Changing Behavior

Knowledge network modelling to support decision-making for strategic intervention in IT project-oriented change management

Ali Alkhuraiji*, Shaofeng Liu, Festus Oluseyi Oderanti, Fenio Annansingh and Jiang Pan

Graduate School of Management, University of Plymouth, UK

(Received 10 September 2013; accepted 20 December 2013)

This paper focuses on knowledge management to enhance decision support systems for strategic intervention in information technology (IT) project-oriented change management. It proposes a model of change management knowledge networks (CMKNM) to support decision by tackling three existing issues: insufficient knowl- edge traceability based on the relationships between knowledge elements and key factors, lack of procedural knowledge to provide adequate policies to guide changes, and lack of ‘lessons learned’ documentation in knowledge bases. A qualitative method was used to investigate issues surrounding knowledge mobilisation and knowledge networks. Empirical study was undertaken with industries to test the CMKNM. Results are presented from the empirical study on the key factors influ- encing knowledge mobilisation in IT project-oriented change management, knowl- edge networks and connections. The CMKNM model allows key knowledge mobilisation factors to be aligned with each other; it also defines the connections between knowledge networks allowing knowledge to be mobilised by tracing knowledge channels to support decision.

Keywords: knowledge networks; knowledge mobilisation; strategic decision-making; project-oriented change management; organisational change knowledge and IT projects

1. Introduction

Knowledge management and change management concepts are widely described in the literature as being interwoven (Bloodgood & Salisbury, 2001). They are multidisciplin- ary fields which seek to enhance the utilisation of organisational assets for competitive advantage (Birasnav, Rangenekar, & Dalpati, 2011; Wiig, 2000). However, many organisations usually consider knowledge management as a complementary concept, subsequently failing to address its value within change management strategies to sup- port effective decision-making throughout all processes and phases of change. In fact, not only knowledge is a prerequisite to the ability to influence outcomes; knowledge motives for change also assist in lessening uncertainty and generating readiness for change (Terry & Jimmieson, 1999). Knowledge management can provide the key power in influencing change at various levels, including the processing of change, designing the change project, spearheading organisational readiness, supporting decision-making processes, dealing with cultural issues and eventually enhancing the

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

Journal of Decision Systems, 2014 Vol. 23, No. 3, 285–302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2014.886499

success of change (Van Donk & Riezebos, 2005). This is because knowledge management is able to facilitate a variety of organisational functionalities including work performance, decision-making, social cognition and strategic management (Van Donk & Riezebos, 2005). Some scholars believe that the key competencies of organisa- tions are built upon employees’ experiences and skills, thus highlighting the need to find ways of tapping into such knowledge to develop and maintain core capabilities (Gareis & Hueman, 2000). Therefore, one of the most critical failure factors related to inadequate decision-making systems is a result of the poor selection of change manage- ment strategies; this can be attributed to a lack of knowledge and poor knowledge man- agement (Bloodgood & Salisbury, 2001; Burnes, 2004). Knowledge management and change management strategies always call for new approaches to supporting decision- making in order to deal with ongoing organisational issues (Cao & McHugh, 2005).

Most of the existing change management work discusses the specific characteristics of project-oriented companies and their transformation (Keegan, Huemann, & Turner, 2012; Rebecca, 2013); change models and approaches, the relation between change processes, projects and programmes (Gareis, 2010); and the role of human resources. A small amount of the work makes brief statements about knowledge management and the role of project managers as a strategic core resource in project-oriented companies (Huemann, Keegan, & Turner, 2007; Keegan et al, 2012). Three epistemological knowledge management perspectives were identified in project-oriented organisations: (1) examining the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge for managerial prac- tices (Christensen & Bang, 2003), (2) identifying and examining factors that influence the success or failure of knowledge management initiatives in project-based companies (Ajmal, Helo, & Kekäle, 2010) and (3) examining the key problems in embedding new management knowledge within processes of change (Bresnen, Goussevskaia, & Swan, 2004). Most research in project-based change management has been conducted in Eur- ope, so there is a need to conduct research in different parts of the world in order to offer new insights and to strengthen existing findings.

Additionally, most of the existing work considers organisational learning as a type of change with two processes: acquiring new knowledge and stabilising new knowl- edge. The phases in each process have their own supporting tools and mechanisms. Furthermore, organisational learning can undergo continuous improvement through daily business activities to promote innovation in an organisation (Gareis, 2010). More work is needed on employing a systematic approach to project-oriented change man- agement that is driven by applying knowledge management, which could accompany the existing change management strategy to support better decision-making processes. Little research exists on the use of knowledge management in project-oriented organisa- tions which considers the creation, sharing and application of knowledge in relation to optimising performance in project management (Love, Fong, & Irani, 2005). However, such work does not view projects as permanent organisations nor does it consider issues regarding decision-making support mechanisms.

To address the previously relatively unexplored and undeveloped issues, this paper aims to contribute to the development of an understanding of knowledge management mobilisation and knowledge networks by proposing a change management knowledge network model (CMKNM) in order to provide traceability and the connection of proce- dural knowledge to ‘lessons learned’, to ultimately enhance decision support for strate- gic intervention in information technology (IT) project-oriented change management. In particular, this paper focuses on:

286 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

� Establishing a new ‘practical’ insight into knowledge management mobilisation in supporting decision making.

� Identifying a new knowledge layer of ‘know who’ in addition to the already existing layers of ‘know how’, ‘know what’, ‘know why’ and ‘know with’.

� Identifying the key knowledge mobilisation issues in IT project change that have an impact on decision support, as well as determining key knowledge mobilisa- tion factors in project-oriented change management for structural knowledge net- works.

The paper is organised as follows. The following section reviews relevant literature, while Section 3 proposes a conceptual framework for knowledge mobilisation in change management. Section 4 discusses the research methodology to evaluate the con- ceptual model, followed by Section 5 on empirical results. Section 6 concludes the study and suggests future work.

