondent validation was emphasised t o ensure that the interpretation of the social world that was studied is interchangeable with the i nterpretation of the respondent (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). To ensure respondent validation, transcripts w ere sent back to the r espondents so they could be checked for a ny misinterpretation or misunderstandings o f their statements. In a ddition, a d raft o f the empirical c hapter was sent t o the supervising employee at the c ase company and was followed by a meeting a few days later to ensure that the c ontext of the case study was interpreted in the correct way. Furthermore, the aspect of triangulation was accounted for in this s tudy by looking a t three different subunits of the department for this study (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). This allowed for consideration of potential biases of individual units. Transferability assesses the findings' ability to be applied in another setting (Bell, B ryman & Harley 2019). W ith t he intention to analyse the s pecific setting of a specific department i n the chosen organisation, the purpose was n ot to statistically g eneralise (Yin 2011) but rather to particularise the findings. To facilitate transferability in this study, an extensive emphasis was put on ensuring a clear description of the study for the reader, w ith the aim to i mprove and e nsure that the aspect o f transferability was achieved. W ith the complex and several interpretations on t he topic of knowledge m anagement and i ts related concepts, a clear description o f the interpretations and foundation for this s tudy w as emphasised. The rich descriptions that were p rovided r esulted i n a c onceptual model that can be t ransferred t o other studies, providing analytical g eneralisation (Yin 2011). T he finalised conceptual model provided a d escription of how project t eams affect knowledge implementation and can be transferred to other studies investigating this topic. The dependability of a study relates to the f indings' ability t o take place in a similar setting at another t ime (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). To ensure that this characteristic w as fulfilled, storage of all relevant notes, documents, recordings and other relevant information was committed through a structured process. This was o f special importance due to the amount of interviews and data collection (Bell, Bryman & Harley 2019). Furthermore, it was decisive t o have a n open d ialogue with the case c ompany in terms o f what sort of information is kept and h ow it is s tored. Thus, sensitive i nformation of t he organisation was s tored on assigned locations in compliance with existing regulations and a non disclosure agreement. The l ast c haracteristic, confirmability, p uts the perspective on the researcher’s v alues and their influence on t he findings (Bell, Bryman & H arley 2019). To u nderscore the s ignificance of the unique attributes of this study, the focus was p laced on the respondents' 34 perspectives and t he relevant t heory, l eaving minimal space f or the researcher’s p ersonal v alues and predictions. I n addition, t he researcher’s b iases were reduced by t he measure of triangulation in t he empirical data, excluding t he possibility t hat o nly t he statements of certain respondents r epresent the e ntirety of empirical findings. F urthermore, the a uthors w ere c onstructive and open t owards e ach o ther regarding t he reasoning o r interpretation of t he findings, which also minimised potential biases. Moreover, Bell, Bryman a nd Harley (2019) a rgue for t he additional characteristic of r elevance as a n important aspect of the conducted s tudy’s relevance in the academic literature. I n order to highlight the s tudy's r elevance, t he attention w as directed t owards t he scarcity of q ualitative research on k nowledge management, particularly the l imited a mount of studies investigating knowledge implementation within a project team setting. 3.6 Ethical considerations Throughout the entire r esearch process e thical c onsiderations were accounted f or. These c onsiderations were based on t he four principles brought up by B ell, Bryman and Harley ( 2019), being avoidance of harm, informed consent, privacy, and preventing deception. During t he empirical data collection, measures were taken t o ensure t hat p articipants were not p otentially harmed. Throughout the i nterviews, efforts were made to maintain a balanced a tmosphere t hat w as both relaxed and p rofessional, a iming to m inimise the feelings o f stress a nd anxiety experienced by t he respondents. In order t o protect the career prospects o r firm-internal consequences, e specially w hen d iscussing m anagers and colleagues, a nonymity was granted to the e xtent possible. This included avoiding the disclosure of any names of r espondents, project team names, r oles, etc. However, the respondents were made aware t hat i t could not b e entirely ruled o ut that certain statements could be t raced back to t heir person, i ncluding, f or example, i nformation about the d uration of each project team member's p articipation. The r espondents were given the o ption to c hoose not to answer certain q uestions or a void certain topics. Prior to the study, p otential respondents were informed i n advance about the topic of the study, t he data analysis p rocess, and ethical considerations, ensuring that respondents had the o pportunity to make an i nformed d ecision about participation (Bell, Bryman & Harley, 2019). Information was provided regarding t he recording devices and t ranscription software u sed, both in the mail that w as sent prior t o the i nterviews a nd also orally b efore the interviews started. Privacy of respondents w as ensured to t he best extent p ossible in accordance with informed c onsent. The t ranscripts were 35 a nalysed for any sensitive information r elated t o the respondents themselves or the case company. To reduce the risk of disclosure of sensitive information, relevant aspects were discussed with the case company to eliminate all l iabilities. This includes a revision of the i nterview guide ( see Appendix 1) that h as been altered to not include company specific details included in the questions. Additionally, through respondent validation (Bell, B ryman & Harley 2019), thorough checks were c onducted to identify and remove any potentially sensitive information that might have been o verlooked, as the researchers g ave the respondents the possibility to read through the transcript of their respective interview. Lastly, o pen and transparent communication was maintained throughout the study to avoid any d eception of the respondents. There was no intention to provide false information to the respondents, and all inquiries about the scope of the study were truthfully addressed. 36 4 Empirics In t his c hapter t he empirical data is presented. It h as been collected by conducting interviews with respondents from various teams a nd in d ifferent positions (see l ist o f respondents in c hapter 3 .2.2.2). To i ncrease the r eader’s understanding of the e mpirical data, t his c hapter s tarts by d escribing t he background of t he case study, i n order to e mphasise the project team characteristics a nd the role of knowledge i n that setting. In o rder to structure the f indings, empirical data will be presented i n three different main categories (individual, t eam, socialisation), e ach o f which is s plit into sub-categories (see chapter 3.4 Data Analysis). The t hree main categories orientate on the conceptual model (see chapter 2.3) 4.1 Background of the Case Study This study w as conducted at a Swedish MNC operating g lobally on all continents. The scope of the study comprised four different t eams that were affiliated in a sender and r eceiver-relationship. T he field i n which these f our t eams performed c ould be expressed a s the d ata s trategy field. O ne of t he teams, hereafter l abelled as the sending u nit, was a p ermanent team with the majority of t he team members allocating 100 p er cent of t heir working hours to t he team. T he remainder comprised t hree project teams, w hich were also referred to a s receiving u nits in the relationship c ontext. E ach p roject t eam h ad a project team manager and a varying number o f project team m embers. The s etting o f the p roject t eams implied that the m anager a nd the members w ere o nly e ngaged i n the p roject t eams part-time; a set a mount of w orking h ours each w eek t o cover the tasks in t he team. M ost o f the p roject t eam m embers a llocated the m ajority of their w orking h ours in their r espective l ine o rganisations t hat were situated i n various parts of t he MNC. The size, maturity, and b ackground o f the project teams d iffered, because they were rolled-out and initiated o n an ongoing basis. This means that not all p roject t eams were initiated a t the s ame t ime, but rather are i nitiated when the need in their f ield is identified. T he teams i ncluded in this study consisted of three t o ten t eam m embers. There existed additional project teams to t he ones that were solicited for this study in the MNC. The sending unit acted as a c reator a nd sender of knowledge within t he data field, with a focus on knowledge about the MNC’s data strategy. This knowledge c omprised strategies, p erceptions, processes, tools, a nd strategic frameworks within t he field o f data. The knowledge was transferred to t he project teams t hrough d ifferent channels, including p ersonal communication, virtual meeting software, electronic mail, instant chat channels, 37 presentations, and other documents on shared internal websites. In addition, there also e xisted designated learning activities, m ainly presented through different learning modules o n an e-learning platform. These learning modules provided for the project teams covered different parts of knowledge, for example know-how about tools, f irm-internal s tandards of data regulation, and best-practices about application of the data framework. T o ensure that the members of each project t eam had engaged with these learning modules, there were assessments connected to e ach module. I f the participant passed the assessment, they got a certificate as a proof of their knowledge in the field. The majority of the project team members were e xpected to take these assessments some months after joining the project teams. Figure 6 illustrates the setting and the relationship between the s ending unit and the project teams. The sending unit reflects t he creator of knowledge, who then transfers that k nowledge to t he project t eams, and receives feedback with the aim of improving the quality of that knowledge and the transfer. Figure 6: Background of the Case Study, compiled by authors The project t eam members were either g iven t he mandate to participate in these project teams or voluntarily applied for a position. Prior e xperience in the knowledge field, specifically data-related expertise, was usually a staffing criterion. The project teams received the knowledge through t he above-mentioned channels, often during initial phases i n which they closely worked together with the sending unit. The project teams were set to become more 38 s elf-autonomous in t he implementation p hase, which resulted in less interaction w ith the sending unit. The knowledge implementation phase in the project teams comprised the application and u se o f tools, the incorporation of t he d ata strategy a nd t he s trategic w ork into their processes a nd r outines, a nd a lso the a dditional transfer of t hat knowledge and how to implement it t o a wider audience (hereafter labelled as stakeholders), mainly other employees from the members' respective l ine organisations. The stakeholders w ere expected t o interact with and use the tools that the project teams were in charge of. 4.2 Individual Determinants on Knowledge Implementation Individual determinants imply aspects or f actors that a ffect the implementation of knowledge o n an i ndividual level. Individual determinants a re s plit into Prior Experience, Strategic Fit, Alignment with Operations, Intrinsic Motivation, E xtrinsic M otivation, T ime, Prioritisation, and Perception o f Learning Activities. To increase the reader’s understanding, each determinant will be further explained in each individual section. 4.2.1 Prior Experience D escription of determinant This determinant f eatures t he r espondents’ prior e xperience within the field of k nowledge, which in this circumstance implies knowledge r elated to data strategy. Prior e xperience includes the respondents’ previous roles and expertise in data strategy or related fields. Empirical findings S everal of the respondents mentioned t heir previous experience and interaction with data as either an influential f actor for taking an active and engaging role within t he team o r as an important background for understanding the role of data within the organisation. The majority o f project team members came from line organisations found in r elated business fields to their project t eam. It w as e mphasised that this arrangement gave the respondents a prior knowledge-stock t hat helped them i n their w ork in t he project team. F or instance, t he r espondents’ previous experience w ith data motivated them t o engage in a more active w ay i n the team as they have reached a level of competence and experience w ithin the field before joining t he p roject team. T o exemplify, prior experience in data strategy gave many r espondents a b etter understanding of the alignment of the t heory with the tasks i n the project team. 3 9 O ne of the project team members especially expressed h ow p rior experience could b e important w hen joining a project team as the individual would h ave to t ake an a ctive role in engaging and understanding their t asks as there could b e difficulties in getting support f rom the rest of t he t eam in u nderstanding t he k nowledge. As the majority of t he m embers in the project teams were e ngaged in other d epartments as well, there w ere several a spects mentioned s uch as l acking proximity i n the team a nd t ime constraints that d ecreased this sort of interaction i n the team. T his was emphasised to result i n that t he i ndividual needed t o learn by t hemselves at occasions. By having p rior experience in t he knowledge field, the project t eam members c ould more easily understand the knowledge and align it w ith their operations a nd r outines. Since the team members sometimes felt left a lone in their learning processes, m uch emphasis was on i ndividual motivation to engage in t he t eam. It w as e mphasised that prior e xperience increased motivation a mong the respondents t o engage in implementing t he k nowledge, because it was easier to learn and apply. “I also think t hey don’t know what I don’t k now, and I d on’t know what I don’t know e ither. Sometimes i f you’re lacking i n foundation, you don’t even k now what is missing, until you go up and run by yourself. ” - Project Team Member C1 In addition, the sending unit expressed how the receiver’s prior experience c ould be an i nfluential factor for the implementation of the knowledge as it i ncreased u nderstanding o f the content and its application. One respondent from t he s ending unit e mphasised that they observed that t he p revious s killset that t he p roject team m embers possessed f rom prior experience i n the knowledge f ield, influenced t heir ability to u nderstand and transform the knowledge and implement it into their processes. 4.2.2 Strategic Fit Description of determinant This determinant f eatures t he r espondents’ view on the strategic fit of the transferred knowledge. The strategic fit implies how the respondents of t he r eceiving units perceive the alignment between the holistic data strategy that they a re l earning a bout, and their p reviously existing personal or department data strategy. 4 0 E mpirical findings The perceived s trategic role of t he transferred k nowledge, i ncluding t he strategic data-framework and the tools, w as strongly e mphasised t o be a deciding factor f or the degree o f implementation o f the t ransferred knowledge. One of the reasons for t his c onnection w as each p roject m ember’s individual perception of t he role that data played in reaching the c ompany’s strategic goals. S everal respondents expressed how a ddressing a s trategic a pproach to data was one o f the key o bjectives. Instead of silo-thinking where each department of the firm just acts on i ts own behalf w ithout i ncorporating the o rganisation-wide lens, the new s trategic a pproach was m ore h olistic and b roke down these s ilos. As a r esult, s everal of the respondents emphasised strategic fit as a motivating factor for e ngaging in t heir project teams as t hey c ould see that there was value behind the t asks and the k nowledge. F or instance, one r espondent emphasised that this had i nspired them to b ecome a manager of a p roject team in this context. T herefore, i f the knowledge w as perceived as highly valuable f rom t he respondents’ perspective, i t showed to have an e ffect on t heir respective motivation to w ork w ith i t and i mplement i t. For instance, t he knowledge was emphasised to be v aluable for t he rest of the o rganisation which m otivated the respondents t o implement t he knowledge in their daily practices. Furthemore, o ne of the r espondents expressed t hat t his w as also a f acilitator for t hem t o push the knowledge a nd application o f it within other p arts of the company, i.e. to forward the knowledge to the project team’s designated stakeholders. “ For m e it is a n important programme. That's w hy I took the challenge to lead this part. I t is important for the c ompany b ecause w e are s upporting one o f the b ase n eeds when we are talking about data” - Project Team Manager B1 As the project teams c onsisted of t eam m embers where the majority of t hem w ere a lso engaged in other d epartments, the strategic fit o f the k nowledge taught in the project teams a nd the extent o f its a lignment w ith t he strategic objectives in their line organisations showed t o have a substantial i nfluence on t he team members’ motivation to learn a nd implement the k nowledge. Despite that the r espondents could s ee strategic fit t heoretically, they emphasised challenges in s eeing the link with the practical i mplementation. Thus, t he k nowledge itself showed t o have strong relation to t he strategic fit, but t he practical implementation f aced areas of i mprovement. F or instance, creating tangible and c oncrete value with the knowledge 4 1 w as expressed as difficult. As a r esult, the respondents e ncountered difficulties i n seeing how the tools could provide results to reach the strategic goals. T he somewhat misalignment between theory and practice r egarding s trategy w as e mphasised to have a n impact on t he p roject team member’s m otivation. O ne o f the respondents e xpressed t hat t hey had d ifficulties in seeing how the current usage of tools and the knowledge could help the team to reach their strategic objectives. “ Often i t felt a little bit like yes we're d oing this t heoretical activity, a l ot of data lineage, and a lot o f documentation, but there w as n o real concrete outcome that I could show to m y manager ‘hey this activity h as helped us to achieve XYZ’, yeah a nd they [ the sending unit] need to s trengthen that a little bit I think, otherwise they will t hey will start t o lose people or lose people's motivation.” - Project Team Member A1 4 .2.3 Alignment with Operations D escription of determinant This determinant features t he r espondents’ o pinions on the fit o f the transferred k nowledge into the daily o perations in the project teams. In contrast to strategic f it, which takes a more theoretical standpoint, the alignment with operations implies how the t ransferred knowledge is aligned with the daily t asks and objectives that the project teams face in t heir operations. Thus, this determinant i ncludes how the receiving units p erceive how the knowledge can be implemented in their daily operations. Empirical findings E ven though s everal of the r espondents emphasised t he i mportance of implementing the knowledge into the d aily operations, several respondents expressed difficulties in how to do it practically. One of t he r espondents e xpressed t hat it was the transmission that w as challenging, to translate the acquired k nowledge i nto their daily activities a nd p rocesses. Several respondents shared this perception a nd i t was pointed out that the transmission from t heory to daily practice was a difficult task. The d ifficulty as p reviously mentioned was n ot i n the knowledge itself, or the t heory in this s ense, b ut it was h ow to practically implement it. The l earnings w ere rather g eneral, as it was the same learning material f or a ll project teams. The r espondents therefore perceived it as d ifficult t o translate these rather theoretical l earnings i nto their respective operations, which affected how much knowledge was implemented. 