Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2022 Oct 19;207:800–809. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.09.135

Barriers of knowledge management in virtual project teams: a TISM model

Hanna Soroka-Potrzebna 1
PMCID: PMC9578940  PMID: 36275365

Abstract

In an era of global integration, especially after the release of covid-19, more and more project teams have started working from home. However, the creation of virtual teams is not without barriers for which leaders should be especially prepared. There is a lack of research on knowledge management in the context of virtual project teams. This study aims to reduce the identified gap by identifying the main barriers as well as analyzing their impact on the functioning of virtual teams. The study used analysis of the literature, TISM and MICMAC models, and research among experts. The results indicate key barriers, that are plan of work and collaboration among team members.

Keywords: knowledge managment, project, virtual team, barrier, TISM model

References

  • 1.Adamik Anna, Nowicki Michał. In: Podstawy zarządzania. Zakrzewska-Bielawska A., editor. Wydawnictwo Wolters Kluwer; Warszawa: 2012. Metody i narzędzia motywowania personelu; pp. 360–392. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ajmal Mian M., Kekäle Tauno, Takala Josu. Cultural impacts on knowledge management and learning in project-based firms. The Journal of Information and Knowledge Systems. 2009;39(4):339–352. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Akgün Ali E., et al. Knowledge sharing barriers in software development teams: A multiple case study in Turkey. Kybernetes. 2017;46(4):603–620. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Anderson Anne H., et al. Virtual team meetings: An analysis of communication and context. Computers in Human Behavior. 2007;23(5):2558–2580. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Andriessen Erik. Less mobile, more virtual.”. Learning remote communication to save costs and the climate. White paper. Didactic materials for the Master Erasmus Mundus course on Psychology of Work Organization and Human Resources. 2007 [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Arora Pujak, Owens Dawn, Khazanchi Deepak. A pattern-based tool for knowledge management in virtual projects. The IUP Journal of knowledge management. 2010;8(3):60–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bell Bradford S., Kozlowski Steve WJ. A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective leadership. Group & organization management. 2002;27(1):14–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Boiral Olivier. Tacit knowledge and environmental management. Long Range Planning. 2002;35(3):291–317. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cakrt Michal. Helion; Gliwice: 1996. Kto jest kim. Typy osobowości dla menedżerów; p. 29. „. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Cascio Wayne F., Shurygailo Stan. E-leadership and virtual teams. Organizational dynamics. 2003;31:362–376. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Cohen Yuval, Ornoy Hana, Keren Baruch. MBTI personality types of project managers and their success: A field survey. Project Management Journal. 2013;44(3):78–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.de Araujo Valdemilson de Assis Alves, et al. The effects of internal stickiness on the success of projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 2021;15(1):175–191. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.de Nadae Jeniffer, Carvalho Marly Monteiro de. Exploring the Dyad Communication and Knowledge Management: A Study Investigating the Main Barriers in Complex Project Context. The Journal of Modern Project Management. 2021;9(1) [Google Scholar]
  • 14.DesJardins Joseph R., DesJardins Joseph R. McGraw-Hill Higher Education; New York: 2009. An introduction to business ethics. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dorairaj Siva, Noble James, Malik Petra. Agile Conference. IEEE. 2012. Knowledge management in distributed agile software development; pp. 64–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Dubey Rameshwar, Ali Sadia. Identification of Flexible Manufacturing System Dimensions and Their Interrelationship Using Total Interpretive Structural Modelling and Fuzzy MICMAC Analysis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management. 2014;15:131–143. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Dweck Carol S. Ballantine Books; New York: 2006. Mindset: The new psychology of success. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Eberlein Mario. Culture as a critical success factor for successful global project management in multi-national IT service projects. Journal of Information Technology Management. 2008;19(3):27–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Falcone Paul, Tan Winston. The performance appraisal tool kit: redesigning your performance review template to drive individua and organizational change. Amacom. 2013 [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Garro-Abarca Victor, Palos-Sanchez Pedro, Aguayo-Camacho Mariano. Virtual teams in times of pandemic: factors that influence performance. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:232. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gassmann Oliver, Zedtwitz Maximilian Von. Trends and determinants of managing virtual R&D teams. R&D Management. 2003;33(3):243–262. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gitlab (2020), The Remote Work Report by GitLab: The Future of Work is Remote.