2. Literature review

This section reviews related work addressing knowledge mobilisation to support deci- sion-making in IT project-oriented change management. This review particularly focuses on knowledge mobilisation networks, and how they are used in supporting decision-making in project oriented change management.

Interests in knowledge mobilisation have grown rapidly over the last decade. Scholars from different disciplines have had different views on knowledge mobilisation. So far, there has not been a single definition that can be agreed on by all scholars. The main rea- sons for this diversity may result from a lack of consensus concerning knowledge man- agement terminology; a lack of agreement regarding knowledge management issues, resulting in variety of conceptual frameworks, and because knowledge management itself is multidisciplinary, stretching across a range of academic fields and sectors. The three main perspectives on knowledge mobilisation are developed from education, health and business. The education perspective takes an epistemological standpoint towards the role of knowledge mobilisation in supporting education (Levin, 2008). Knowledge mobilisa- tion is viewed as comprising the transfer, dissemination and translation of knowledge (Cooper, Levin, & Campbell, 2009). Knowledge mobilisation is further defined as influ- encing decision-making by transferring the right information to the right people by the right means at the right time (Levin, 2008). There is still some ambiguity in this defini- tion. It assumes that knowledge mobilisation concerns ‘transfer’, ‘disseminate’ and even ‘translate’, all of which are related to knowledge sharing in knowledge management liter- ature (Gould & Powell, 2004; Huang, Newell, Pan, & Poulson, 2001). This illustrates the overlapping concepts in the literature that cause confusion regarding knowledge manage- ment. A second view is from the health sector which refers to knowledge translation as a continual dynamic process consisting of the synthesis, diffusion and exchange of knowl- edge to create effective healthcare systems (Gagnon, 2011). A third view builds upon the role of knowledge brokering from a business perspective but is more concerned with innovation in a corporate business environment rather than on understanding the concept of knowledge mobilisation (Cooper, 2012).

On the contrary, there has been some consistency in the literature on the importance of knowledge mobilisation in support of decision-making. Three definitions are offered here in order to discuss issues surrounding knowledge mobilisation, along with their

Journal of Decision Systems 287

relation to decision support. The first is that of Levesque (2013), who view knowledge mobilisation as a complex process encompassing collective knowledge, ideas and con- cepts used to take action to meet certain objectives. This definition, though sounding generic, highlights some important elements in knowledge mobilisation which support decision-making: for instance, the knowledge-gathering process regarding a specific issue as an input, the process of analysing and making decisions, and finally the evalu- ation of outputs. The second definition concerns how knowledge mobilisation addresses knowledge outside the organisation, combining this with the knowledge already exist- ing inside the organisation to create and then utilise new knowledge (Creech, 2004). This highlights the connections among organisations, stakeholders, people, systems, etc. The third view indirectly offers the term ‘knowledge mobilisation’ from the connection of people, the organisation, resources, culture and the community of practice (Jashapara, 2011). This appears to avoid giving a clear definition of knowledge mobilisation. However, the author seemingly classified knowledge mobilisation as an organisation’s network of intellectual assets.

From examining previous studies, the knowledge mobilisation literature implicitly highlights terms such as networks (Jashapara, 2011), connections (Creech, 2004), actions (Levesque, 2013), linkages (Levin, 2008), brokering and intermediaries (Cooper, 2010) as existing between contents, contexts, systems and groups. These are driving forces when attempting to achieve comprehensive insights into the meaning of knowledge mobilisation. In this light, some of the logical factors and issues included in knowledge mobilisation activities have been identified. For instance, Jashapra (2011) pointed out a variety of aspects involved in knowledge mobilisation or knowledge networks, including the differences between organisational culture and organisational climate, issues regarding building communities of practice, embedding knowledge man- agement technology to achieve a desired culture, cultural typologies and their impact on knowledge sharing (techniques and strategies), the role of management in cultivating a community of practice, concerns with regard to intellectual capital, knowledge man- agement strategies based on culture and communities of practice, and implementing certain aspects of knowledge management into change processes. Likewise, Hislop, Newell, Scarbrough, & Swan (2000) suggested certain factors that influence change in knowledge networks, focussing on, for example, the type of structure and the power of authority and political involvement in supporting decision-making. Keen (1981) based the fundamental concept of networking within the notion of leading change where many issues must be considered. These issues include knowledge and experience, les- sons learnt, authority and political involvement, change champions (teams, leaders, change agents and management), processes and structure, resistance to change and its cultural, technological, political and structural issues, and the size and scope of any change. These may be highly associated with tacit knowledge (or ‘know how’) since, as Hislop et al. (2000) point out, ‘know how’ and networks are inextricably interre- lated. However, Carud (1997) put forward a clear distinction between ‘know how’, ‘know why’ and ‘know what’. The term ‘know how’ deals with only one component of intellectual capital in knowledge management, although it is widely used. ‘Know why’, however, represents an insight into the roots of issues and reasons why some things could happen (wisdom level) whilst ‘know what’ represents ‘an appreciation of the kind of phenomena worth pursuing’ (p. 81). Taking this into consideration, two case studies conducted by Hislop et al. (2000) are of interest in introducing enterprise resource planning (ERP) and information management (IM) systems. They highlighted the problems that could occur when key knowledge holders were not involved in

288 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

decision-making processes. The failures, in both cases, pinpointed concerns regarding the relationships and connections in a sophisticated culture when political considerations were involved. This may point attention to ‘know who’ in knowledge mobilisation which plays the central role in connecting different parties and resources together. Additionally, this reinforces the work of Jashapara (2011), based on Handy (1985), who outlined four types of organisational culture (power culture, role culture, task culture and personal culture) with particular characteristics and distinctive function- alities. Findings regarding these types suggest their impact on networks or mobilisation. Thus, understanding an organisation’s culture is a basis for decision-makers to suggest knowledge mobilisation strategies as well as other factors which might be involved (Gould & Powell, 2004).

Despite the importance of knowledge mobilisation in knowledge management activi- ties, there is a lack of practical research in this area, so clear evidence concerning issues surrounding it is weak. From 81 papers on knowledge transfer and exchange in health, Mitton, Adair, McKenzie, Patten, and Perry (2007) found that only 18 were conducted empirically while the rest demonstrated certain barriers and constraints. Levin (2008) claims that knowledge mobilisation research still lacks evidence while the literature of knowledge management lacks evidence of a practical nature; many studies have been built on a separate framework rather than building on previous work to offer new insight into knowledge mobilisation issues. Thus, while some research has been conducted in the area of knowledge mobilisation, most of it focuses on enhancing the education or health sectors in only one part of the world. Organisational issues regarding knowledge mobili- sation have been relatively unexplored, although Gould and Powell (2004) attempted to understand the nature of organisational knowledge in supporting decision-making sys- tems. Useful work on knowledge mobilisation and decision-making was carried out by Lavis, Robertson, Woodside, McLeod, and Abelson (2003) who surveyed 265 directors in health and economic/social sectors. This study found a strong relationship between research organisations that targeted more samples across different industries and profes- sions, with knowledge management (KM) scholars understanding best how such activities should be undertaken in this regard. Lavis et al. (2003) argue that having a more targeted audience increases commitment to knowledge mobilisation and so more resources are made available. Additionally, many knowledge management strategies will be applied according to their consistency with the evidentiary base, increasing the likelihood of knowledge management being understood among organisations with multiple target audi- ences. The framework of this study focuses on three key elements: the type of message transferred by mediators, targeted people, and tools and process supporting knowledge management. This framework also highlights the important role played by knowledge networks, particularly in decision-making and knowledge mobilisation processes.

Based on the above, there has been a clear gap in the literature in addressing the knowledge mobilisation networks for decision support with sufficient empirical evidence. This paper aims to fill the gap in literature. The following section presents a conceptual model first followed by empirical study in Sections 4 and 5.

3. A conceptual framework for decision support – CMKNM

Given the lack of literature surrounding knowledge mobilisation networks, particularly in IT project-oriented change management, four interrelated problems, identified in the literature regarding decision support from a knowledge management and change management context, set the stage for this study:

Journal of Decision Systems 289

� A lack of top management support in identifying knowledge management channels in change management processes to support decision-making (Gareis, 2010).

� A lack of project documentation and a lack of procedural knowledge in change management regarding lessons learnt (Ajmal et al., 2010; Gareis, 2010; Gould & Powell, 2004; Smith, Burstein, & Sowunmi, 1999).

� A lack of coordination of collective knowledge, enhanced in decision support systems (DSS), among parties (Garcia-Lorenzo, 2008).

� A lack of employees’ involvement in knowledge mobilisation and change management processes in terms of planning, decision-making and creating a vision (Ajmal et al., 2010; Hossain & Shakir, 2001; Rebecca, 2013).

A conceptual framework is built upon previous research, integrating change management and knowledge management approaches, drawing, for example, from a number of reviews of factors that influence KM in organisations (Ajmal et al., 2010; Ward, House, & Hamer, 2009a). The conceptual framework is named CMKNM. In project-based change in an IT intervention, most identity dimensions of an organisation have to be considered, including strategies, structures, policies, cultures, decision pro- cesses, patterns and connections, and the relevant external environment (Gareis, 2010). The alignment between information technology and business visions, objectives, demands and strategy is key in influencing decision-making processes to determine the capacity for change of an organisation when pre-selecting an appropriate change strategy, and at the implementation and post-implementation stages (Lutz, Boucher, & Roustant, 2013). This CMKNM framework addresses the alignment between key factors of project-oriented change management and knowledge mobilisation to achieve a long-term strategic vision which includes the organisation’s culture and strategy, its capacity and its knowledge infrastructure, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. The change management knowledge networks (CMKNM) conceptual framework. Notes: IT, information technology; KM, knowledge management.

290 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

Knowledge infrastructure is integrated into change management strategies to facilitate knowledge mobilisation; this is important in establishing knowledge networks and in providing traceability and the connection of procedural knowledge to ‘lessons learned’, resulting in the ability to support decision-making. However, to address fac- tors such as interoperability, coordination, cooperation and regulations to support deci- sion making, a few knowledge mobilisation studies have highlighted the role of knowledge brokering and knowledge intermediaries in educational sectors (CHSRF, 2003; Cooper, 2010; Hossain & Shakir, 2001; Ward, House, & Hamer, 2009b). In line with the aims of this study, the role of knowledge brokering is adopted into the knowl- edge network processes in order to understand the full scope of the efforts required in DS processes to ensure the success of IT projects. In the business sector, knowledge brokers are considered to be key players in innovation processes, acting as facilitators, enhancing the combination of knowledge and skills needed in problem-solving innova- tion, and acting as a channel or bridge in connecting suppliers with seekers (Cooper, 2010; Hossain & Shakir, 2001; Sousa, 2008). Knowledge brokers might be an organi- sation, individuals, third parties or change agents who facilitate collaboration and inno- vation by connecting different organisational activities both internally and externally (Cillo, 2005). This is relevant since IT intervention project-based change management consists mostly of outsourcing, especially in large implementation projects. The CMKNM model suggests that knowledge transfer is a dynamic process centred around the classic socialisation, externalisation, combination and internalisation (SECI) model proposed by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995). This is because of the increasing complexity of the business environment, as well as the dynamic nature of organisational change. Thus, CMKNM defines knowledge mobilisation as a dynamic process of continuous knowledge transfer, consisting of knowledge networks to connect knowledge brokering, knowledge bases, effective knowledge and knowledge seekers while aligning key organisational factors to support decision-making. Investigating issues regarding knowl- edge mobilisation for decision support is particularly important when organisations are going through the further developing or transforming types of changes which result in changes in structure, culture, strategies and functionalities. Such change needs an appropriate mechanism to enhance the sharing, acquisition and documentation of knowledge. Key factors that affect knowledge mobilisation include organisational cul- ture (Jashapara, 2011), organisational strategy (Kezar, 2001), organisational capacity (Stulgienė & Čiutienė, 2012) and knowledge infrastructure, while knowledge mobilisa- tion is enabled by establishing knowledge networks (Manning & Sydow, 2011). In order to align key knowledge mobilisation organisational factors, it is important to define connections between four types of knowledge networks: these are the knowledge networks of interaction, of interpretation and translation, of influence, and institutional knowledge networks (i.e. the knowledge base). Defining the connections between knowledge networks potentially provides knowledge traceability and thus creating decision gates to align key knowledge mobilisation organisational factors.