4 2 “ The challenge is translating it into everyday realities.” - Project Team Member A1 The r espondents were required to find t he link and the f it with their d aily operations and t herefore to align the learning to the characteristics o f their work environment. This work environment however was different f rom p roject team t o project team, as t hey all have different backgrounds, f or example sales o r product d evelopment. This “one-size-fits-all” approach by the sending unit therefore opposed the project teams with challenges. “Not that the content was t ough because of course it was clear and understandable, b ut h ow i t is l inked, how it i s related to our daily activities. S o what was difficult is what we learned about the theory, how can we implement it in the daily practice.” - Project Team Manager A1 4 .2.4 Intrinsic Motivation Description of determinant This determinant features the intrinsic motivation o f individuals in t he receiving units and how it can a ffect t he i mplementation o f the transferred knowledge. T he determinant i ncludes how the project teams engage with the knowledge a nd the tasks in t he team, how willing they are to engage in the team, and what drives them intrinsically. E mpirical findings Several r espondents a cknowledged the value t hat t he t ransferred k nowledge has. These p erceptions and o pinions were connected with the respondents’ intrinsic m otivation to work within data strategy and to c ontribute to c hange. One project team manager exemplified how intrinsic motivation o f the team m embers helped to o vercome barriers that were o bserved d uring previous learning activities in another c ompany, w here this manager acted as a knowledge sender. The manager emphasised that during KM w ork at the previous workplace, c onvenience a nd resilience were m ajor problems that they observed f rom a sender’s perspective. Convenience was described as t hat employees were stuck in their routines that h ave p roved to be successful, and as a result these employees did not engage in k nowledge implementation to a s ufficient extent. T his attitude made those e mployees resilient to K M activities. However, the m anager did not see convenience and r esilience as affecting knowledge implementation in this case study’s setting. B y allowing the team members t o engage in tasks that t hey showed interest in, the r espondents d eveloped a n internal drive, as it 4 3 k ept t hem motivated in striving for a constant i mprovement for their own sake. This i ntrinsic m otivation to learn and t o improve, and t he employee’s affinity towards data as t he k nowledge field, therefore facilitated knowledge implementation activities in the case setting. “Because they are data-savvy people. So they are very into d ata and t hey want to learn new tools, new things, they enjoy it.” - Project Team Manager A1 I t is b eing perceived similarly by another project t eam m anager, who saw intrinsic motivation as a contributing factor to t he p roject team work. K nowledge implementation a ctivities take time, a scarce resource in the studied case. The r espondent acknowledged that o ften personal time is n ecessary t o fulfil their tasks. This d edication was however not perceived as s omething n egative, a s it p rovided meaning to the manager and the firm. D ue to that intrinsic motivation, team members w ere therefore willing to engage w ith personal t ime, to e nsure success of the implementation of data strategy, tools, and framework in daily operations. 4.2.5 Extrinsic Motivation Description of determinant T his determinant f eatures how extrinsic motivation a ffects the receiving unit’s degree of knowledge implementation. In comparison to intrinsic motivation , extrinsic motivation i s perceived as motivation that c omes from outside t he individual, such as c areer o pportunities, promotions, or monetary rewards. Empirical findings Some r espondents mentioned t hat the p roject team dedication l acked extrinsic motivation, such as a clear career p ath within their project t eams, o r promotion possibilities. This resulted in less e ngagement in the project t eam a s the respondents v alued their w ork i n their r espective home department h igher. Since the project t eam members needed to d edicate time t o the tasks a nd k nowledge i mplementation, they needed to d ecide w hat p art of their line organisation’s work they somewhat would neglect. When t he team m embers then needed to prioritise their w ork, one decisive f actor o f what to p rioritise was the i ndividual career opportunities that came with each t ask. As these career opportunities were limited, the team members saw less need to prioritise the project teams. Contribution t o the project team was even perceived as a risk, b ecause it limited personal c areer opportunities in the respective l ine o rganisation and did not o ffer an a dequate substitution t o it. The respondent further wished 4 4 f or more c areer opportunities to increase dedication to the p roject team. It was emphasised that a c lear vision o f what sort of promotion opportunities o r monetary b enefits can be expected, would i nspire people t o participate in p roject teams a nd their knowledge implementation activities, because it would give them an individual, extrinsic reward. “ Career, what career? I f being a [project team member] had a career in [the company]? I’m being very pointy on this q uestion because I’m taking a r isk to work in data strategy. [...] You know, [the c ompany] has the job stages and a proper c areer path. N one o f this exists within the data strategy today. [ ...] There's n o career inspiration for people w orking in data strategy. [...] I f I work on data strategy, what's my n ext move? C an I p articipate more? Is there a career path for me to align to? None of those exist.” - Project Team Member B1 Many other respondents, however, did n ot p erceive a lack of extrinsic motivation as negatively affecting their contribution to knowledge implementation p ractices, mainly because they were so intrinsically motivated. 4.2.6 Time Description of determinant T his determinant f eatures the sending- and receiving unit’s opinion on the a llocated t ime the p roject teams h ave i n order t o successfully complete their tasks and objectives, including the implementation of the knowledge i nto t heir daily operations. A s previously m entioned, the majority o f the individuals in the project teams are only committing a part of their working h ours to t he project t eams. T his determinant a ims t o collect the empirical f indings on h ow t his aspect of part-time engagement affects the knowledge implementation. E mpirical findings To ensure s ufficient resources for t he p roject teams, including acquisition of knowledge, implementing that knowledge and exercising the t eam’s p rocesses a ccordingly, t he project t eam members were s upposed to commit b etween 20 to 30 p er c ent o f their t otal working t ime to t he project t eam. The majority of the respondents argued that this time was d ifficult t o dedicate, resulting in challenges in t he i mplementation o f the knowledge as a p roject team member, because t hey w ere lacking time t o do i t. The difficulties in allocating t he right amount of time were expressed as a c onsequence of t he w orkload t he respondents experienced in their line organisations and t hat the total a mount of workload c ould quickly 4 5 i ncrease and b ecome a l iability as t he r espondents could fall b ehind i n their d ifferent tasks. These t ime constraints w ere f urther m entioned a s a concern for the respondents' learning capabilities, as they expressed difficulties in a llocating the n eeded amount of time for the l earning activities. I t was noted that t he challenges in implementation w ere due t o the l ack of adequate time for tasks within the project team. T he project t eams expressed concerns t hat t he i mplementation could b e negatively affected since it w as not carried o ut fully or there w as not sufficient t ime t o engage in learning activities, b ecause the t eam m embers w ere so busy i n their line organisations. From a m anagerial perspective, the t ime constraints w ere e mphasised to create additional challenges as the manager had to account f or the workload t hat e ach team member faced in their line organisation and adjust the tasks and time available in t he project t eam a ccordingly. T his c ould be p articularly p roblematic if t he project t eam manager was n ot also t he manager o f the team member’s line o rganisation. As a r esult, t he manager l ost the a bility to be f lexible, including scheduling tasks and time set for t he project t eam. For instance, o ne o f the team members was assigned more w ork i n their line o rganisation and as a c onsequence, t he d edication o f that project team m ember d ecreased and made it c hallenging for the project team manager to hand out tasks as t hey h ad little insight i n the workload of t he team member’s line organisation. T he manager f urther elaborated that to s olve the challenges of t ime allocation, much more d edication and t ime would be n ecessary t o fulfil the t asks in t he project team. The currently intended dedication of 20 to 30 per cent did not g ive j ustice to the complexity o f sufficiently implementing the k nowledge a nd more working h ours were necessary and resulted in less engagement. “ I'm not s aying that it would require a full time employee, but 5 0 per cent would b e realistic i f I [...] really would put my efforts into it.” - Project Team Manager A1 With the a bsence of adequate time to e ngage in t he tasks in the project t eam, several of the respondents emphasised that commitment o f more than the overall contractual agreed w orking hours w as necessary to meet t he required objectives and carry out the tasks i n the project team sufficiently. Otherwise, some areas would b e affected negatively such as l earning activities or tasks not performed thoroughly by the team members. 4 6 “ [...] I t hink most of u s had that work in addition to their already 1 00 p er cent [ ...]” - P roject Team Member A1 T he challenges that time constraints created, including not b eing able to keep up w ith t he w orkload and additional w orking hours, was s omething t hat the s ending unit was aware o f. W ith feedback s essions and weekly interactions, the sending unit c ould get an overview of the c hallenges in t he project t eams. T he sending u nit emphasised t hat a lot o f the challenges were linked to the s etting of the project teams. T he s etting of not working full t ime a s a project t eam m ember brought the challenge of m anaging the tasks i n both line organisation and project t eam. As t he project t eams are set to become independent as they b ecome mature, less interaction with the sending unit takes place w hich also creates challenges for the sending unit to what extent they can affect these i ssues i n the project teams. The sending unit emphasised t hat they needed to make some judgments on h ow much i nfluence t hey should h ave on the project teams without affecting their independence. 4 .2.7 Prioritisation D escription of determinant This determinant is r elated to time a nd it features the receiving units opinion on prioritisation o f either project team w ork o r line organisation work, resulting from the setting of t he p roject teams, w hich implies t he s et a mount of working hours a nd p art-time r oles. The determinant includes how these aspects c an be attributed to p rioritisation a nd how this can affect knowledge implementation in the project teams. Empirical findings Many of the respondents e xpressed t he e xpectation of i ncorporating the project team's activities into the line organisation schedule as challenging. The respondents indicated that the need to prioritise between t heir departments, negatively a ffected t heir ability to engage w ith their project t eam and a chieve their o bjectives. F or instance, the respondents needed to choose what task t o focus on according to its i mportance and a lack of c ommitment to the project t eams was expressed. A s a result, some t asks were not fulfilled and knowledge implementation activities w ere l imited. It was f urther stated that more resources w ere n ecessary t o comply with the project team’s tasks. In a ddition, it was also expressed that t he mandate t o participate in a project t eam did not sufficiently reduce the t asks and obligations from the line organisation. 4 7 “ It is d ifficult to prioritise it, so I d on't think anyone of u s spends 30 p er cent. A nd I don't think t hat's realistic for anyone working at [the company]. I mean usually people are already at 1 00 per cent. I t hink if y ou want p roper commitment a nd something like 3 0 per cent you need to staff up, you need to bring in additional resources.” - Project Team Member A1 Prioritisation issues could be r elated t o the set up of t he p roject teams. I n the occasions where t he project teams had a m ore homogenous group w ith t eam members and manager usually residing i n the same line organisation, prioritisation b ecame a m inor problem. I n cases where the project teams w ere s taffed w ith team members residing in different line organisations, prioritisation could become an increasing issue. Managers expressed difficulties in aligning workload or schedule of the team member’s d ifferent d epartments. T his was d ue t o the reduced insight the manager of t he project t eam had i nto their team members’ line organisations, if they were not part of the same team and line organisation. 4.2.8 Perception of Learning Activities D escription of determinant T his determinant i mplies how t he r eceiving u nits perceive the learning activities that have b een c reated and shared b y the sending unit. The learning activities include the interaction b etween the sending and r eceiving u nit w here the transfer o f knowledge takes p lace, i ncluding d ifferent interactions between t he teams and o n the e -learning platform w ith several learning modules. These l earning activities a re expected to g ive t he p roject t eams the information a nd basics needed for t he roles and the t asks. W hen t he knowledge receivers finished the l earning modules o n the e-learning platform, an assessment w as conducted that w as followed b y a certification h anded o ut through a firm-external party. Perception of L earning Activities i s a pattern found i n the empirical findings o n how t hese learning a ctivities are perceived and how they can affect the knowledge implementation. Empirical findings T he perception o f the l earning activities v aried b etween t he respondents. Some o f them expressed how t he l earning modules really provided value a nd helped them in understanding their r ole a nd t heir objectives. W ith c lear steps a nd g uidance on h ow to c arry out tasks, it was easy to u nderstand and gave the team members easy access to g o back to c ertain areas in the l earning modules w hile they were conducting t asks in t he project t eam. In a ddition, o ne of the 4 8 r espondents also expressed how t he modules c ould provide insights a nd guidance into which areas t he r espondent p ossessed l imited k nowledge so far o r show potential areas of i mprovement. I t was e mphasised as an e asy w ay t o refresh the k nowledge. As the learning m odules were concluded with an assessment, it could show such areas of improvement. However, t his v iew w as n ot shared between all respondents, e specially regarding t he a ssessments that were perceived as having less value f or some r espondents. This v iew w as influenced b y the f act t hat the m ost e stablished project teams h ad already t aken similar assessments p rior to t he ones e xisting today. As the new assessments were introduced, new c ertifications were introduced a s well, leaving some p roject t eam m embers without valid certification a s they had only certifications f rom t he old assessments. This resulted i n the p roject team members having to retake the a ssessments to b ecome certified in their area. This was p erceived a s having n o value t o some respondents a s they have already obtained t he knowledge in p rior assessments a nd already were c ertified. T his resulted in t he resistance o f some respondents to interact with the new learning modules and the knowledge. “The c ertification d oesn't really h ave a value per se, because we a lready k now how t o work in the [Strategic Framework] a nd using t he tools. So I d on’t think a dditional c ertification will buy us anything.” - Project Team Member B1 Several of the r espondents expressed how t he learning modules provided them w ith v arious t heoretical insights b ut t hat t here was a gap b etween the t heory a nd its practical implementation. S ome respondents argued that the learnings were too t heoretical and lacked i nput on h ow to a lign the rather t heoretical knowledge with the r espondent’s w ork. An increased focus o n how to implement the knowledge i nto d aily operations was asked f or by s everal r espondents. Without more practical elements i n the l earning modules, t he respondents expressed t hat t he p rocess c ould become very monotonous and theoretical. I n addition, on some occasions the respondents h ad to c reate their own l earning environment o n how t o practically i mplement the knowledge. This resulted in various degrees o f knowledge implementation a mong the team members as t hey h ad to c onduct additional learning i nteractions besides the modules. “ I've missed the b it, y ou know, the p ractical side o f things [ ...] first a ssessment a nd t he knowledge that was behind i t, that m ight have been way too t heoretical for my taste” - Project Team Member A3 4 9 4 .3 Team Determinants Team determinants imply aspects or f actors that a ffect t he implementation of acquired knowledge on a team l evel. Team variables are split into Cross-Functionality, Managerial S upport, Team Proximity a nd Staffing. 