  • 23.Habeh, Orabi, et al. (2021) "Knowledge sharing challenges and solutions within software development team: a systematic review.", in Al-Emran, Mostafa, Khaled Shaalan, and Aboul Ella Hassanien, eds. Recent advances in intelligent systems and smart applications, Springer, pp. 121-141.
  • 24.Hertel Guido, Geister Susanne, Konradt Udo. Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human resource management review. 2005;15(1):69–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Holste J.Scott, Fields Dail. Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use. Journal of knowledge management. 2010;14(1):128–140. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.IPMA .  ; Nijkerk, The Netherlands: 2019. Individual Competence Baseline. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Johnson Craig Edward. Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks: 2007. Ethics in the workplace: Tools and tactics for organizational transformation. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Johnson Kris. Project Management in the Library Workplace. Emerald Publishing Limited; Bingley: 2018. Using a “Project Management Mindset” as an Administrative Approach to Creating Workplace Efficiencies & Building Employee Leadership Skills; pp. 245–259. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kerzner Harold. 10th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Hoboken, NJ: 2009. Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Kleim Ralph L. CRC Press; Boca Raton: 2011. Ethics and Project Management. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Köster Kathrin. Sage Publication Ltd; London: 2009. International project management; pp. 657–662. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kozusznik Malgorzata. 2008 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE). IEEE. 2008. Challenges and barriers of virtual teams in organizations: The context of Poland; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Krok Ewa. Rola i znaczenie technologii informacyjnej w edukacji. Zeszyty Naukowe. Studia Informatica. 2014;35:53–64. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kukko Marianne. Knowledge sharing barriers in organic growth: A case study from a software company. The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 2013;24(1):18–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lee Jong Seok, Keil Mark, Wong Kin Fai Ellick. When a growth mindset can backfire and cause escalation of commitment to a troubled information technology project. Information Systems Journal. 2021;31(1):7–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Leenders Roger Th AJ, Engelen Jo ML Van, Kratzer Jan. Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and technology management. 2003;20(1-2):69–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Liebowitz Jay, Megbolugbe Isaac. A set of frameworks to aid the project manager in conceptualizing and implementing knowledge management initiatives. International Journal of project management. 2003;21(3):189–198. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lurey Jeremy S., Raisinghani Mahesh S. An empirical study of best practices in virtual teams. Information & Management. 2001;38(8):523–544. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Mandal Anukul, Deshmukh S.G. Vendor selection using interpretive structural modelling (ISM) International journal of operations & production management. 1994;14(6):52–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Marchewka, Małgorzata, and Krzysztof Woźniak (2020) „Przywództwo w wirtualnych zespołach projektowych” in Walas-Trębacz J., Małkusa T. (eds) Zarządzanie organizacjami w społeczeństwie informacyjnym. Projekty-procesy-struktury, Dom Organizatora, Toruń, pp.49-60.
  • 41.Meluso John, Johnson Susan, Bagrow James. Flexible Environments for Hybrid Collaboration: Redesigning Virtual Work Through the Four Orders of Design. Design Issues. 2022;38(1):55–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Meng Xianhai, Boyd Paul. The role of the project manager in relationship management. International Journal of Project Management. 2017;35(5):717–728. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Molchanova Olga, Gerasimenko Valentina. European Conference on Knowledge Management. Academic Conferences International Limited. 2018. Knowledge sharing in further business education: Russian experience. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Nasim Saboohi. Total interpretive structural modeling of continuity and change forces in e-government. Journal of Enterprise Transformation. 2011;1(2):147–168. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Olaniran Olugbenga Jide. Barriers to tacit knowledge sharing in geographically dispersed project teams in oil and gas projects. Project Management Journal. 2017;48(3):41–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Peters Linda M., Manz Charles C. Identifying antecedents of virtual team collaboration. Team Performance Management: An International Journal. 