Issues concerning decision-making processes are a focus for many change manage- ment scholars (Garcia-Lorenzo, 2008; Gareis, 2010) and change management theory offers a variety of models and strategies to manage change. One of the foremost theo- ries which has strongly influenced academics and practitioners is Lewin’s Planned Change Theory (1947). It consists of the following three stages: unfreezing the current state, taking action, and refreezing from the past state. Several models have been subse- quently developed in attempts to understand why change management efforts end in failure. Kotter (1995), after examining 100 global companies undergoing a number of

Journal of Decision Systems 291

change phases, proposed the following approach: establishing a sense of urgency, developing a guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating the vision, empower- ing action towards the vision, planning for and creating a short-term win, consolidating improvements, producing more change, and institutionalising the new approach. Kotter (1995) argues that a single poor succession decision at the top of an organisation can undermine years of hard work. He attributes poor succession decisions to the ignorance of key decision people who are not integral to the change process. Similarly, Hislop et al. (2000) suggest that factors influencing knowledge networks are involved in change, such as the type of structure, the power of authority and political involvement. Likewise, Yeo (2002) and Lutz et al. (2013) claim that poor decision-making in IT intervention occurs because of the lack of alignment between IT systems and business objectives as a result of missing key details. These missing details will influence deci- sion-making processes which determine the capacity to change of an organisation in terms of pre-selecting an appropriate change strategy, at the implementation stages and during the post-implementation period (Judge & Elenkov, 2005; Shipton, Budhwar, & Crawshaw, 2012).

The development model introduced by Levy and Merry (1986) differentiates between first- and second-order change. The former refers to changes in functional pro- cesses such as organisational structures, decision-making processes, communication sys- tems, pattern recognition and rewards systems. This is based on the existing paradigm of an organisation and involves shaping perceptions, procedures and behaviours. How- ever, the second order of change considers multi-dimensional step leading to radical organisational change and a new identity; it involves restructuring and very significant culture change (Gareis, 2010). Gareis (2010) conducted four case studies of change managed by projects or programmes in different industries based in Europe, suggesting a new approach to decision-making support in the change process. He highlights the need to define the change process using chains, boundaries and measurable objectives since the change management literature does not distinguish change processes by defin- ing types of change. Defining change processes into sets of chains offers decision gates at the end of every process. This is claimed to be effective in managing the dynamics of change when managing each process using projects or programmes. Thus, each process is managed in terms of change with its own boundaries and objectives.

Three types of change are considered in this study. According to Gareis (2010), the types of change which involve further developing and transformation often deal with the implementation of change during the pre-implementation, implementation and post implementation stages; this is consistent with the aim of this study to propose the CMKNM model to support decision-making in strategic IT interventions. Emerging objectives are also to develop/enhance business value by implementing, in other rele- vant environments, the main innovations in different business activities including prod- ucts, markets, services, infrastructure or networks. Transformational changes focus on major changes affecting all identities and dimensions, including organisational strate- gies, structures, cultures and their relationship to the other environments. Therefore, managing this type of change demands a top-down beginning for strategic orientation, necessarily focusing on redesigning the organisation and on fostering new core compe- tences. A number of phases are included in this type of change: interrupting routines, planning and creating a vision, making decisions, implementation, and establishing a new identity. In order to interrupt routine, awareness has to be raised using appropriate media or communication tools while, in terms of planning and creating a vision, objec- tives have to be defined and strategies must be built and documented. Decisions will

292 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

be based on these plans for the later transformation processes (Gareis, 2010). The third type of change considered in this study is organisational learning; this focuses on two processes. The first is ‘acquiring new knowledge’ and involves identifying new knowl- edge, securing it, providing the new knowledge for employees, and refreezing old knowledge. The second process is ‘stabilising new knowledge’ which has specific objectives, approaches and roles (Gareis, 2010). This has influenced the conceptual framework of this study with regard to the term ‘knowledge’ although knowledge man- agement approaches and strategies, in terms of knowledge creation, sharing, acquisition, application and storing, are not addressed.

Thus, the conceptual framework CMKNM has adopted this concept from a change management perspective as a type of change that demands knowledge management approaches, strategies and applications to be implemented alongside change manage- ment strategies. This is because knowledge management is perceived to be the key power in influencing change at various levels including processing change, designing the change projects, leading organisational readiness, supporting decision-making pro- cesses, dealing with cultural issues, and eventually enhancing the success of change (Van Donk & Riezebos, 2005).

4. Method to evaluate the conceptual framework

A qualitative approach was used in this preliminary study to investigate issues concern- ing knowledge network modelling to support decision-making in IT project-oriented change management. A qualitative approach was chosen since organisational decisions are generally idiosyncratic that are driven and managed by circumstances that pertain to a particular organisation (Themistocleous, 2002). This research was therefore constructed in three phases, as shown in Table 1. In the first phase, a semi-structured interview was prepared, revised and then conducted to validate the constructed model. The first interview was conducted in the main E-government centre (called the Yesser Programme) in Saudi Arabia with three experts, who had more than five years’ work experience, in the areas of knowledge management and project management (PM). This allowed for an in-depth investigation since experienced managers are less likely to be influenced by the interviewer, thus reducing bias in the collected data. As recom- mended by the experts, the interview was then conducted within one of the world’s

Table 1. Research method phases for change management knowledge networks (CMKNM).

Phase No. Phase denomination Purpose and achievement

Phase (1) Semi-structured interviews – face to face

U To evaluate the finding from the literature review. U To construct and validate CMKNM U To raise issues those have not been considered.

Phase (2) A survey based questionnaire

U The purpose is to explore further knowledge management activities within IT project interventions across IT managers and policy makers across the country. U To achieve opportunistic sampling for conducting further interviews to strength the findings.

Phase (3) Both semi-structured and structured interviews will be conducted where the opportunity arises

U The purpose is to explore comprehensive views and gain insightful understanding. U To further examine the reliability and validity of CMKNM to support decision-making by further investigating representative and generalizable sampling.

Note: IT, information technology.

Journal of Decision Systems 293

largest professional services firms (PricewaterhouseCoopers; PwC, 2013) which has 776 offices in cities across 159 countries and employs over 180,000 people. The five interviewees here, none with less than five years’ experience, ranged from IT-PM managers to an organisational consultant and a structural consultant, as suggested by the experts from Yesser. PwC is considered to be one of the main service suppliers and vendors of IT solutions in the public sector in Saudi Arabia. The details of the interviewees are summarised in Table 2.

In order to understand patterns and relations between various concepts, a thematic approach was implemented and a manual coding technique was used since the number of interviews was small. Also, to enhance the overall validity and reliability of the proposed model, three phases were explored:

(1) Secondary data were gathered from the normative literature to identify the issues and scope of the research;

(2) Brainstorming sessions were undertaken on subjects with two experts’ academic and knowledge management manager in the organisation; this includes the rele- vance of the tree topic technique and the topics’ categorisation technique for issues and challenges.

(3) Data from the empirical interviews were analysed to test the applicability of the proposed model (validation stage). This is explained further in Section 4.

This allowed the main themes to be elicited in order to build a solid approach and develop a model for the later phases (Section 5). The second phase, a survey-based questionnaire, was piloted and then distributed to around 200 IT managers and policy-makers in both private and public sectors in Saudi Arabia in order, first, to trace knowledge management activities within IT project interventions and then to determine and select cases when the opportunity arose (opportunistic sampling). The management of the Yesser programme and the researcher worked cooperatively to achieve this and it was done to allow the researcher to gain a deep understanding of real practice before insightfully moving on to Phase Three. Depending on the survey results in determining

Table 2. The details of interviewees from Yesser and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

No. Name of organisation

Interview and interviewees’ details

Coded name

Interviewee’s position

Interview date

Duration time

Years of experience

1 Yesser Participant 1 IT project manager

15-7-2013 1:15 h 5 years

Participant 2 IKM manager

22-7-2013 2 h 7 years

Participant 3 IT manager 15-7-2013 45 min 5 years 2 PwC Participant 1 Organisational

consultant 15-8-2013 1:30 h 6 years

Participant 2 Structural consultant

16-7-2013 1:30 h 5 years

Participant 3 IT project manager

17-7-2013 2 h 14 years

Participant 4 Expert in project management

18-7-2013 1 h 5 years

Participant 5 Project manager

18-7-2013 1:15 h 10 years

294 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

the level of knowledge management activities and IT intervention projects, the third phase, semi-structured and structured interviews, will then be conducted. At this stage, the data will be coded, analysed, reviewed and examined to develop a model of reference for a change management knowledge network to support decision-making processes.

5. Empirical study of CMKNM for decision support

This section presents empirical findings on the three themes: factors influencing knowl- edge mobilisation in IT project-oriented change management, knowledge networks to align key factors in strategic decision-making, and knowledge network connections.

5.1. Key factors influencing knowledge mobilisation in IT project-oriented change management

Owing to limitations in the literature concerning studies on IT interventions in project- oriented change management and the role of knowledge mobilisation in supporting decision-making in this regard, the researcher investigated the literature related to knowledge management and change management at a broad level and project-oriented and knowledge mobilisation from a related context. Four main factors (the culture, strategy, capacity and knowledge infrastructure of an organisation) were considered from the literature and the researcher’s assumptions with regard to the influence of knowledge mobilisation through transformation or when an organisation goes into change. The results are as follows.

5.1.1. Organisational culture

The study’s results indicate a strong relationship between cultural aspects and their influence on decision-making (Gould & Powell, 2004; Syed-Ikhsan & Rowland, 2004) through the selection of appropriate change strategies. For example, cultural typologies and organisational maturity have to be considered as a foundation when making deci- sions about the selection of change strategies. Silo’s culture is seen to be an obstacle in all change processes since it results in a lack of transparency in decision-making. In order to build a central knowledge base for IT projects to enhance procedural knowl- edge for lessons learnt, cooperation among public-sector organisations needs to be enhanced with high levels of trust and transparency by building a community of prac- tice. Two interviewees who are organisational and structural consultants stated that:

Competitive and silo’s culture are very common in organisations, so we need to understand the type of culture in terms of diversity, maturity and power. We cannot really start to sug- gest a change strategy for the development before solving cultural aspects. One of the hardest sides of a change project is dealing with cultural aspects so it is our main concern. There is not usually such encouragement to take initiatives to solve problems. People do not share and talk freely about their errors and mistakes so they can’t learn from mistakes. We have to work cooperatively with customers to find a supporting mechanism that suits their organisations. We need to build corporate culture to support the whole process of change.

For instance, conferences, seminars and training sessions are essential to identify key knowledge holders and influential people and to solve political issues within organisations. Interoperability issues have to be solved through knowledge-sharing

Journal of Decision Systems 295

mechanisms such as incentives and rewards since knowledge holders are the key to decision support. The typologies of culture define an organisation’s structure and thus form decision-making processes.

5.1.2. Organisational strategy

This refers to the degree to which organisational strategies are consistent with both the change management and knowledge management strategies that have been selected and aligned with business objectives at an early stage of decision-making. Many key play- ers, such as stakeholders, vendors, knowledge holders, consultants, executives, IT spe- cialists and ordinary users, will play significant roles in forming change management and knowledge management strategies at all stages of an IT project intervention. Thus, key activities, such as organisational policies, political factors and organisational struc- tures, have to be considered. Participant 5 emphasised:

In order to understand the requirements of change, you have to choose very skilled team works. Project managers have to have the ability to select the right people to accomplish such tasks. There are many tasks [that] have to be performed by people who know how to deliver the message, to explain and to clarify issues. Many of project failures are due to the ignorance of change strategy so the stakeholders usually are not valuing change strate- gies. This is because of the lack of budget or the lack of awareness about it. So they do not really consider the IT intervention as a change.

The IT Manager (Participant 4) asserted:

Large IT projects’ implementation affect different dimensions in an organisation so we need to plan change and then propose it as a package including addressing their need for change, readiness to change and their ability to change. We will need clearly to re-address the whole organisational strategy. Decision-making has to be delegated further down the hierarchy, so departments can work effectively together to solve organisational barriers. If decision-making is delegated further and interdepartmental relationships are improved peo- ple will believe that important benefits can be secured.

This study’s results confirm the findings of Gareis (2010) in terms of treating change management strategy as a set of processes and phases managed by projects and programmes rather than managing changes within the programmes or projects of IT intervention. The failure of IT system interventions can often be attributed to overlook- ing aspects of change management strategies to deal with all the phases of the interven- tion. Participants 1, 2 and 5 claimed that: ‘The failure of IT projects is often related to poor decision-making in the pre-planning stages as many decision-makers overlook change strategy in IT projects’.

Poor decision-making in selecting appropriate change management and knowledge management strategies to manage change, solve organisational issues, define business objectives (planning and vision) or draw a broad image will very likely lead to delay, discontinuity or failure. Overlooking the interactions between key activities and key players in selecting change management strategies to support decision-making at all stages is a key factor in failure.

296 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

5.1.3. Organisational capacity

This study defines organisational capacity as the degree to which an organisation is ready for change at an organisational and people level. This includes the ability of an organisation to absorb, adopt and embrace change at an operational, functional, technical, financial and organisational level. Participant 5 emphasised:

They need technology for their work to become efficient, but there is not enough informa- tion about what they really need and how to perform jobs. In contrast, there are sometimes too many overlapping and conflicting information in different systems which too often cause them poor decision-making. We cannot precede projects unless we clearly address their need to write the proposal for the whole change project.

This study’s results were consistent with those of previous studies which considered decision-making regarding an adopted innovation to be based on promising advantages across organisational, operational, managerial, strategic and technical areas (Shang & Seddon, 2002; Themistocleous, 2004). Defining organisational capacity is a crucial part of managing change and in understanding the full extent of the efforts required in a decision support process. This requires an assessment of an organisation’s readiness, including defining the boundaries of changes at a people and organisational level. A lack of systematic knowledge management strategies will have a negative impact on decisions regarding the definition of change boundaries, thus resulting in ambiguity.

5.1.4. Knowledge infrastructure

The knowledge infrastructure is crucial in supporting decision-making in project-ori- ented change management; it is the main driver and facilitator for knowledge mobilisa- tion. This concept of knowledge management infrastructure is driven by the notion of IT infrastructure as a key in innovation technology (Bose, 2003). The findings of this study confirm the need for an effective knowledge infrastructure across public sectors in order to create a knowledge-based community to connect stakeholders, decision- makers, IT vendors, users, project managers and organisational assets. To manage change by projects, the knowledge management infrastructure is a cornerstone which drives knowledge mobilisation as it combines IT project portfolios, defines knowledge management networks, and provides a selection of knowledge management strategies and appropriate knowledge-sharing tools. All the participants agreed:

Serious problems are faced when we have to find important information to precede the change. There are either too many information those are overlapping and conflicting left unmanaged, or there is not enough information. This is sometimes faced even within or- ganisations which are mature in technology. Appropriate communication tools and mecha- nisms are not supported and high level of performance is not recognised; so much time is wasted to make decision.

Thus, the success of change management depends on the collection of knowledge in supporting decision-making in terms of selecting appropriate change strategies by defin- ing the boundaries of change, minimising constraints, setting objectives, and connecting external and internal resources. The knowledge management infrastructure is seen to enhance procedural knowledge, moving to lessons learnt and so informing decision-making. In this regard, one of the findings from the ‘interviewees’ suggests implementing a system of social networks to connect experts, projects managers,

Journal of Decision Systems 297

vendors, stakeholders and ordinary users. This system is implemented in PwC to support decision-making and is linked to a knowledge base for reference in future projects. It is considered to have a significant influence in mobilising knowledge to support decision-making.

5.2. Knowledge networks

This study defines knowledge networks based on the classic SECI to align the factors influencing knowledge mobilisation in IT project-oriented change management; this alignment supports decision-making. The study’s results suggest establishing four types of knowledge networks: knowledge networks of interaction, knowledge networks of interpretation and translation, knowledge networks of influence, and institutional knowl- edge networks (i.e. knowledge bases). Previous studies, such as that of Hislop et al. (2000), have highlighted the need to identify knowledge networks in IT project inter- vention and some have attributed poor decision-making in IT implementation to miss- ing key details (Lutz et al., 2013; Yeo, 2002). Defining knowledge networks is vital, not only to solve organisational issues during the changes, but also to connect a variety of parties, including external experts, change agents, stakeholders, resources, key play- ers and key activities. Participant 3 commented: ‘Without drawing project maps of key people, resources and activities, building a proper network and finding connections between different parties, projects cannot proceed.’

This allows decision-makers to consider underpinning issues that could play a fundamental role in the planning of changes, thus contributing to the success of IT pro- jects. The role of knowledge networks is to mobilise knowledge; to deliver effective knowledge to the right people in the right systems; to facilitate knowledge sharing, organisational learning and learning in real time, and to commoditise knowledge into a knowledge-base. Knowledge networks are driving forces in the analysis, evaluation and eventually delivery of the right knowledge to knowledge-seekers to enhance the consistency, quality and speed of decision-making.

5.3. Knowledge network connections

The results of this study highlight the fundamental role played by knowledge brokering in large IT systems projects. This is because many such projects are outsourced and so a wide variety of parties and resources will be involved in the change strategies, processes and phases. Participants 1, 2 and 3 claimed:

The role of information and knowledge brokering is so important; we are working in this area to enhance the success of IT projects in organisations. We play a fundamental role in connecting public sectors with vendors, giving advice, solving problems, giving technical consultant and conducting research to improve the service.

Previous studies in knowledge mobilisation in education shed light on the role of knowledge intermediaries in educational sectors (Cooper, 2010; CHSRF, 2003; Hossain & Shakir, 2001; Ward et al., 2009b). This study suggests that knowledge intermediaries play a significant role in connecting knowledge networks to bridge the gap between external and internal resources and to connect knowledge networks of interaction (tacit knowledge) to knowledge networks of interpretation and translation, thus converting it into explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge then has to be analysed, evaluated and

298 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

stored in appropriate knowledge systems (knowledge-bases). Knowledge is then institutionalised and used as a commodity (institutional knowledge networks) in order to produce effective knowledge as an output. This knowledge must be utilised by the right people to support decision-making across the organisation. The connections between networks are crucially important for several reasons including tracing knowl- edge channels, uncovering missing details in the IT project, aligning knowledge mobili- sation with project-oriented key factors in order to enhance the selection of change management, selecting appropriate knowledge management strategies for managing changes, solving political issues, involving all the related parties in the IT project in the strategies of change, and leading the process of learning by projects (lessons learnt). Every network plays a fundamental role in supporting decision-making throughout all the processes and phases of change; this is how knowledge can be mobilised.

6. Conclusion

This study has discussed the concept of understanding knowledge management mobili- sation and knowledge networks and proposed CMKNM to provide traceability and the connection of procedural knowledge to ‘lessons learned’. This is to ultimately support decision-making for strategic intervention in IT project-oriented change management.

This study has contributed to establish new insight into knowledge management mobilisation, identify a new knowledge layer of ‘know who’, address key knowledge mobilisation issues in IT project change, and determine key knowledge mobilisation factors in project-oriented change management for structural knowledge networks. The establishment of a CMKNM model is to investigate knowledge mobilisation issues in IT project-oriented to support decision-making. It explores four types of network to mobilise knowledge for the support of decision-making: (1) knowledge networks of interaction that are linked to the knowledge networks of interpretation and translation via knowledge brokering; (2) knowledge networks of interpretation and translation which are linked to institutional knowledge networks via knowledge bases or appropri- ate systems; (3) when knowledge is institutionalised, the output will be effective when delivered by knowledge networks of influence (fourth networks) to targeted people in order to enhance decision-making. Defining knowledge networks and their connections enables key knowledge mobilisation factors to be aligned, including organisational cul- ture, strategies, capacity and knowledge infrastructure. Furthermore, this allows knowl- edge channels to be traced in order to connect procedural knowledge to ‘lessons learned’ to enhance decision support for strategic intervention in IT project-oriented change management. The identification of key players (know who) in IT project change management facilitates structural knowledge that is capable of dealing with uncertain- ties in change strategies for decision-making. This result places emphasis on the role of knowledge networks in aligning key knowledge mobilisation factors in IT project inter- ventions and provides a new mechanism for the alignments for DSS. Knowledge can only be mobilised by considering the connections between key activities and key play- ers in the decision-making processes.

A number of limitations need to be considered. For instance, this preliminary study has considered a limited sample with eight experts specifically in Saudi Arabia in the area of change management, knowledge management and IT project management, although this study does build on the findings of existing work in related areas. Further, this study was qualitatively explored and so the results have been interpreted with regard to how change management and knowledge management strategies are utilised

Journal of Decision Systems 299

within IT projects in public sector organisations in Saudi Arabia. Thus, the CMKNM model should be further examined with IT managers and policy-makers across the country using opportunistic sampling to spotting the opportunity where arises.

The findings of this study have a number of important implications for future research – for example, developing quantitative measures for evaluating knowledge networks in knowledge mobilisation to support decision-making. Further investigation is needed regarding ‘know who’ and its role in enhancing decision-making in IT projects-based change management. Finally, we suggest exploring a hybrid technique (a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches) for forecasting demand from both IT vendors and stakeholders to understand the full scope of the efforts required in DS processes for the success of IT projects based on change management and knowledge management.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank a number of parties which have supported the work presented in this paper, including the University of Plymouth, the Saudi Arabian government, PwC Company and Yesser Program Members.

References Ajmal, M., Helo, P., & Kekäle, T. (2010). Critical factors for knowledge management in project

business. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 156–168. Birasnav, M., Rangnekar, S., & Dalpati, A. (2011). Transformational leadership and human

capital benefits: The role of knowledge management. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 32(2), 106–126. doi:10.1108/01437731111112962.

Bloodgood, J.M., & Salisbury, W.D. (2001). Understanding the influence of organizational change strategies on information technology and knowledge management strategies. Decision Support Systems, 31(1), 55–69.

Bose, R. (2003). Knowledge management-enabled health care management systems: Capabilities, infrastructure, and decision-support. Expert Systems with Applications, 24(1), 59–71.

Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. (2004). Embedding new management knowledge in project-based organizations. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1535–1555.

Burnes, B. (2004). Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9), 886–902.

Cao, G., & McHugh, M. (2005). A systemic view of change management and its conceptual underpinnings. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18(5), 475–490.

Carud, R. (1997). On the distinction between know-how, know-why, and know-what. Advances in Strategic Management, 14, 81–101.

Christensen, K.S., & Bang, H.K. (2003). Knowledge management in a project-oriented organization: Three perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(3), 116–128.

CHSRF (The Canadian Health Services Research Foundation) (2003). The theory and practice of knowledge brokering in Canada’s health system. A report based on a CHSRF national con- sultation and a literature review. Retrieved from http://www.chsrf.ca/brokering/pdf/ Theory_and_Practice_e.pdf

Cillo, P. (2005). Fostering market knowledge use in innovation: The role of internal brokers. European Management Journal, 23(4), 404–412.

Cooper, A. (2010). Knowledge mobilisation intermediaries in education. Montreal: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Cooper, A. (2012). Knowledge mobilization intermediaries in education: A cross-case analysis of 44 Canadian organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto.

Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2–3), 159–171.

300 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

Creech, H. (2004). Mobilizing IUCN’s knowledge to secure a sustainable future: The IUCN knowledge management study. Winnipeg, MB: ISD.

Gagnon, M.L. (2011). Moving knowledge to action through dissemination and exchange. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64(1), 25–31.

Garcia-Lorenzo, L. (2008). Supporting collective action after a major organisational change. Journal of Decision Systems, 17(1), 63–78.

Gareis, R. (2010). Changes of organizations by projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 314–327.

Gareis, R., & Huemann, M. (2000). Project management competences in the project-oriented organization. In J.R. Turner & S.J. Simister (Eds.), The Gower handbook of project manage- ment (pp. 709–721). Aldershot: Gower.

Gould, S., & Powell, P. (2004). Understanding organisational knowledge. Journal of Decision Systems, 13(2), 183–202.

Handy, C.B. (1985). Understanding organizations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Facts on File Publications.

Hislop, D., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2000). Networks, knowledge and power: Decision making, politics and the process of innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3), 399–411.

Hossain, L., & Shakir, M. (2001). Stakeholder involvement framework for understanding the decision-making process of ERP selection in New Zealand. Journal of Decision Systems, 10 (1), 11–27.

Huang, J.C., Newell, S., Pan, S.L., & Poulson, B. (2001). ERP systems implementation: A knowledge-focused perspective. Journal of Decision Systems, 10(1), 99–117.

Huemann, M., Keegan, A., & Turner, J.R. (2007). Human resource management in the project- oriented company: A review. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 315–323.

Jashapara, A. (2011). Knowledge management: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.

Judge, W.Q., & Elenkov, D. (2005). Organizational capacity for change and environmental performance: An empirical assessment of Bulgarian firms. Journal of Business Research, 58 (7), 893–901.

Keegan, A., Huemann, M., & Turner, J.R. (2012). Beyond the line: Exploring the HRM responsi- bilities of line managers, project managers and the HRM department in four project-oriented companies in the Netherlands, Austria, the UK and the USA. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(15), 3085–3104.

Keen, P.G. (1981). Information systems and organizational change. Communications of the ACM, 24(1), 24–33.

Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 147.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.

Lavis, J.N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J.M., McLeod, C.B., & Abelson, J. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision-makers? Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248.

Levesque, P., (2013). A state of the art review of knowledge mobilization and dissemination prac- tices related to occupational safety and health. In C.W. Runyan, J. Lewko, K. Rauscher, D. Castillo, & S. Brandspigel (Eds.), Health and safety of young workers: Proceedings of a U.S. and Canadian series of symposia (167–176). Atlanta, GA: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Levin, B. (2008, May). Thinking about knowledge mobilization. Paper presented at an invitational symposium sponsored by the Canadian Council on Learning, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Levy, A., & Merry, U. (1986). Organizational transformation: Approaches, strategies, and theories. New York, NY: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics 1. Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria. Human Relations, 1, 5–40.

Love, P., Fong, P., & Irani, Z. (Eds.). (2005). Management of knowledge in project environments. Abingdon: Routledge.

Journal of Decision Systems 301

Lutz, M., Boucher, X., & Roustant, O. (2013). Methods and applications for IT capacity decisions: Bringing management frameworks into practice. Journal of Decision Systems, 22, 332–355.

Manning, S., & Sydow, J. (2011). Projects, paths, and practices: Sustaining and leveraging project-based relationships. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1369–1402.

Mitton, C., Adair, C.E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S.B., & Perry, B.W. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729–768.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi., H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

PwC. (2013). PricewaterhouseCoopers, United Kingdom [online]. Retrieved from http// www.pwc.co.uk/

Rebecca, C.B. (2013). Determinants of human resource performance in project oriented organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kenyatta University, Nairobi.

Shang, S., & Seddon, P.B. (2002). Assessing and managing the benefits of enterprise systems: The business manager’s perspective. Information Systems Journal, 20(12), 271–299.

Shipton, H., Budhwar, P.S., & Crawshaw, J. (2012). HRM, organizational capacity for change, and performance: A global perspective. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(6), 777–790.

Smith, H.G., Burstein, F., & Sowunmi, A. (1999). Knowledge acquisition for organizational memory information systems in decision support. Journal of Decision Systems, 8(3), 407–426.

Sousa, M. (2008). Open innovation models and the role of knowledge brokers. Inside Knowledge, 11(6), 18–22.

Stulgienė, A., & Čiutienė, R. (2012). HRM challenges in transition to project management (project-based organization). Economics and Management, 17(3), 1214–1218.

Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S., & Rowland, F. (2004). Knowledge management in a public organization: A study on the relationship between organizational elements and the performance of knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(2), 95–111.

Terry, D.J., & Jimmieson, N.L. (1999). Work control and employee well-being: A decade review. In C.L. Cooper & T.I. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 14) (pp. 95–148). Chichester: Wiley.

Themistocleous, M.G. (2002). Evaluating the adoption of enterprise application integration in multinational organizations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Brunel University, London.

Van Donk, D.P., & Riezebos, J. (2005). Exploring the knowledge inventory in project-based organisations: A case study. International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 75–83.

Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009a). Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: A thematic analysis of the literature. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 14(3), 156–164.

Ward, V., House, A., & Hamer, S. (2009b). Knowledge brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 5 (3), 267–279.

Wiig, K.M. (2000). Knowledge management: An emerging discipline rooted in a long history. In C. Despres & D. Chauvel (Eds.), Knowledge horizons: The present and the promise of knowledge management (pp. 3–26). Oxford: Butterwork-Heinemann.

Yeo, K.T. (2002). Critical failure factors in information system projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 241–246.

302 A. Alkhuraiji et al.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.