4 .3.1 Cross-Functionality Description of determinant The project t eams consist of members w here the majority of t hem are residing in d ifferent l ine organisations and have the mandate t o participate in their r espective project team as an add-on to their l ine organisation. Consequently, t he t eam members c ontribute with a d istinct k nowledge base and set of c ompetencies, because they do n ot always r eside in the same line organisation as other team members. In that way, the project teams b ecome cross-functional. This cross-functionality bears opportunities and barriers to knowledge implementation activities. Empirical findings Several r espondents emphasised the positive effects cross-functionality has on understanding and implementing k nowledge, but also accounted for the drawbacks such a constellation of project t eams could have. T he d rawbacks included t he c hallenges in managing all the t eam members a s they m ay r eside i n different line o rganisations which could c reate time and prioritisation constraints, both from a managerial and team m ember perspective. According to one project m anager, t he c ompetences that team members brought from their line o rganisations w ere essential and contributed to the integration o f differing perspectives in the project t eam. They perceived this constellation as being v ery supportive in how to m ake use of t he s trategic m odels and tools f or t he t eam, as t he d ifferent perspectives p ositively contributed to the richness o f team discussions, because t he t eam m embers could discuss challenges with aligning the rather theoretical learnings with their o perations and look at it f rom different perspectives. A manager also perceived i t as v ery contributing that different members of the team are looking at t hings from different angles. It also h elped a nother respondent to i ncorporate previous work experience i nto the p roject team w ork as t hese insights and competences were v alued by the other team members. The insights and perspectives that were brought u p in t eam discussions are sometimes very r elated to the other 5 0 t eam m embers and their prior experience and were therefore expressed as h ighly i nteresting and facilitated the view on the knowledge from different perspectives. Besides these p ositive perceptions, respondents also pointed o ut the challenging side of a c ross-functional compilation of project t eams. O ne project team member pointed out that it was a difficult constellation because t he project t eam manager did not h ave any m andate to allocate priorities to that respondent. Another challenge was that the respondent’s own perceptions of w hat should be prioritised, either the line work or the p roject team work, were less heard because the line organisation manager d id not have any insights into the project team work and vice versa. “I think it would have been e asier f or [my project t eam m anager] to handle t he a dmin stuff i f it w ould have b een his t eam only because then he would have h ad a g reater mandate on questions like prioritisation and resources.” - Project Team Member A1 The cross-functionality o f the project teams w as further e mphasised as c hallenging to manage. One manager expressed that t hey had n o authority to d ecide what their t eam m embers should prioritise and what not if t hey h ad t o choose between t he tasks in the line organisation or the p roject team. A t some occasions, t he managers had reduced insights i nto their team m ember’s line organisation due t o the fact that they w ere n ot a lways managers in t hese line organisations. With no m andate to prioritise tasks, i t resulted in the manager d eciding to allocate less a nd less t asks to t he project m ember t hat was a p art of a different line o rganisation t han the r est of the project team. With r educed tasks in the p roject team, some t eam members experienced less opportunities to implement their knowledge. This trade-off between n ew p erspectives on knowledge and higher organisational and administrative e fforts was c hallenging for project t eams. One project t eam m ember h owever argued that for their t eam it was more important to benefit from the different perspectives and angles of t he i ndividual team members than t o account for other a spects, such as administrative challenges. 4.3.2 Managerial Support Description of determinant Managerial support d escribes t he r eceiving u nits’ opinion a nd p erception of t he r ole o f managerial s upport in the project teams and h ow t his c an a ffect knowledge implementation. It relates to support from the project team managers. 5 1 E mpirical findings Managerial S upport w as b y some respondents s een a s a facilitator f or implementing the acquired knowledge into their p rocesses a nd routines. For instance, i t was emphasised that a ‘pushing’ manager was very valuable to d rive the implementation, for e xample b y keeping track o f deadlines, and to prioritise w ork i n the p roject team accordingly. Other respondents confirmed t hat p erception and s aw the manager of t he team as a facilitator for setting direction and sorting priorities. W hen f acing prioritisation issues, there w ere s everal o f the respondents that expressed how managerial support played an i mportant r ole t o what extent the p roject member w as able t o make use o f their k nowledge and apply i t within t he team. The m anager u sually had g ood i nsights in t he knowledge that the team members possessed and c ould allocate t asks to e ach t eam m ember thereafter. With clear o bjectives a nd interactions, t he managerial s upport helped the p roject t eam m embers to prioritise their tasks. T he role o f managerial support was especially emphasised by t he project t eam m embers t hat had the same manager in both their project team and line organisation. “He’s setting direction you know, at this point in t ime this is what's important, this is w hat you're trying t o achieve. [ ..] I t's also helpful in prioritisation, because he can t hen p oint out what should be of higher priority.” - Project Team Member A3 Managerial s upport w as also s tressed as a motivating f actor for some respondents. It w as pointed out that even though certain knowledge implementation a ctivities w ere sometimes perceived as a waste o f time or n ot giving back any value by p roject team members, the manager could s tep in and motivate by explaining why c ertain things s hould be implemented and how they will bring value in the mid-term f uture. T he respondents further emphasised that sometimes the immediate v alue of k nowledge i mplementation was not c learly visible. Leadership q ualities could t hen help the t eam m embers to see the l ong-term v alue such a change in routines and processes can have. Some o ther respondents, however, emphasised t hat f or them managerial s upport o nly had a m inor effect on their w ork i n the project team and the i mplementation of the a cquired knowledge. One project team member, who was not i n the s ame l ine organisation a s the project team manager, p ointed o ut that t he project team manager i s very encouraging i n obtaining the k nowledge, b ut for facilitating the actual i mplementation of k nowledge there was too little contact between them two. 5 2 M anagerial support w as a lso perceived as less necessary when respondents had more experience in the field o f knowledge. Due to e xperience, a respondent expressed that they s aw m anagerial support as l ess important, s ince they w ere aware of the tasks and how to implement the acquired knowledge. T he s ame could be observed with other p roject team m embers, who had been w orking in the knowledge field for a long t ime and did n ot s ee t he s upport of the project team manager as influential for the implementation of the knowledge. “I think his involvement would be needed m ore i f it was junior resources for instance working with him. I know what I h ave to d o and I know what I want to do so I think t here is n o reason for him to push me or to tell me how I should push it.” - Project Team Member A1 From one manager’s p oint of view, the support for the team members for implementing a cquired k nowledge was important and influential. T he m anager has been a non-managing team member in a nother project team before. The experience from a nother project team within the same strategic field h elped to understand what i s important f or i mplementing the knowledge. T he t eam manager s upported the training and teaching p rovided b y the sending unit with h ands-on p ractical experience towards the team’s members by helping them to actually apply what they w ere l earning. The team manager saw the practical learning as a great addition t o the rather theoretical t raining t hat is p rovided b y the sending unit. If this practical p art was lacking, the team manager saw the d anger of losing t he p eople in this matter. 4.3.3 Team Proximity Description of determinant Another p attern in the data refers to team proximity. It describes the relationship among the members of one project team, how close they w ork with each other, if t hey work with each other, and how this affects knowledge implementation. Proximity h ereby includes physical, social, and cognitive distance. Physical distance refers to i ssues such as remote work, working in different countries, or being located in the same building. Social distance refers t o shared traits, c haracteristics, and how employees get along with each other. Cognitive distance refers to the extent of sharing a similar knowledge base. 5 3 Empirical findings Higher proximity among the project t eam m embers w as generally seen as contributing p ositively to t he team’s work, the t ranslation of theory into practice and t hus t he implementation into the team members’ processes and routines. O ne project team member s upported the other project team members b y providing s upport i n practical i mplementation o f tools and strategy. As t he theoretical learning c ould sometimes b e challenging for p roject t eam members with different backgrounds and e xpertise, t he respondent saw t he need in c ontributing with previous knowledge f rom r elated a reas to support other team members in t he practical i mplementation. Another project team member e mphasised that joint d iscussions supported the understanding o f the k nowledge, e specially w hen d ifferent perspectives w ere considered. T he team discussions within the r eceiving unit were thus perceived a s a supportive a ddition to the k nowledge transfer b etween s ending a nd receiving u nits, which eventually facilitated the implementation. I t was f urther e xpressed that the s ize o f teams could be a d ecisive f actor for how m uch e xpertise and experience a bout how t o implement the transferred knowledge i s shared a mong team members. Particularly i n team discussions, the respondent’s previous e xperience s howed that the higher the quantity of participants in a meeting, the less engagement there is i n knowledge sharing, b ecause the cognitive d istance a mong team members increased. The r espondent perceived the c urrent team’s size of four members in total a s beneficial for f ruitful d iscussions and a facilitator t o apply the a cquired knowledge, as it a llowed f or efficient c ommunication and the possibility to build relationships with other team members. A nother respondent perceived t he role of b eing a t eam m ember as a n obligation to support other team members. One team member e mphasised that they were pushing other t eam m embers and educated them to contribute to t he team members’ understanding. T o increase the u nderstanding o f other team members therefore helped them to implement the k nowledge at a later p oint into t heir operations. This mutual t eaching and l earning was a c onsequence of a high level of cognitive proximity between the team members. C ollaboration b etween team members was further f acilitated by the relationships t hat i ndividuals had. Project Team M ember A2 e mphasised that the amount of t ime t he team members have worked together in their l ine o rganisation before p articipating in t he project teams l ed to b etter collaboration, because they knew how e ach other w orked, t hey h ave b ecome familiar w ith each other, and h ave developed a mutual understanding of e ach o ther. This close r elationship contributed to t he respondent’s motivation t o work in the project team 54 and pushed t heir contribution and dedication. The r espondent s aw the clear advantages that close relationships could have on team mechanics and joint learning. “[...] t hey j ust b rought some friends together and put t hem i n a t eam. [...] I think w e had i t nice because w e know each other, w e know our r elationships and how w e are a s persons. So it h elped us a l ot. [...] e ven i f you h ave a boring task or a fun task, you are still u nderstanding t he process, y ou want to complete i t with good results, so i t helps a lot.” - Project Team Member A2 One project team member, who just recently joined t he project team, s aw the support of team members as critical i n the p rocess o f implementing the knowledge into the respondent’s routines a nd processes. A decisive a spect for w hat m akes it challenging, was r emote work and p hysical distance to o ther team m embers. Being new in a project team with o nly l imited p rior experience in the knowledge field m ade i t challenging to t ranslate the a cquired knowledge i nto o ne’s routines and p rocesses while working remotely. Especially i n the b eginning of t he implementation process, a l ot of q uestions were asked, c larifications were needed a nd best-practice examples were desired by t he learner. The setting of hybrid work or even totally remote w ork, and t herefore physical d istance b etween t he team members, c ould also lead t o a cognitive d istance. It was expressed as b eing a child who is constantly asking q uestions and “nagging” a t other team members. When team members shared a physical location, s uch a s the same building o r even t he same office, they could s earch for immediate clarification for any o bstacles with how t o align the learnings w ith t heir operations a nd routines. I n a remote w ork setting, t his b ecame more difficult. In t his scenario, team members always h ad to o vercome a c ertain t hreshold, f or example, t o pick u p the p hone, write a n email or u se instant chat software. W hen s itting i n the same office, team members saw how b usy colleagues were at t he moment and c ould get a feeling for when clarification q uestions might be a ppropriate. This became more difficult in a r emote work setting. T he respondent did n ot want to b other other t eam members too much. This prolonged the p eriod of “getting i t up and running” (Project Team Member C1). The p roject t eam m ember usually did n ot have any problems with remote w ork. However, this was t he first t ime that the respondent was d oing new t asks and acquiring previously unknown knowledge w hile w orking r emotely. Other r espondents that also s tarted t heir work in the project teams during t he pandemic-related work-from-home period, did not e xpress a ny major e ffects of p hysical distance to t heir work 55 i n the project teams. It was emphasised t hat the c hallenge o f remote work w as the lack of previous experience in data and related activities in the company. 4.3.4 Staffing D escription of determinant ‘Staffing’ refers to a c ategory o f observation in the data that d escribes how t he p roject teams are staffed. It r efers t o two staffing related s ituations, firstly v oluntary p articipation o r being g iven the mandate to participate i n the project teams, and secondly to having the same line m anager and project team manager. Empirical findings The t eam members were selected to participate i n the project teams through either being g iven the mandate from a m anager, or a more voluntary choice of j oining the project team of one’s o wn accord. S ome project team m embers were picked by t he respective p roject team manager. This decision was based on the t asks the respondents were conducting i n their l ine organisation, b ecause they were data-related and the team members therefore had a c ertain pre-existing knowledge about data. T his i nvoluntary participation in t he p roject team did however not have any influence on the respondents’ motivation or dedication for t he project team work. One r espondent attributed t his mainly to previous experience and general interest in the data field. B eing given the m andate to work w ith the project teams t herefore d id n ot h ave any e ffect o n motivation of the r espondents to contribute to k nowledge implementation activities. T he respondents a lso m entioned t hat it was beneficial to have t he same p erson as line manager and project team m anager. In that case, it was easier to sort priorities between l ine organisation and project team, because the team managers knew the priorities of t heir teams and line organisation and got a holistic picture of u pcoming deadlines and general p riorities. In addition, it facilitated discussion around practical i mplementation o f knowledge, since the manager and the subordinates usually h ad a s imilar knowledge stock, which facilitated discussion about, for example, how to align the knowledge to certain department-specific s trategies, complex systems, r outines, e tc. W ith a differing knowledge stock b etween team member(s) and team manager, it became m ore difficult and a lso time-consuming to d iscuss the t ranslation of the l earnings, which w ere u sually rather theoretical, into t he operational implementation and how to use it on a daily basis. 5 6 4 .4 Socialisation Determinants Socialisation variables affect the implementation of knowledge on a n inter-team l evel. They a re therefore based on the relationship between t he project t eams and the sending unit, b ut a lso b etween the different project teams. Socialisation variables are split into Proximity between Sender and Receiver, Feedback and Collaboration among Project Teams. 4.4.1 Proximity between Sender and Receiver Description of determinant ‘Proximity b etween Sender and R eceiver’ w as a p attern found in the d ata that relates to the r elationship b etween sending unit and project t eams. Similar t o team proximity, p roximity b etween s ender a nd receiver includes p hysical, s ocial, and c ognitive p roximity. Proximity also includes the l evel of s upport and guidance that t he project t eams receive f rom t he s ending unit. As mentioned earlier in t he case s tudy background, knowledge was p artially r eceived during personal meetings and face-to-face training sessions. Beyond that, project t eams receive s upport from the sending unit in t heir learning and i mplementation p rocesses a nd are guided when unclarities or questions occur. Empirical findings The effect of a close relationship between the sending unit a nd the project team m embers was g enerally s een a s positive a nd contributing t o the degree o f knowledge implementation. Project t eam members described the situation as being a valuable r elationship w ith weekly meetings, where the progress was d iscussed a nd knowledge was exchanged on a mutual b asis. T his was p erceived a s a facilitator for t he k nowledge t o be aligned w ith the d aily operations o f team members. Among the project t eams, several o f the team members including the managers stressed t he importance o f support and guidance from the sending unit. E ven though the t eams expressed that they w ere a ware of t he e xpected goals a nd o bjectives, occasions arose when g uidance and push from the sending u nit w as s till needed. Often, this was because t he teams lost focus o n the project team work, because they had upcoming deadlines or other priorities in t heir line organisation. Guidance by the s ending unit then somewhat aligned the focus again and led to more attention to the project team work. Among the t eam members of P roject Team A, the manager w as highlighted to p lay a contributing role in s upporting the s ending unit when support a nd guidance was lacking. I n absence of t he s ending unit, the project team m anager complimented the sending unit by 5 7 taking a supportive r ole towards the o ther project t eam members. U sually, t he more mature the project teams become, t he less support and guidance is p rovided by the s ending u nit. However, for some occasions, close collaboration a nd support from the sending unit was still perceived as n ecessary. In t hose s ituations, i t appeared to be important that the p roject team manager could substitute for the lack of support and guidance by the sending unit. It was further e mphasised that personal support and guidance o f the sending unit is necessary as an add-on to the e xisting d igital training, learning videos and other non f ace-to-face learning materials, such as sharepoint w ebsites or presentation slides. Particularly i n the beginning, either w hen project teams were in the initial roll-out phase, or w hen a new team m ember joined t he project teams. In t hose scenarios, the amount of k nowledge that has to be absorbed was immense, which for s ome respondents led to the feeling o f being overwhelmed and feeling a bit lost. It was therefore difficult t o go through the e ntire digital learning material, to c larify questions or overcome challenges of how t o align certain aspects of the k nowledge with the respondents’ r outines. Another project t eam m ember further emphasised t he importance of having p ersonal c ontact for learning and i mplementation practices. P articularly when i t comes to practical i mplementation a nd the t ransformation of the l earnings into the day to day operations, collaboration with experts was p erceived as important, as the p roject teams h ad the p ossibility t o get back to the sending unit with potential questions a nd need for clarification. Personal support by the sending unit could then help the project team members i n different ways. Firstly, i t saved a lot o f time for the project t eam members to not have to look through l ots o f learning materials, or watch entire l earning videos once again. S econdly, it facilitated the t ransformation of the k nowledge into the respondents’ operations, because d etailed q uestions could be a sked and challenges could be explained, for which solutions were then found mutually. “[Sending u nit] can give that higher l evel i nsight so t hat w e all understand what the goal is. And [Sending unit] a lso helps a lot, especially because I'm just starting out to understand how t o work i n the tool. F or me I find that super useful b ecause I know that there are tons of videos and training stuff available i n our [Instant Message Chat] channel. B ut when I just need a q uick answer to q uestions, I don't have the t ime, you know, t o look through 6 0 minutes o f videos, so it's nice to have that support available.“ - Project Team Member A3 P roximity to the s ending unit further showed t o have s trong implications on t he individuals’ motivation to i mplement knowledge. This w as especially observed with respondents that 58 h ave b een working in t he project t eams for a longer time. I t was stressed that the support and guidance from the sending unit is vital to push the project t eams in t heir work. This showed to b e of special i mportance when t he project t eams were facing c hallenges in t he knowledge implementation d ue to lack of motivation. This l ack of motivation c an o ccur because s ome parts of the p roject team work w ere perceived as less e xciting. O n these occasions, the sending unit c an p ush the p roject teams. It is important that the sending unit t hen reminds the project t eams that in o rder to reach t heir goals, being t he implementation o f strategic tools, frameworks and procedural change, less exciting tasks need to be performed as well. “ It becomes that cumbersome t hing, t hat e ven after two y ears in, you still have t hose standing meetings, you still need to perform t hese, I c all it boring tasks, b ut still you d o it, because you know i t is i mportant, because at the end o f the rainbow, a ll of your efforts w ill be awarded s omewhere. Still the m ost important thing from t he [ sending unit] is to make sure [...] that people understand t hat, because i f they lose t hat k ind of nudge or p ush into the [project t eams], we can just drop it and d o monthly reports but not d o any work really. - P roject Team Member A2 Similar t o the difficulties of working remotely w hen it c omes to p roximity a mong team members, remote work w as perceived as hampering the collaboration between s ending and receiving units b y one respondent. The physical d istance, w hich involved the usage of digital communication tools, was p erceived a s a barrier f or i nformal and quick c larifications f or q uestions on how to implement the knowledge or how to use the tools. B esides the positive p erception regarding proximity between s ender a nd receiver, it was by some r espondents also p erceived a s a negative aspect as it takes time and only further reduces t his s carce resource. One respondent pointed out that the s ending unit does not possess s ufficient expertise in h ow to practically implement data strategy, framework and tools, but rather only knows the theoretical a nd strategic perspective. As a result, t he project t eam member was required t o become a teacher t hemselves in m utual meetings and explain w hat t he r equirements o f practical implementation are, which was perceived as u nnecessary and time-consuming. 5 9 4 .4.2 Feedback Description of determinant The feedback process includes informal and formal methods of communication from the project teams to t he knowledge sending unit. The methods of sharing feedback cover personal communication, i nstant message chats, and rather formal s harepoint websites with p ossibilities of feedback communication. E mpirical findings Among the p roject teams, the opinion on the feedback process showed some different perceptions. The m ajority of t he p roject t eam members expressed that they perceived the process as open and helpful in implementing the knowledge. The feedback process was especially expressed as i nfluential in creating m otivation as the respondents could feel that they were being heard and that they could s ee results i n better ways of implementing their knowledge to their tasks in the team. When, for example, feedback was given about tools or other parts of the knowledge, and suggestions were actually i mplemented by the sending unit, it i ncreased the teams’ motivation to implement i t into their daily operations because it was now better aligned to their work. Thus, respondents saw the feedback as an important step i n implementing the knowledge as t he feedback sessions allowed for room for clarification o f the knowledge and how to apply it, and also as an increase of motivation. “ I mean we c ould really see the changes. So sometimes it was very t echnical things l ike the tool not working the way we wanted to work, and some o f our s uggestions were implemented. Definitely, at least for me, that was very motivating.” - Project Team Member A1 However, this view was not shared entirely between the teams. Some of the respondents f elt that the feedback s essions c ould leave t hem with the feeling that they were not heard, for example when project team members gave f eedback on areas for improvement and the expected changes were left out. As a r esult, the implementation of the knowledge could get negatively a ffected a s the r espondents could not see their requested changes or c larifications on the tools or the knowledge to be addressed. 60 4 .4.3 Collaboration among Project Teams D escription of determinant T he last pattern found in the data refers to the collaboration among t he project t eams. A s introduced in t he background a t the b eginning o f this chapter, there was n ot only one project team that r eceived knowledge from the s ending u nit, but about t hirty p roject t eams with different backgrounds. It was therefore highly i nteresting to o bserve, if and how the c ollaboration among project teams affected knowledge implementation. Empirical findings Collaboration among project teams only o ccurred to a limited e xtent in t his case study setting. If any collaboration occurred, it w as m ainly between project t eams that were based i n the s ame or a similar company o rganisation, f or example p roject t eams that were based i n different parts o f the sales organisation or d ifferent parts of the product development o rganisation o f the f irm. There w as no m andate f rom the s ending u nit that required c ollaboration among project t eams. Usually, t he t eams learn, w ork, and implement k nowledge s eparated from other project teams. Informal collaboration m ostly took p lace by t he initiative of project team managers o r members, who knew other teams’ members or managers from previous collaboration i n their line o rganisation. The collaboration initiatives t hat e xisted w ere however perceived as helpful for clarifications o f question a nd discussion on how t o implement t he k nowledge i nto t he d aily operations. One respondent identified t hat o ther project teams h ave t he same c hallenges r egarding t he practical implementation o f knowledge and alignment with their respective o perations. The t eams could s hare their k nowledge about these challenges and profit from other teams’ solutions. “[it leads t o] e xperience sharing between us. Like ‘How did you d o this or w hy do y ou have t hat? How d id you perform these a ctivities?’ [ ...] a relationship between one or two [project t eams] that are closely related to what you are doing helps a lot.” - Project Team Member A2 Formal meetings a nd channels for k nowledge s haring t o foster implementation w ould have been appreciated, particularly in the early p hases. O ne d igital m eeting p er w eek a vailable for all project teams and their m embers a s well as the s ending unit was s cheduled, with voluntary a ttendance. One respondent however saw only little value in f ormal s essions. Because o f the f ormality in the f orm of weekly meetings, these meetings tended t o be m ore t heoretical than actually regarding practical i mplementation. O ne of t he reasons f or this was that there was 6 1 often only a limited overlap of the areas of application among the different p roject teams. Additionally, in theory such collaborations would certainly be helpful, but in practice they would not succeed because they would only further constrain the respondent, as there would be even less time available and such meetings would consume enormous resources. “[...] it would take more time from me, and I don’t have time.” - Project Team Manager A1 62 5 Analysis I n this chapter, t he empirical findings f rom c hapter four will be analysed and d iscussed b ased on the conceptual model f rom c hapter 2.3. In r egard t o the p urpose o f the study and the research question, this chapter w ill e nhance the u nderstanding of how project teams a ffect knowledge implementation. The analysis c hapter i s separated into three p arts. Firstly, t he r elationship between t he identified determinants from chapter f our w ill b e analysed. Derived from the empirical data, a s eparation b etween determinants t hat h ave a direct effect on knowledge implementation a nd determinants that have an i ndirect effect on k nowledge i mplementation is m ade. Secondly, the a nalysis of direct and indirect determinants will be i nterpreted in t he holistic picture of knowledge management a nd e xisting literature will be d eveloped based on the findings. Thirdly, a r evised conceptual model will b e presented, incorporating results and new insights from the analysis. 5.1 D irect a nd Indirect D eterminants o f Knowledge Implementation i n Project Teams Derived from t he conceptual model and t he empirical data, three categories o f determinants of knowledge implementation i n a project team setting w ere identified: individual , team , and s ocialisation determinants. Critically a nalysing t he data, f or example ‘ prior experience’ and i ts effect on k nowledge implementation, demonstrates an i mportant issue. The data show that instead of ‘prior experience’ directly affecting k nowledge implementation, it r ather a ffected both the intrinsic motivation of r espondents and the a bility t o align t he knowledge with t he respondent’s operations, w hich in t urn d irectly affected k nowledge implementation. This connection h owever o nly b ecomes evident when viewing the empirical data holistically. The researchers t herefore a rgue that a separate a nd i ndividual consideration and analysis of t hese three g roups does not account for the holistic p icture. Rather, they have to b e considered in t he overall c ontext, as they r elate to a nd have n oticeable e ffects on each other. The data show that the identified determinants were affecting knowledge implementation i n different ways, e ither directly or indirectly. T he following analysis i s therefore structured i n determinants t hat have a direct e ffect o n knowledge i mplementation a nd determinants that have an indirect effect on k nowledge implementation. This r elationship i s illustrated in Figure 7 . Indirect d eterminants affect direct determinants, a nd these i n turn affect knowledge i mplementation in a project team setting. 6 3 F igure 7: Relationship between Indirect Determinants, Direct Determinants, and K nowledge I mplementation in Project Team Setting, compiled by authors T he f ollowing p art of the analysis argues for which and why some d eterminants have a direct effect o n knowledge implementation, a nd w hy o ther determinants f ound in t he empirical data h ave an i ndirect effect on knowledge implementation. The direct determinants are intrinsic motivation , time , prioritisation and alignment with operations . Related t o each d irect d eterminant, an a nalysis on how various indirect determinants are related t o that direct d eterminant will be presented. To illustrate, Figure 8 below s hows the determinants o f knowledge implementation that have b een identified in the empirical chapter, g rouped into direct and indirect determinants. T he r elationships between each determinant will be elaborated in the following subchapters. To facilitate this, e ach direct determinant will be addressed in t heir respective subchapter together with i ts related indirect d eterminants. Each s ubchapter will be s ummarised by a figure illustrating the relationship b etween the indirect a nd direct determinants and knowledge implementation. 6 4 Figure 8: Structure o f the Direct and I ndirect D eterminants on K nowledge Implementation in the Case, compiled by authors. 5 .1.1 Intrinsic motivation 5 .1.1.1 Direct I ntrinsic motivation describes the motivation o f employees t o conduct a n action w ithout expecting any e xternal r ewards, such as promotion, monetary benefits, o r reputation. Rather, it satisfies one’s own n eeds w ithout any, often m onetary, compensation f rom s omeone else (Osterloh & Frey 2 000). The empirical data show that intrinsic m otivation o f knowledge receivers is critical for the degree of knowledge i mplementation. These results confirm the a ssumption by M inbaeva et al. (2003), t hat h igher motivation of knowledge receivers leads t o 65 g reater R ACAP, and thus a higher degree of knowledge implementation. However, it is necessary to distinguish that Minbaeva e t al. ( 2003) tested the overall motivation o f a subsidiary’s employees, while t his s tudy focuses on i ndividuals’ motivation. The findings t herefore further d evelop t his t heory b y incorporating the individual perspective. The significance of intrinsic motivation for successful k nowledge transfer has f urther b een e mphasised by Osterloh and F rey (2000), who argue for motivation management as a competitive advantage, s ince it a ffects the d egree of k nowledge i mplementation. Szulanski (2000) found t hat l ack of motivation p otentially leads t o rejection o f knowledge implementation. Gupta a nd Govindarajan (2000) argue t hat m otivation o f the receiver is c haracterised by t he Not-Invented-Here Syndrome, which implies that t arget units w illingly r eject t he reception and implementation o f knowledge, because it s tems from other organisational d epartments. This p henomenon c ould not be observed i n the empirical data, as argued further below. 5.1.1.2 Indirect Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation The e mpirical d ata e mphasised that intrinsic m otivation is deeply rooted in the respondents personal interest in the knowledge f ield. M inbaeva et al. (2003) mainly base the dimension o f motivation on e xtrinsic m otivation, implying m erit-based promotion and p erformance-based compensation, besides i nternal communication. A s one respondent confirmed, a lack o f career o pportunities can l ead t o a decrease in motivation, therefore i n line with the hypotheses of M inbaeva et a l. (2003). T he empirical data further c onfirm f indings by W ang a nd Noe (2010), who argue t hat the r elationship between e xtrinsic motivation a nd knowledge implementation has i n previous s tudies c ome up with mixed r esults, as s ome a uthors found that e xtrinsic m otivation h as an influence o n knowledge implementation, and o thers d id not. A l ack o f promotion opportunities was only confirmed b y one respondent to h ave an influence on knowledge implementation, other r espondents did not confirm this view. B uilding on t his a nd based o n the findings of t his study, intrinsic motivation seems to have the greater direct impact on knowledge implementation compared to extrinsic motivation. Strategic Fit Intrinsic motivation is affected by the f it o f the r espondent’s o wn strategy p erception and t he strategic direction of t he n ew knowledge. This s trategic fit and seeing t he importance f or the company positively i nfluenced the r espondents’ motivation t o take on the challenge of 6 6 contributing to the project team and i mplementing the knowledge. The p ositive perception of the value of t he knowledge for t he firm and for i ndividual o perations s eemed to p ositively i nfluence the intrinsic m otivation o f the p roject t eam m embers. Knowledge r eceivers’ p ositive perception of strategic value might d ecrease the c hallenge of t he Not-Invented-Here S yndrome (Gupta & G ovindarajan 2000; A rgote, M cEvily & R eagans 2 003) and t herefore increase t he recipient’s m otivation t o implement t he knowledge. Similar to t his s yndrome, Riege ( 2005) discusses that trust in t he accuracy a nd value o f the t ransferred knowledge i s influencing the knowledge r eceiver, as i t determines i f and h ow much knowledge is absorbed. Respondents confirmed that the s trategic value o f the k nowledge was evident. It c an therefore be argued that, based o n this study’s findings, t he elaborations by Riege ( 2005) can be further developed by accounting for the r ole o f intrinsic m otivation i n the r elationship between seeing and t rusting the v alue of knowledge and a ctually implementing i t, instead of o nly a ffecting the motivation to absorb knowledge. Managerial Support and Proximity between Sender and Receiver The e mpirics further showed t hat p roximity to b oth o ther team members as well as t he sending unit had positive effects on i ntrinsic motivation. F or once, t he empirical d ata r evealed that the s upport f rom a nd proximity to the sending unit had a m ajor contribution t o maintaining a high level o f motivation among the knowledge r eceivers. A s the s ending u nit w as constantly showing the ‘bigger picture’ and pushing the p roject t eams, the team members stayed i ntrinsically m otivated to p romote i mplementation. This could a lso b e observed in t he manager’s role who a cted as a supporting force w hen t he support from the sending unit was a bsent. O liver and Kandadi (2006) a rgue that if KM a ctivities a re not promoted by s enior management, t hey w ill b e perceived a s a minor issue w ith d ecreased value. This argumentation can b e applied to the context of this study a nd further developed by arguing that promotion by leaders, t he sending unit in t his c ase, is essential to keep employees motivated to implement new knowledge. Proximity among Team Members Proximity a mong team members also contributed to i ntrinsic motivation. O ne respondent argued that working with friends in a team is a m otivating s etting, which provides f urther i ncentives t o do a good job and t o initiate the relevant process changes through knowledge implementation. E dmondson and Nembhard (2009) describe that the proximity a mong team members increases m otivation t hrough “ shared s ense of identity, cohesiveness, and p urpose” 67 ( Edmondson & Nembhard 2 009, p. 1 29). Mueller (2014) argues for team orientation as facilitating knowledge sharing between teams, as “the performance of a t eam is better than the sum of all individual p erformance” ( Mueller 2 014, p. 1 92). This approach seems to be also applicable to knowledge implementation, as seen in t he empirical data. The f eeling of belonging to a team i ncreased t he individual’s motivation to contribute a nd perform t o the team’s benefit. Team proximity therefore showed to have a p ositive effect on knowledge implementation, because it increased intrinsic motivation of team members Prior Experience P rior experience o f individuals s howed t o have a positive impact on t he p roject team members' m otivation to engage in their project teams. Prior experience further increased the respondent’s openness t owards change, a s they have been w orking in the knowledge field for a long time and were a lways o pen t o improving their p rocesses, which w as a n atural attitude in the respondents’ opinion, that can be r eferred to a s intrinsic motivation. Mueller ( 2014) identified openness as positively contributing to the level o f knowledge sharing between t eams. Open team members perceive new learning opportunities as beneficial for improving their r outines (Mueller 2014), which i ncreases t heir intrinsic motivation, an argumentation that is also reflected in the empirical findings. F eedback The empirical data further s how that feedback affects motivation o f team members. The respondents perceived feedback as either positively c ontributing t o motivation through t he f eeling of being heard a nd s eeing the changes t hey p roposed, o r as d emotivating a s they c ould not observe this e ffect. Feedback as an enabler o f knowledge sharing t hrough the increasing effect it h as o n motivation h as been w idely acknowledged (Hung, Durcikova, Lai & Lin 2011), but, as knowledge sharing i mplies, l argely focused on t he e ffects of feedback on the sending unit’s motivation to s hare knowledge. The results o f this study s how that the combination of giving feedback and this feedback being i mplemented by t he s ender, increases the receiver’s motivation t o implement knowledge. T herefore, it can be argued that the findings e xtend existing literature on knowledge sharing a nd m otivation, as they show that motivation is also decisive for knowledge implementation on t he receiving side, and not only sharing from the sending side. 6 8 5 .1.1.3 Summary A s summarised i n Figure 9, t he f indings show that i ntrinsic motivation of i ndividual team members is highly affecting k nowledge implementation. This intrinsic motivation in t urn i s affected by individual, team, and s ocialisation determinants, which t herefore h ave an i ndirect effect on knowledge implementation. Figure 9: I ntrinsic M otivation of I ndividuals as a Determinant for K nowledge I mplementation, compiled by authors 5.1.2 Time 5.1.2.1 Direct The e mpirical f indings show that the allocation of t ime represented a major c hallenge t o knowledge implementation activities in the teams. The organisational context further aggravated this c hallenge. The e ngagement in project teams w ere add-on work to the r espective employees’ w ork in t heir line organisation. In the case s tudy, p roject team members were s upposed t o deduct 20 to 30 per cent from their line o rganisation work and contribute w ith it to the p roject team work. The practical execution, however, showed significant barriers to this resource allocation. The role in the line organisation usually occupied the project team m embers fully, therefore making it d ifficult t o simply reduce line organisation responsibilities. 6 9 T ime a llocation f or knowledge creation, sharing, and acquisition is c rucial f or developing a k nowledge culture in a n organisation. Differences in time allocation was found t o be a key influencing factor for differing k nowledge habits between employees (Oliver & Kandadi 2006; Riege 2 005). M ueller ( 2014) further m otivates for the limited time culture that is represented in today’s organisations, w here each activity t akes time and t here is too little time for a ll activities. She a rgues t hat k nowledge sharing activities usually r equire a llocation o f time, this is h owever seldomly part of a n employee’s job description and therefore oppose t he employee to a dilemma. T he findings o f the study further develop this approach. Even though employees h ave s pecifically allocated time resources to t he project team work, it is s till challenging to c ontribute accordingly. M ueller ( 2014) found t hat simply h aving more time does not automatically increase p articipation in knowledge sharing activities. T his s tudy shows a similar f inding r egarding knowledge implementation a ctivities, as it w as found t hat there are other determinants (Intrinsic Motivation, Alignment w ith O perations, Prioritisation) that directly influence the level of knowledge implementation activities as well. 5 .1.2.2 Indirect I ntrinsic Motivation The empirical data show a direct l ink b etween intrinsic m otivation o f project team members and the a vailable time they can contribute to k nowledge i mplementation activities. I ntrinsically m otivated team members s ometimes commit personal time in a ddition to t heir 100 p er cent workload t o commit to the project team which l eaves more r oom f or knowledge implementation activities. This can b e linked t o Osterloh and Frey (2000), arguing that a person may carry out a task without external m otives, if t hey s ee the personal value i n doing s o. Thus, t he i ntrinsic motivation o f the t eam m embers a llows knowledge implementation t o take place a s the t eam members see t he value i n engaging with their personal time. H owever, this has t o be s een a s critical, a s the c ommitment of personal t ime s hould n ot be a s tandard of h ow to deal with one’s workload. Staffing S taffing considerations can further affect time resources o f project team members. T he findings s how that previous collaboration b etween p roject t eam m anager a nd o ther members of the team facilitated discussions and c ollaboration, as the employees usually had t he s ame o r at least a similar pre-existing k nowledge stock. Through these s trategic s taffing approaches, t eam m embers c ould allocate more time to knowledge i mplementation activities, 7 0 i nstead o f aligning each others’ knowledge stock and spending too much of their a lready l imited t ime o n getting to know each other, explaining strategies, etc. Mueller (2014) argues t hat h ierarchical and bureaucratic s tructures i n organisations limit knowledge flows because they require time-consuming p rocesses. A pplying these findings from an organisational p erspective to a team perspective, can e xplain h ow the structures of a team, i .e. t he staffing o f it, can bear time challenges. Proximity between Sender and Receiver T he proximity between sender a nd receiver a lso s howed to h ave a p ositive impact o n the t ime r esources of t he project team members. A s the e xisting learning m aterial in form of v ideos, p resentations, or sharepoint-websites, a mong others, could get very exhaustive, personal s upport a nd guidance f rom t he sending unit c ould substitute for t he need to g o through the l earning material, w hich essentially saved a l ot of t ime t hat c ould be dedicated to the actual i mplementation of that knowledge. T heory suggests t hat l eadership a nd supervision c an increase k nowledge implementation b y taking a n active r ole i n pushing the r eceiving units i n engaging i n learning activities and implementing t he knowledge. Thus, a m ore e ffective knowledge implementation is f acilitated (Kulkarni, Ravindran & F reeze 2006). The f indings in t his s tudy can c ontribute t o this theory b y showing how p roximity between the sender a nd receiver d ecreases the time needed t o learn and understand how t o implement k nowledge. T hus, it can be argued that the s ending u nit’s engagement not only facilitates a more effective implementation phase, but it also affects the amount of time needed for it. In addition, Pedersen, P etersen and S harma (2003) argue that knowledge transfer mechanisms must suit the characteristics o f the t ransferred knowledge. Otherwise it might b ear u nnecessary communication costs, w hen f or example travelling or f ace-to-face meetings a re held for the t ransfer of knowledge that could easily be codified in, f or example, t ext. Based on t he findings o f this study, i t can b e argued t hat a m ixture o f transfer mechanisms, i n this case standardised l earning material i n combination with face-to-face meetings, r educe the costs in t he form of t he resource t ime s ignificantly f or both sending and receiving u nits. Digital learning mechanisms, such as w ritten d ocuments or l earning videos, facilitated transfer o f knowledge a bout tools, f rameworks, etc. However, the more tacit knowledge, including how to implement this knowledge r equired rather p ersonal transfer mechanisms, c onfirming f indings by Pedersen, Petersen and Sharma ( 2003). I t further confirms Nonaka’s 7 1 (1994) proposal that exchange of know-how, therefore tacit knowledge (Grant 1996a), requires socialisation between sender and receiver. Collaboration among Project Teams The empirical data also s how that collaboration among project teams was sometimes perceived as negatively affecting knowledge implementation, as it cost valuable time with only limited o utput. The ratio of invested time to realised output was therefore perceived as negative, which takes away important shares of the time that is dedicated to the project t eam work. The theory argues that the characteristics of project teams, including their independence and flexible structure, does not provide a suitable setting for collaboration between project teams ( Mueller 2014). In addition to the characteristics of project teams, time is emphasised as an important facilitator for knowledge-related activities among project teams. This can be strengthened in the literature, a s it is emphasised that l ack of time can negatively affect knowledge sharing a mong project teams (Mueller 2014). The f indings in this study add an additional aspect to the literature by showing that lack of time can also negatively affect other knowledge-related activities, such as the implementation of knowledge in project teams. 5.1.2.3 Summary To summarise, it appears to be challenging to affect the time barrier for knowledge implementation activities. Time challenges are discussed in existing team and knowledge literature, a nd also represent a major barrier in this study. The four indirect determinants intrinsic motivation, staffing, proximity between sender and receiver, and collaboration among project teams, show how the time constraint is affected in this study. 72 Figure 10: Time Resources of Individuals as a Determinant f or Knowledge Implementation, compiled by authors 5.1.3 Prioritisation 5 .1.3.1 Direct The e mpirical findings e mphasise that the project t eam setting creates p rioritisation issues for the team members a s the majority of them commit most of their time to their line organisation. For i nstance, a n umber of respondents expressed difficulties in incorporating t heir t asks o f the project team into their schedules. C onsidering that the tasks in the project teams are in parallel to their engagement in their line departments, this setting creates difficulties in determining what should be prioritised a nd how to p roceed. A s a result, the prioritisation issues a re emphasised to h ave a negative effect on the degree of e ngagement in the p roject teams. Included in the tasks of the project teams is the i mplementation of k nowledge about strategy, tools, and f ramework. By having to p rioritise other tasks, it c an be argued t hat prioritisation plays a significant role in the degree of knowledge implementation in project teams. T heory argues that knowledge processes, mostly connected to knowledge sharing, are usually seen as additional t asks i n project teams (Mueller 2014). The findings extend current literature by also incorporating that not o nly sharing, but a lso the implementation of knowledge, is seen as an additional task in t he project t eams. The findings demonstrate that t he limitations in knowledge implementation in the project teams can be c onnected to prioritisation issues. 73 5 .1.3.2 Indirect E xtrinsic Motivation Some respondents argued that a lack of promotion and c areer opportunities when participating in t he project teams l ed to t hem p utting l ess p riority on their p roject t eam w ork, because they saw n o incentive i n participating. Hung, D urcikova, L ai & Lin (2011) p ropose t hat e mployees are limited in, among other f actors, time and t herefore reflect on i f their contribution to knowledge-related a ctivities i s rewarded by e xtrinsic factors such as e conomic rewards. Applying t his p roposal in the underlying team context that is highly related to knowledge-related a ctivities m ight explain why a l ack o f extrinsic m otivation l eads to lower priority of t he project team tasks f or some respondents. Since there i s no career opportunity, c ontribution to the project team work is regarded as less attractive. Managerial Support , S taffing and Cross-Functionality The e mpirical findings s how t hat p rioritisation issues c ould be decreased by managerial support. T he support from the project team manager helped the t eam t o prioritise tasks in t heir different d epartments. This was especially emphasised in the project team where the team members have their p roject t eam m anager a s their line manager as w ell. From the m anager’s perspective, this unified oversight o f the t eam m embers' tasks in t heir different d epartments, e nables t hem t o better s upport t hem i n prioritising t asks. This ensures that each project team member's w orkload and w orking h ours are e ffectively balanced. I t was e mphasised t hat t he managerial support assisted t he project team members to s tructure their t asks to become more efficient a nd complete m ore t asks in the project team successfully. This is i n line with findings from Sarin a nd McDermott (2003), who a rgue that leaders who g ive t he team members clear s tructure, a lso i n form of objectives and goals, i ncrease learning and knowledge i mplementation in teams. The f indings further nuance t his v iew b y arguing that structure f rom l eaders s upports team members in p rioritisation issues, which eventually affects knowledge implementation. T hus, it can be argued that this structure o f the p roject t eam h as an i nfluence on p rioritisation and t herefore indirectly affects the knowledge i mplementation. The importance of managerial support can be strengthened by theory that argues f or the importance of l eadership i n the c ontext o f knowledge p rocesses and their contribution of focus a nd incentives to r each team objectives (Lowik, Kraaijenbrink & Groen 2016; Olivier & Kandadi 2006). T his r einforces t he importance of s trong leadership in t he successful execution of project teams, as it allows for effective delegation of tasks. 7 4 Further, t he empirical data show that prioritisation issues were decreased i f managerial s upport was accompanied by a successful s taffing approach of the t eams. The p roject teams t hat emphasised considerable benefits of m anagerial support, also showed to be staffed in a way t hat f acilitated m anagerial support as the team m embers’ m anager acted a s manager in their line organisation simultaneously. T hus, the findings demonstrate when team members have different managers in the team and line organisation, it can r esult in administrative c hallenges. T his, i n turn, raises t he complexities faced b y managers when i t comes to prioritising their team members' tasks. Proximity between Sender and Receiver Additionally, the e mpirical findings suggest that there is a relationship between the proximity of sender and receiver and the p rioritisation issues expressed by t he receiving units. In particular, proximity w as highlighted as having positive effects w hen the project team f aced difficulties prioritising between their line department and the project t eam. This e ffect could be a voided w ith the presence of the sending u nit. In such cases, the sending u nit could p rovide the necessary guidance, e nsuring that t he project team was aligned with the sending unit’s agenda. This c an be strengthened b y Kulkarni, Ravindran a nd Freeze ( 2006), who argue for t he importance of support from the sending unit to what extent the receiving unit is i mplementing knowledge. The findings of t his study b uild on this theory and propose t hat the sending unit is insofar important, as it can affect prioritisation dilemmas of the receivers. In addition, the sending unit expressed the importance o f having some kind of a framework b etween sender and receiver, t hat c ontributed w ith some structure i n what e xtent the s ending u nit s hould influence the receiving unit’s work. Figuring out t o what e xtent the s ending unit could engage with the project teams was emphasised as c hallenging. This was due to two causes; firstly, the project team was s et to become increasingly autonomous as they became more mature. As a consequence, the sending u nit w as unsure h ow much structure they should provide t o the receiving unit w ithout affecting their autonomy. Thus, i t can be a rgued that the sending unit can h ave influence on the p rioritisation of t he project team. However, t he sending unit m ust l imit t heir engagement t o prevent n egative e ffects on t he project teams, such as delimiting their creativity. In c onclusion, p roximity between s ender and receiver can h ave an i nfluence on how the project teams structure t heir tasks and p rioritise them accordingly, which a ffects the degree of h ow much team members c ould c ontribute t o knowledge implementation activities. It is i mportant that the sending unit takes active a ctions in p ushing the project teams in prioritising their t asks in the p roject teams. This 75 s hould however b e conducted with caution of n ot influencing the receiving u nit too extensively. This can be strengthened by theory suggesting that p roject teams that remain in knowledge-intensive settings, prosper if they are given a h igh amount of autonomy and independence (Mueller 2014). The empirical findings further contribute to theory by illustrating the complexity of giving project teams the right amount of autonomy and independence regarding knowledge implementation activities. 5.1.3.3 Summary As a result of the findings, Figure 11 shows that prioritisation affects knowledge implementation in a project team s etting. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that prioritisation is further influenced by other determinants, including team and socialisation determinants, which therefore indirectly influence knowledge implementation. Figure 11: Prioritisation Issues of Individuals as a Determinant for Knowledge Implementation, compiled by authors 76 5.1.4 Alignment with Operations 5.1.4.1 Direct The fit between the characteristics o f knowledge and i ts practical implementation is argued by Argote, McEvily and Reagans ( 2003) to have an influence o n performance outcomes. The e mpirical findings show t hat t he alignment of t he acquired knowledge with operations of the p roject team members affected the d egree of knowledge implementation among t hem. F or instance, t he project teams expressed challenges in applying theory into practice, a s they h ad troubles to concretise the theoretical aspects that they learned about into practical o utcomes. As a result, the challenges for the project teams in implementing the k nowledge into their operations was emphasised by several project team m embers to have an impact on the d egree of the implementation. Szulanski (2000) l abelled t his c hallenge as overcoming t he technological g ap, c aused by language difficulties, d iffering standards of different c ultures, or varying coding s chemes. Even though t he sending and receiving unit i n the case study had t he same organisational context, the d ifferences o n a micro-level led to this technological g ap. I t is further argued in theory t hat the properties o f knowledge can h ave a significant impact on the e xtent to which transferred knowledge will be a cquired and applied i n the receiving unit. Nonaka (1991) a sserts that tacit knowledge, as opposed to explicit knowledge, i s increasingly difficult t o transfer. The findings of this study highlight the d ifficulties faced by project teams in implementing k nowledge, primarily a ttributed to the complexity involved i n translating theoretical concepts i nto practical application. Consequently, it c an be argued that d ue to the tacitness of certain parts of the transferred knowledge, challenges in terms of i ts transferability and successful i mplementation w ere faced in t he project teams. Furthermore, S zulanski (1996) argues t hat the use o f knowledge is affected by the uncertainty of its c haracteristics, such as tacitness or d ifficulties of understanding its context. As a result, it is possible to emphasise that t he ability to align the transferred k nowledge with existing operations is a significant determinant of knowledge implementation. The c haracteristics of the a lignment with operations show to have similarities w ith the RACAP dimension that Zahra and G eorge (2002) label transformation dimension, the s econd part of RACAP besides exploitation . T ransformation is d efined as t he ability to connect the existing knowledge s tock w ith t he newly received knowledge. As the findings demonstrate that r espondents have difficulties t ranslating t he new knowledge i nto t heir d aily operations, therefore connecting n ew and o ld knowledge, it can b e argued that alignment with operations is a similar concept to the transformation dimension. The authors c haracterise exploitation as “incorporating acquired and t ransformed k nowledge” (Zahra & George 2002, p. 1 90), which 77 i s interpreted in t his s tudy as that transformation i s a preceding p hase to exploitation . Beyond t hat, it is n ot explicitly explained how t ransformation and e xploitation a re linked to each other. Based on t he findings o f this study however, t his thought can b e developed b y proposing that transformation has a direct e ffect on exploitation , as t he findings s how t hat a lignment with operations affects knowledge implementation. 5.1.4.2 Indirect Prior Experience The theory a rgues that prior e xperience i.e. pre-existing s kill set o r knowledge s tock, has an influential i mpact on t he r eceiving unit’s ability to absorb knowledge and i mplement it i n their work (Minbaeva 2007; A rgote, M cEvily & R eagans 2 003). As p roposed by Zahra a nd George (2002) the a bsorptive c apacity of the receiver is d ependent on i ts ability to n ot only a cquire n ew knowledge but a lso t o apply the knowledge i n the r eceiver’s d aily work. G upta and G ovindarajan (2000) further argue t hat p rior related knowledge i s important to increase t he recipient’s A CAP b y increasing the a bility t o identify and implement relevant knowledge. The findings confirm this and show that prior experience w as emphasised to h ave a n indirect impact on the implementation of k nowledge in the p roject t eams. Prior e xperience i s decreasing the perceived c omplexity o f the transferred knowledge and f acilitating its transformation into daily a ctivities, because knowledge receivers w ith a h igher expertise can f all b ack o n previous experience c ompared to inexperienced knowledge receivers. By having prior knowledge about the topic, the p roject t eam m embers e mphasised how t his f acilitated their understanding o f how t he knowledge should b e implemented in t he daily w ork, and t herefore increase the k nowledge’s alignment w ith t heir operations. This is i n line with Minbaeva ( 2007) who argues t hat t he employee o f an organisation must possess the r ight skills to acquire and apply the knowledge to meet the organisational objectives. Perception of Learning Activities In addition t o prior experience, t he empirical findings show that t he learning a ctivities o ffered t o the p roject t eams had a n impact o n translating t he new knowledge i nto t heir daily operations. T he learning a ctivities t herefore h ad an i ndirect effect o n the k nowledge i mplementation, because they were decisive for f acilitating the alignment w ith o perations. The e mpirical data show that there are b oth p ositive and n egative aspects to a ccount f or related to t he learning activities. On o ne hand, s ome o f the r espondents expressed t hat t he variety of l earning activities facilitated t heir understanding of t he knowledge. On t he other 7 8 hand, s everal respondents expressed the d ifficulties of the practical implementation o f the knowledge, even though t hey u nderstood t he learning material. Thus, the l earning activities s howed to f acilitate a better theoretical understanding of the t asks and o bjectives in t he project teams, b ut they sometimes lacked the ability to facilitate practical implementation of t he knowledge. As a result, knowledge i mplementation c an be e mphasised to b e indirectly affected by the characteristics of t he learning activities, b ecause l earning a ctivities o f high q uality h elp r eceivers to understand how to connect it to e xisting o perations, thus ensuring alignment w ith operations. D rawn from t his a nalysis from the empirical d ata, it can b e argued t hat the findings confirm existing literature about DCAP, t hat a rgues that DCAP comprises t he ability to “efficiently, effectively and convincingly frame k nowledge in a way that other people c an understand accurately and p ut into practice” ( Tang, Mu & MacLachlan 2010, p.1586). P roximity between the Sender and Receiver and Feedback Theory argues that there i s a d istinct connection between t he sender and receiver r elationship and k nowledge implementation (Argote, M cEvily, R eagans 2 003; Gupta & Govindarajan 2 000; Alavi & Leidner 2001). Based o n the e mpirical findings, r espondents i n the r eceiving units have expressed the importance of c lose proximity to t he sending units in understanding how t o align received knowledge with their operations. Furthermore, t he interpersonal relationship b etween the sender a nd receiver was emphasised as facilitating b etter integration of k nowledge in the daily activities and b etter collaboration between the s ender and r eceiver. This was e nabled b y weekly meetings t hat a llowed for discussions regarding the implementation of the knowledge i nto the operations. Szulanski ( 1996) argues that knowledge transfer r equires p ersonal communication, particular when parts of the transferred knowledge h ave t acit c omponents. The “ intimacy of the overall relationship between the s ource unit and the recipient unit” (Szulanski 1996, p. 3 2) is influencing the success r ate o f this knowledge transfer f rom p erson to person. This study nuances Szulanski’s (1996) findings by arguing that it i s also a pplicable t o the knowledge implementation process, a differentiation t hat S zulanski (1996) d oes n ot account for. Proximate r elations between knowledge sender and r eceiver have b een a rgued also by other s cholars t o serve as an e nabler o f knowledge sharing and learning in organisations (Argote, McEvily and R eagans 2 003). This study further extends these insights b y arguing t hat f or knowledge i mplementation, proximity b etween s ender and r eceiver affects the individual’s ability to align the transferred knowledge with their daily operations. 79 Related to the proximity between sender a nd receiver, f eedback f rom the knowledge r eceiver to the k nowledge sender was identified to impact t he alignment w ith operations. G iving feedback on, for example, how certain tools did n ot work, started an implementation p rocess of t hat feedback i nto the knowledge a nd changed it, so t hat t he implementation of t he altered and aligned knowledge w as facilitated. By d oing this, the teams w ere o vercoming the technological gap, because they aligned their coding schemes and language (Szulanski 2000). Proximity among Team Members and between Project Teams In addition to the importance o f proximity between the sending a nd receiving u nits, the empirical data indicate that the p roximity within t he project team played a significant role in aligning the transferred knowledge w ith their o perations.. This w as expressed by the p roject team members as they saw interaction within the team and support from their manager as important facilitators in h ow they implemented the k nowledge. Furthermore, the proximity in the p roject team increased the interpersonal relationships b etween the team members a nd an environment was established where the project t eam m embers had the c onfidence and trust in their team members to a sk for c larification or h elp in i nterpreting and implementing the k nowledge. Hence, team proximity played an important role for the i ndividual team members in increasing and understanding the alignment with their operations. Furthermore, several of the r espondents a rgued for the important role t hat i nteraction a nd collaboration between the different p roject t eams played. T he collaboration was emphasised as i mportant due t o the fact that the p roject t eams were a ll considered as ‘receivers’ of t he knowledge. By interaction and c ollaboration, the project teams could share t heir challenges in i mplementing the k nowledge. Thus, c ollaboration between project teams was a n important activity t hat increased the receiving unit’s ability to implement the knowledge by understanding how to t ranslate the n ew knowledge into t heir daily operations. The t heory argues that t eam activities, including workshops a nd other social e vents, have an i nfluential r ole in f acilitating the outcome of k nowledge-related a ctivities. M ueller (2014) emphasises how such social i nteractions affect i nteractions among project teams. The findings in t his study b uild upon t hat argumentation, b y emphasising that interactions, both within and between project teams can facilitate implementation of knowledge. The findings further showed e vidence on physical distance as challenging f or some respondents. On s ome occasions, remote work seemed to hamper knowledge implementation, because i t was more difficult f or employees to clarify questions about alignment with operations, as spontaneous and i mmediate discussions between employees t hat are physically 80 apart f rom e ach o ther were a ggravated. Even though KM w as facilitated t hrough v arious systems, i ncluding email, chat channels, v ideo c onference t ools, sharepoint websites, internal learning websites, centrally s aved presentations, etc., it w as still c hallenging for some respondents t o overcome the liability of g eographical distance. Edmonson and Nembhard (2009) i dentified g eographically dispersed teams a s a challenge t o team effectiveness, as “collaborative i nquiry” (Edmondson & N embhard 2009) on-site facilitated p roblem-solving. The findings of t his s tudy extend this theoretical a pproach by applying the knowledge-lens to i t. In l ine w ith E dmondson & Nembhard (2009), this theory can therefore be developed by proposing t hat g eographically d ispersed teams m ight face knowledge implementation c hallenges, because less collaborative i nquiry a bout how t o translate the acquired knowledge into daily operations takes place. Jasimuddin (2007) f urther emphasised the challenge t hat c omes with geographical distance b etween s ender and receiver, as f ace-to-face interaction a llows for natural e xchange of knowledge and i deas and it f osters n atural c onversations t o start. Alavi a nd Tiwana (2002) p ropose t hat K M Systems, being IT i nfrastructure for K M activities, enhances knowledge implementation in virtual teams. Some 20 years l ater, with an exponential d evelopment of IT i nfrastructure a nd hence t he researchers’ p erception that the KM Systems in t he case company are h ighly advanced, this study therefore contradicts the p roposal by Alavi a nd Tiwana (2002), a s it was found that the mere existence of r ich K M Systems (e.g. the learning platforms that exist in the case setting) does not guarantee success. This has, however, been perceived e ntirely differently among t he respondents, m ainly due to prior experience as this study shows. Cross-Functionality Building on Alavi a nd Leidner (2001), who state that too h omogeneous team compilations l imit knowledge creation p rocesses, i t was f ound that p roject t eams with members from different departments a lso c ould enhance knowledge implementation p rocesses. T his c ross-functional compilation w as emphasised to e nable the t eams to contribute with different perspectives, w hich helps them in r ealising the alignment with operations of t he knowledge. Apart from contributing to better understanding o f how t o use t he strategic models and tools, t he cross-functionality also contributed to b etter discussions i n the t eam to f acilitate b etter processes and p rovide new perspectives b y discussing adjustments of certain parts o f the k nowledge or p articular challenges they face when implementing it into their processes and o perations. Thus, cross-functionality of project teams c an be argued to improve teams' ability 81 to implement knowledge as it facilitates a better understanding and alignment with operations. Staffing and Managerial Support Having the same team and line organisation manager facilitated discussions about how to align the learning with the respondents’ respective operations and tasks, because managers and team members possessed a similar knowledge stock, as they were all working in the same field. The teams could therefore overcome the technological gap (Szulanski 2000) more easily, because they shared the same language and coding schemes when discussing what they were learning. Similarly, the expertise and support by the team leaders could facilitate the translation of the transferred knowledge into the respondents’ operations and routines. Sarin and McDermott (2003) analysed these team leader characteristics on learning processes and knowledge application and found no relation between managers that set structures on how to apply knowledge with an increased success of knowledge application in teams. The findings of this study contradict this finding and argue that when team leaders demonstrate how to align transferred knowledge with daily operations, and by this giving the knowledge implementation process a structure, it positively affects the knowledge implementation process. 5.1.4.3 Summary As a result of the above analysis, Figure 12 shows that alignment with operations directly affected the degree of knowledge implementation in a project team setting. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that alignment with operations itself is influenced by several indirect determinants, including individual, team and socialisation determinants. Therefore, it can be argued that the determinants in the left column of the below figure indirectly affect knowledge implementation. 82 F igure 12: Alignment with Operations as a Determinant for Knowledge Implementation, compiled by authors 5.2 Interpretation of the Analysis Mueller (2014) a rgues that one of the reasons for the surprisingly little amount of research on h ow s uccessful knowledge sharing between teams is affected, is the assumption of researchers a nd s cholars t hat individuals act on behalf of t heir organisation, and it would be therefore paradox that research on individual knowledge s haring determinants is not sufficient to understand t he d eterminants of knowledge sharing on a t eam-level. As organisational learning theory s uggests, the concept o f OL cannot be e xplained by j ust summarising all individual actions a nd c ompetences, much r ather it is necessary to take into account the reciprocity o f individual learning activities and experiences, and also the organisational context in which OL takes p lace (Mueller 2014). K nowledge sharing b etween project teams i s therefore r egarded “ as a n activity that p roject team m embers conduct and that influences the group, while being influenced b y the group” (Mueller 2014, p. 191). T he 8 3 underlying analysis o n how p roject t eam s ettings affect k nowledge implementation b uilds on t his a rgumentation a nd confirms t hese findings and assumptions. E ven t hough knowledge implementation is e vident t hrough t he change of organisational r outines and p rocesses (Zahra & George 2 002), the action o f implementing i s eventually conducted b y individuals. I t is therefore relatable t hat m any s tudies f ocus on knowledge management topics o n an individual level (Nonaka 1991; Tang 2011; Mariano & Walter 2015). The f our d irect determinants that affect k nowledge implementation a nd were identified in t his s tudy, are all o riginating and r esiding in the individual employee. A lignment with operations, or t he ability of t ranslating somewhat theoretical l earnings into practical use, as well as i ntrinsic motivation, t ime, and p rioritisation are d etermining the d egree of k nowledge implementation o n an individual level. However, as t he findings c onfirm, the d egree and the a bility o f implementing k nowledge into one’s i ndividual r outines and p rocesses is s trongly influenced by the project team setting through team and s ocialisation d eterminants. T he findings d emonstrate how d irect knowledge implementation determinants are i n themselves affected by i ndividual, team, and socialisation determinants. Minbaeva et a l. (2003) demonstrated a s imilar a pproach to explain how A CAP a ffects k nowledge transfer. While ACAP has a direct e ffect on k nowledge transfer, ACAP in itself is determined by o ther factors that therefore h ave a n indirect effect on knowledge transfer. O pposing the a pproach by Gupta a nd Govindarajan (2000), who c hose to study k nowledge flows w ithin MNCs on a n odal level, m eaning t hat t he authors focused on t he behaviour of an i ndividual u nit, the f indings of this study p ropose t hat a c ombined approach of s tudying the p henomena of k nowledge management in M NCs o n a nodal and dyadic l evel can l ead t o deeper u nderstanding o f underlying knowledge i mplementation success determinants. Nodal and dyadic l evel hereby c ombines the a pproach of (1) studying units o n an individual level a nd (2) studying the joint behaviour of unit pairs. To understand the interrelation between individual, team, a nd socialisation determinants in the study, t his n odal-dyadic approach i s critical. 5 .3 Revision of the Conceptual Model The analysis of t he empirical findings shows t hat s ome a lterations and a lignments t o the i nitial c onceptual m odel from chapter 2.8 a re to b e conducted. It has been demonstrated t hat i ndividual, team, and socialisation determinants a re important factors that affect k nowledge in d ifferent ways. S till, solely observing t hese three groups of determinants and r elating them 84 s eparately t o knowledge i mplementation success does not guarantee holistic, v aluable insights i nto t he complex and rich concept of K M. It i s further of u tmost importance t o emphasise t he relationship between the determinants, as w ell a s how they are l inked to knowledge i mplementation. T his d ifferentiation b etween d irect and indirect l inks is a conceptualisation that was n ot accounted for after reviewing existing l iterature f rom t he knowledge field. Thus, a revised c onceptual m odel is p resented below i n Figure 1 3, taking into account findings from both the t heoretical framework as w ell a s the e mpirical f indings and analysis of these. Figure 13: Revised Conceptual Model, compiled by authors The revised conceptual model d iffers from the m odel based on t he theoretical framework i nsofar t hat it accounts f or the important dimension o f indirect and direct determinants o f knowledge implementation. For v isualisation purposes, t he determinants are not n amed in t he conceptual m odel. They are presented i n Figure 8 in chapter 5.1 and in the respective subchapters 5 .1.1 - 5.1.4 w hich are e ach summarised with a respective figure. The revised conceptual model i ncorporates insights from the l iterature review o f existing t heory, a nd at the same time reflects the reality of the underlying case study. 8 5 6 Conclusion 6.1 Main Findings T his c ase study has examined how project teams a ffect k nowledge implementation in an M NC with t he purpose to contribute to existing literature on knowledge management and project teams a nd fill a n existing research gap o f investigating knowledge implementation o n a project team-level. F or this p urpose, the a uthors h ave d eveloped a c onceptual m odel that is b ased on a literature r eview of project teams in o rganisations, knowledge implementation a nd related c oncepts, such a s knowledge m anagement, absorptive capacity, and applied a project team-level lens t o it. T o apply t his c onceptual m odel in a p ractical setting, the a uthors c onducted semi-structured interviews with various m embers o f different project teams o f a Swedish MNC that gave new i nsights into how project team characteristics affect knowledge i mplementation in t hese teams. The g athered data was codified into s everal t hemes, based on t he conceptual m odel, and sorted into three main categories: individual, t eam, and s ocialisation. In o rder to answer how project teams a ffect knowledge implementation, determinants were analysed a nd a distinction was m ade b etween f our determinants t hat directly affected k nowledge i mplementation, a nd eleven determinants that indirectly affected k nowledge implementation, as they rather affected the four direct determinants. “How are project teams affecting knowledge implementation in an MNC?” The results of the study s how t hat p roject teams affect knowledge implementation i n an MNC through an i nterplay of d ifferent d eterminants that a re based o n an i ndividual, team, and socialisation level. The analysis shows that only individual determinants, being intrinsic m otivation of individuals, time, p rioritisation, and the individual ability to a lign new knowledge w ith e xisting operations, h ave a direct e ffect on knowledge i mplementation. T hese findings show t o be in l ine with existing literature o n knowledge m anagement. However, t he analysis f urther s hows that other d eterminants r elated t o the project team setting, m ainly on a n intra-team and inter-team level i n the f orm of team and socialisation determinants, b ut also further individual d eterminants, have a significant i nfluence on t hese four direct determinants. The findings show t hat i ndirect determinants such as proximity between sender and receiver or cross-functional compilation o f project teams h ave c ritical implications on above mentioned d irect determinants which i n their t urn d irectly affect knowledge i mplementation, f or instance intrinsic m otivation or prioritisation. It i s therefore 8 6 n ecessary to a pply a holistic approach t o studies of knowledge implementation, a s a fragmented analysis o f individuals does not account for the richness of the k nowledge management concept. 6.2 Theoretical Contributions The p urpose of this t hesis was to contribute to existing literature on t he b road concept of knowledge m anagement and f ill the e xisting literature gaps regarding knowledge implementation and p roject teams. The f indings of this study y ielded several significant t heoretical contributions. These c ontributions provide valuable insights i nto t he relationship between project teams and the successful implementation of knowledge within organisations. By synthesising existing literature o n project teams and k nowledge implementation, this s tudy enriched the c onceptualisation o f this theoretical f ield. The analysis has i dentified key determinants that influence the effectiveness of p roject teams in facilitating knowledge implementation a nd h ow they relate to e ach o ther. T he authors f urther p roposed a refined c onceptual model that encompasses the complex interplay between individual, team, a nd s ocialisation d eterminants a nd h ow knowledge implementation in p roject teams connect t o related concepts, such as k nowledge t ransfer and absorptive c apacity, t hat c an be a pplied and t ested in future research. T hrough the e mpirical r esearch, t he authors identified a nd e mphasised several critical success factors that u nderpin effective knowledge implementation w ithin project teams. The findings highlight t he importance o f team composition, leadership s tyles, collaboration, and i ndividual c haracteristics in supporting k nowledge implementation efforts. T hese determinants contribute to a more comprehensive u nderstanding of how project t eams can o ptimise their performance and enhance knowledge implementation. T he analysis further demonstrated the significance of approaching knowledge implementation studies in a combined approach o f individual- a nd team-level, instead of i nvestigating these dimensions i n isolation. E ven t hough t he findings partially correlate with existing l iterature and d emonstrate that k nowledge r esides in individuals and t herefore k nowledge i mplementation is an activity that takes p lace on a n individual level, it is critical t o take into account the effects that a p roject t eam s etting has on individual k nowledge i mplementation activities. As t here exist many s tudies that do not clearly d ifferentiate between the different knowledge m anagement activities, e.g. dissemination, assimilation, or 8 7 i mplementation (Mills & Smith 2011), it c an be a rgued that t he findings can potentially be s ignificant for studies regarding other knowledge management activities as well. This study further s heds light into the c oncept o f ACAP and its two blocks, PACAP and RACAP ( Zahra & G eorge 2 002). The findings d emonstrate the relationship between knowledge management and ACAP and provide a detailed view on R ACAP. Based o n the analysis, this study s hows how t ransformation, in t he form o f the a bility to align knowledge with operations and tasks, i s affecting exploitation , p roviding a f oundation for further research in this field. Lastly, this study a rgues for a combined approach o f nodal and dyadic analysis i n knowledge implementation s tudies (Gupta & Govindarajan 2 000), as the f indings reveal that the interrelation between s tudying units o n an individual l evel (nodal) a nd studying t he joint behaviour of unit p airs (dyadic) yields new findings and c onnections that have so far b een overlooked. To u nderstand the interrelation between individual, team, and socialisation d eterminants in the underlying study, this nodal-dyadic approach is critical. 6 .3 Managerial Implications The f indings in this study can be transferred into a number of m anagerial implications. It f urther emphasises that the setting of project t eams can b ring both opportunities and c hallenges f or organisations. These findings can contribute to i ncreased m anagerial understanding on t he topic of knowledge implementation and h ow i t is affected in the setting of project teams. A key finding of this s tudy is t he challenge that project t eams face by t heir members only being engaged in t he project t eam p art t ime. This structure is contributing w ith constraints i n time and prioritisation among the team members. A s a result, the empirical findings a nd analysis s how that knowledge implementation i n the p roject teams i s limited due to challenges i n allocating the amount of time needed to f ulfil t he tasks accordingly in the p roject teams and challenges in p rioritisation b etween tasks in t he project t eam a nd l ine o rganisation. The analysis shows potential opportunities to overcome these liabilities. Another f inding e ncapsules how t he p roject teams are staffed. The findings of this s tudy emphasise t hat committed approaches to s taffing of project t eams can increase t heir ability to i mplement k nowledge. The f indings imply t hat cross-functionality, m anagerial support and team proximity improve this ability in the t eams. I t is therefore recommended for 8 8 m anagers and o rganisations w ith s imilar project team settings, t o reflect upon staffing d ecisions in the light of their effect on knowledge implementation. In addition, proximity has b een e mphasised i n the e mpirical f indings as a facilitator f or knowledge implementation. This includes both the proximity between sender and r eceiver and proximity o n a team level. F or managers and p ractitioners i t is therefore recommended t o evaluate the relationships between the organisational u nits and p romote proximity b etween t hem to increase organisational performance through knowledge implementation. T he analysis f urther s hows that organisations face dilemmas when aiming t o affect the k nowledge implementation s uccess through project team settings. I t becomes, f or example, e vident w hen o bserving a cross-functional c ompilation of p roject t eams. T his c ross-functionality, on the one hand, facilitates t he individual’s ability to a lign acquired knowledge with their individual o perations and p rocesses, b ut on the o ther hand can b ear t ime c onstraints that might l imit knowledge i mplementation activities. I t is therefore important for m anagers to evaluate respective settings o f project teams carefully, as t hey need to account for these dilemmas. I n a concluding manner, managers n eed t o be aware that knowledge i mplementation is a n activity t hat i s conducted b y the i ndividual employee. I t is therefore necessary t o acknowledge a nd consider e ach i ndividual’s a bilities and strengths t o maximise the value o f knowledge management. 6 .4 Limitations and Future Research This study i nvestigated h ow project teams a ffect knowledge implementation b y conducting a case study within a m ultinational c orporation, gathering data mainly through semi-structured i nterviews. While t he research a imed to provide v aluable insights, it is i mportant to acknowledge certain limitations t hat m ay h ave i nfluenced t he research p rocess a nd t he interpretation o f findings. T hese limitations s hould be considered when interpreting the r esults. Firstly, the generalisability of t he findings m ay be l imited due t o the s tudy's f ocus on a single case within one M NC. The u nique context, organisational culture, a nd specific c haracteristics o f the s elected company may r estrict the applicability of the results to o ther organisations or i ndustries. Secondly, the s ample size of t welve respondents from four different t eams within t he MNC may impact t he representativeness of the entire organisation. While e fforts w ere made to select participants f rom d iverse roles and responsibilities, the limited number of individuals i nvolved may a ffect t he breadth and depth o f the d ata 8 9 c ollected. Consequently, the insights obtained may not fully capture the perspectives and experiences of all relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, the selection of teams within the MNC was limited due to availability and willingness to participate, which may introduce a selection bias. T he chosen project teams may not be fully representative of the entire organisation, potentially impacting the generalisability of the findings. It is important to acknowledge that including a broader range of teams could have yielded different perspectives and outcomes. Thirdly, this study focuses on the effects of project teams on knowledge implementation. The effects of the analysed determinants on related concepts, such as the knowledge reception, have not been accounted for and might be subject for future research. Future research can further investigate if the findings of this study can be generalised quantitatively. By applying the presented revised conceptual framework in other contexts and testing for statistical significance, the transferability of this study could be increased and demonstrated. Furthermore, it is interesting to investigate different settings of project teams. For example, as the members of the project teams in the underlying study generally demonstrated high previous knowledge in data, future research can focus on project teams that are facing entirely new knowledge fields. Additionally, future research might incorporate mixed-methods approaches, combining qualitative and quantitative research methods, as these can offer a more comprehensive understanding of knowledge implementation in teams. Combining in-depth interviews or case studies with surveys or quantitative analyses can provide a broader perspective and triangulation of findings, enhancing the validity and reliability of the research. 90 R eferences Ahmad, F. & Karim, M. (2019). I mpacts o f knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future research. Journal of Workplace Learning . Akgün, A . E., Lynn, G. S. & Byrne, J. C. (2003). Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive f ramework. Human Relations, 56 , 839-868. A lavi, M. & Leidner, D. E . (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly , 107-136. Alavi, M. & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual t eams: The potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53 , 1029-1037. A lvesson, M. & Kärreman, D. ( 2001). O dd Couple: M aking Sense of t he C urious C oncept of Knowledge Management. Journal of management studies, 38 , 995-1018 Apriliyanti, I. D. & Alon, I. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of absorptive c apacity. International Business Review, 26, 896-907. Argote, L. & Ingram, P. (2000). K nowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage i n firms. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82 , 150-169. Argote, L. & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22 , 1123-1137. Argote, L ., I ngram, P ., L evine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L. (2000). Knowledge transfer in organizations: L earning f rom the experience of o thers. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82 , 1-8. A rgote, L., M cEvily, B . & Reagans, R. (2003). Managing Knowledge i n Organizations: An I ntegrative Framework and Review o f Emerging T hemes. Management Science, 49 , 571-582. Attride-Stirling, J. ( 2001). Thematic n etworks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 1 , 385-405. B alle, A. R., Oliveira, M. & Marques Curado, C. M. ( 2020). K nowledge sharing and absorptive c apacity: interdependency and complementarity. Journal of Knowledge M anagement, 24 , 1 943-1964. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and S ustained Competitive A dvantage. Journal of Management, 17 , 99-120. Basten, D. & Haamann, T. (2018). Approaches for organizational learning: A literature review. Sage Open, 8, 2158244018794224. 91 B ell, E., B ryman, A. & Harley, B. ( 2019). Business research methods , O xford : O xford University Press. Bell, S . T., Villado, A. J ., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L. & B riggs, A . L. ( 2011). G etting s pecific about d emographic diversity variable a nd team performance relationships: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 3 7, 709-743. Birkinshaw, J., B rannen, M. Y. & Tung, R. L . (2011). From a distance and g eneralizable t o up c lose and g rounded: R eclaiming a p lace for qualitative methods in international b usiness research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 , 573-581. B rix, J. ( 2017). E xploring k nowledge creation processes as a source of o rganizational learning: A longitudinal case study of a public i nnovation project. Scandinavian Journal of M anagement, 33 , 113-127. C assiman, B . & Veugelers, R . (2006). In search of c omplementarity i n innovation strategy: Internal R & D and external knowledge acquisition. Management S cience, 52 , 68-82. Cohen, S. G. & Bailey, D. E. ( 1997). What makes teams work: Group e ffectiveness research from t he shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of M anagement, 23 , 239-290. Cohen, W. M. & L evinthal, D. A. ( 1990). A bsorptive Capacity: A N ew P erspective on L earning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 , 128-152. Curado, C., Oliveira, M., M açada, A. C. G . & Nodari, F. ( 2017). T eams’ innovation: Getting there t hrough k nowledge s haring a nd absorptive c apacity. Knowledge Management R esearch & Practice, 15 , 45-53. Doz, Y. (2011). Q ualitative research f or international b usiness. Journal of International Business S tudies, 42 , 582-590. D u Plessis, Y. & Hoole, C. (2006). A n operational'project management culture'framework (part 1). SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 4 , 3 6-43. Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). S ystematic c ombining: an abductive approach t o case research. Journal of business research, 5 5, 553-560. Easterby‐Smith, M., Lyles, M . A. & T sang, E . W. (2008). I nter‐organizational knowledge transfer: Current themes and future prospects. Journal of management studies, 4 5 , 6 77-690. Edmondson, A. C . & Nembhard, I. M . Product development a nd l earning in project t eams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2009. 123-138. F erreira, J., Mueller, J. & Papa, A. (2020). Strategic knowledge management: t heory, p ractice and future challenges. Journal of knowledge management, 2 4, 121-126. Foss, N . J. & P edersen, T . (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs: T he r ole o f sources of s ubsidiary knowledge and o rganizational context. J ournal o f International Management, 8, 49-67. 9 2 G aviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J. M. & Baier-Fuentes, H. ( 2019). Knowledge management: A global e xamination based on bibliometric a nalysis. T echnological Forecasting a nd S ocial Change, 1 40 , 194-220. Gilson, L. L ., Maynard, M. T ., Jones Young, N. C., Vartiainen, M. & Hakonen, M. (2015). V irtual Teams R esearch: 1 0 Years, 10 Themes, a nd 10 Opportunities. J ournal of Management, 41 , 1313-1337. G iudice, M. D. & Maggioni, V. (2014). Managerial practices and operative directions o f knowledge management within inter-firm n etworks: A global v iew. Journal o f Knowledge Management, 1 8 , 841-846. G rant, R. M. (1996a). Toward a knowledge‐based theory of t he firm. Strategic management journal, 17 , 109-122. G rant, R . M. ( 1996b). Prospering i n dynamically-competitive environments: O rganizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization science, 7 , 3 75-387. Gupta, A. K . & Govindarajan, V . (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic management journal, 21 , 473-496. Hoch, J. E. & Kozlowski, S. W. J . (2014). Leading v irtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, s tructural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied P sychology, 99 , 390-403. Huang, J. C. & Newell, S. ( 2003). Knowledge integration p rocesses a nd d ynamics within the context of c ross-functional projects. International J ournal of Project M anagement, 21 , 1 67-176. Hung, S . Y., Durcikova, A., Lai, H. M. & Lin, W . M. (2011). T he i nfluence o f intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on i ndividuals knowledge sharing b ehavior. I nternational Journal of Human Computer Studies, 69 , 415-427. I nkinen, H. (2016). Review of empirical research on k nowledge m anagement practices and f irm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20 , 2 30-257. Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F . A. J . & Volberda, H. W . (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How d o organizational antecedents m atter? Academy of M anagement Journal, 4 8, 999-1015. Jarvenpaa, S. L . & Leidner, D. E. ( 1999). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual Teams. Organization Science, 1 0 , 791-815. J asimuddin, S. M . (2007). Exploring knowledge transfer mechanisms: The c ase of a UK-based group w ithin a h igh-tech g lobal corporation. I nternational Journal of I nformation Management, 27 , 294-300. Jonsson, A. (2012). K unskapsöverföring och knowledge management , Liber. K im, L. (1998). C risis Construction a nd Organizational Learning: Capability B uilding in C atching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9 , 506-521. 9 3 K ing, W. R. ( 2009). Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning. In: K ing, W. R . (ed.) K nowledge Management and Organizational Learning. Boston, MA: Springer US. K ogut, B. & Zander, U. ( 1992). Knowledge of the firm, c ombinative capabilities, and t he replication of technology. O rganization science, 3, 383-397. Kulkarni, U. R ., Ravindran, S . & Freeze, R . (2006). A knowledge management s uccess model: Theoretical d evelopment and empirical validation. Journal of M anagement Information S ystems, 23 , 3 09-347. Liao, S .-H., C hen, C.-C., Hu, D.-C., Chung, Y .-c. & Yang, M.-J. (2017). D eveloping a sustainable competitive a dvantage: absorptive capacity, knowledge transfer a nd organizational learning. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 4 2 , 1431-1450. Lin, H.-F. (2007). A stage model of knowledge management: a n empirical investigation o f process and effectiveness. J ournal of information Science, 3 3, 6 43-659. Lin, Y . & Wu, L.-Y. (2014). E xploring t he role of dynamic capabilities in f irm performance u nder the resource-based view framework. Journal of business research, 67 , 407-413. L owik, S ., Kraaijenbrink, J. & G roen, A . (2016). The team absorptive c apacity triad: a configurational s tudy of i ndividual, enabling, and motivating factors. Journal of Knowledge M anagement, 20 , 1083-1103. M ahnke, V., Pedersen, T. & Venzin, M . (2005). The Impact of K nowledge M anagement on MNC Subsidiary P erformance: T he Role o f Absorptive Capacity. Management international review, 4 5, 1 01-119. Mariano, S. & W alter, C. (2015). T he construct of absorptive capacity in knowledge management and intellectual capital research: Content a nd t ext a nalyses. J ournal of Knowledge Management, 19 , 372-400. Michailova, S . & Mustaffa, Z. ( 2012). Subsidiary knowledge flows in multinational corporations: Research accomplishments, gaps, and opportunities. J ournal of World Business, 47 , 383-396. M ills, A . M. & Smith, T. A . (2011). Knowledge management a nd o rganizational performance: A d ecomposed view. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15, 1 56-171. Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I., F ey, C. F. & Park, H. J. (2003). M NC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity, and HRM. Journal of international business s tudies, 34 , 586-599. Minbaeva, D. ( 2007). Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporations. MIR: Management International Review, 4 7 , 567-593. M owery, D. C., Oxley, J. E. & Silverman, B. S. (1996). S trategic a lliances a nd interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 1 7, 77-91. 9 4 M udambi, R. (2002). Knowledge management in multinational firms. J ournal of i nternational management, 8 , 1-9. M ueller, J. (2014). A s pecific k nowledge c ulture: C ultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between project teams. European Management Journal, 32 , 1 90-202. Nonaka, I. (1991). The Knowledge-Creating Company. H arvard Business Review, 9 6-104. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory o f organizational k nowledge c reation. Organization s cience, 5 , 14-37. Nonaka, I. & Teece, D . J. ( 2001). Managing industrial knowledge: creation, t ransfer a nd u tilization , Sage. O liver, S. & Kandadi, K. R . (2006). How to develop knowledge c ulture in organizations? A multiple case study of large distributed organizations. Journal of k nowledge management, 10 , 6-24. Osterloh, M. & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, Knowledge Transfer, a nd O rganizational Forms. Organization Science, 11 , 538-550. Pedersen, T., Petersen, B. & Sharma, D . (2003). K nowledge transfer performance of multinational companies. Governing Knowledge-Processes , 69-90. Riege, A. ( 2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must c onsider. J ournal of Knowledge Management, 9, 1 8-35. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J. & Rosen, M. A. ( 2008). On teams, t eamwork, a nd t eam performance: D iscoveries and developments. H uman Factors, 50 , 540-547. Sarin, S. & McDermott, C . (2003). T he E ffect of Team Leader Characteristics on L earning, Knowledge Application, a nd P erformance of Cross-functional New Product Development T eams. Decision Sciences, 34, 707-739. Selivanovskikh, L., Latukha, M., Mitskevich, E. & Pitinov, S. (2020). K nowledge management practices as a s ource of a f irm’s potential and r ealized absorptive capacity. J ournal of East-West Business, 26 , 293-325. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A ., A twater, L. E. & L ink, A. N . (2003). C ommercial knowledge t ransfers from universities t o firms: Improving the e ffectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 1 4 , 111-133. Sroka, W., Cygler, J. & Gajdzik, B. ( 2014). The transfer of k nowledge in intra-organizational n etworks: A case study analysis. Organizacija, 47 , 24-34. Sung, S. Y. & Choi, J. N . (2012). Effects of t eam knowledge management on the creativity and financial performance of o rganizational teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 4-13. 9 5 S zulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best p ractice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17 , 27-43. Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of s tickiness. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82 , 9-27. Tan, D., Su, W., Mahoney, J. T. & Kor, Y. (2020). A review of research on the growth of multinational enterprises: A Penrosean lens. Journal of International Business Studies, 51 , 498-537. T ang, F., Mu, J. & MacLachlan, D. L. (2010). Disseminative capacity, organizational structure and knowledge transfer. Expert Systems with Applications, 37 , 1586-1593. Tang, F. (2011). Knowledge transfer in intra-organization n etworks. Systems research and behavioral science, 28 , 270-282. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in i ntraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy o f management journal, 44 , 996-1004. Volberda, H. W., Foss, N. J. & Lyles, M. A. (2010). Absorbing the concept of a bsorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organization Science, 21 , 931-951. Waller, M. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42 , 127-137. Wang, S. & Noe, R . A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human resource management review, 20 , 115-131. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods , sage. Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research , sage. Zahra, S. A. & George, G. (2002). A bsorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27 , 185-203. Zhao, Z. J. & Anand, J. ( 2009). A multilevel perspective on knowledge transfer: evidence from the Chinese automotive industry. Strategic management journal, 30 , 959-983. 96 Appendix Appendix 1 - Interview Guide 1. Introduction of Respondent - What is your line organisation and what tasks does your role imply? - What is your previous work experience? - How long have you been part of the project team? 2. Individual Determinants - How do you perceive the data strategy and the role of the framework and tools for the company? - How does this align with your strategy? - How does this alignment/non-alignment affect your usage of what you have learned? - How do you receive the knowledge in the project team / how are you learning? - How do you evaluate the teaching activities? - How do you perceive the amount of time that you are supposed to contribute to the project teams? Do you think more/less is necessary to make sure that you can utilise the learnings? - Does this time challenge lead to prioritisation challenges between your line organisation and project team work? 3. Team Determinants - (For team members) How would you evaluate the support of your team manager when you implement the strategy and tools and know-how in your operations? Do you perceive it as supportive, is it necessary? How is your team manager supporting you during these processes? - (For team managers) How do you make sure that the team members actually use what they are being taught? Do you think your support is necessary? If so, how? - How do you perceive the initiatives within your project team to discuss the learnings and challenges? How does it help you? 4. Socialisation Determinants - Can you describe the initiatives of collaboration or interaction that typically take place between [the sending unit] and your team? - How do you think these initiatives help you in implementing what they are teaching you in your daily operations? - Are there any possibilities to give feedback? How do you evaluate these possibilities? Does this have any impact on how engaged you are in the project team? 97