2007;13:117–129. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pietroń-Pyszczek Agata, Trenkner Małgorzata. Społeczne aspekty zarządzania projektem. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu 52 Podejście procesowe w organizacjach. 2009:424–430. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Powell Anne, Piccoli Gabriele, Ives Blake. Virtual teams: a review of current literature and directions for future research. ACM SIGMIS Database: the DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems. 2004;35(1):6–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Project Management Institute . 6th ed. Project Management Institute, Inc.; Newtown Square, PA: 2017. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ratheeswari K. Information communication technology in education. Journal of Applied and Advanced research. 2018;3(1):45–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Riege Andreas. Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of knowledge management. 2005;9(3):18–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Robertson Judy. The educational affordances of blogs for self-directed learning. Computers & Education. 2011;57(2):1628–1644. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Scheiner Christian W. The motivational fabric of gamified idea competitions: The evaluation of game mechanics from a longitudinal perspective. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2015;24(2):341–352. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Schinzinger Roland. McGraw-Hill; Boston: 2000. Introduction to engineering ethics. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Seetharaman A., et al. Impact of knowledge sharing on virtual team projects. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies. 2019;10(4):337–364. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Singh M.D., Kant R. Knowledge Management Barriers: An Interpretive Structural Modeling Approach. International. Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management. 2008;3:141–150. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Soong MH Benson, et al. Critical success factors for on-line course resources. Computers & education. 2001;36(2):101–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Srivastava Amit Kumar. Modeling strategic performance factors for effective strategy execution. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2013;62(6):354–582. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Sushil Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management. 2009;10(4):1–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Sushil Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management. 2012;13(2):87–106. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sysło, Maciej (2012) "Technologia informacyjna w edukacji." Stowarzyszenie Nauczycieli Technologii Informacyjnej, in http://www.snti.pl/snti/files/ti_w_edukacji.pdf [24.11. 2019].
  • 62.Townsend Anthony M., DeMarie Samuel M., Hendrickson Anthony R. Virtual teams: Technology and the workplace of the future. Academy of Management Perspectives. 1998;12(3):17–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.UGWU Ndidiamaka Patience, Nnaekwe Kingsley. The concept and application of ICT to teaching/learning process. International Research Journal of Mathematics, Engineering and IT. 2019;6(2):10–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Van Den Hooff Bart, De Ridder Jan A. Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management. 2004;8:117–130. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Warfield John N. Iowa State University Press; Iowa: 1994. A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Wasuja Sachin, Sagar Mahim. Cognitive bias in salespersons in specialty drug selling of pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing. 2012;6(4):310–335. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Wdowiak, Anna (2020) „Motywowanie pracowników w zwinnych zespołach projektowych.” in Kołodziejczak M., Bednarskia-Wnuk I., Świątek-Barylska I. (eds.) Metody i techniki zarządzania. Inspiracje dla teorii i praktyki, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź, pp. 169-193.
  • 68.Wibowo Wahyu Catur, et al. Prioritizing solutions for overcoming knowledge transfer barriers in software development using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal. 2018;10(2):217–249. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Wiewiora Anna, et al. Organizational culture and willingness to share knowledge: A competing values perspective in Australian context. International Journal of Project Management. 2013;31(8):1163–1174. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Xue Yajiong, et al. An empirical study of knowledge sharing intention within virtual teams. International Journal of Knowledge Management (IJKM) 2012;8(3):47–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Zwikael Ofer. Critical planning processes in construction projects. Construction innovation. 2009;9:372–387. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Procedia Computer Science are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES