Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Oshri, Ilan
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: HD, T1
This thesis alms to develop a comprehensive understanding of cross-project\ud learning in multiple-project environments. Cross-project learning is the process\ud through which technologies are transferred and reused within organisations.\ud Recent years have seen a growing interest in cross-project learning. However,\ud research in this area has emphasised the rational, classical approach to crossproject\ud learning. Also, the majority of research on cross-project learning has\ud largely been on the automobile industry in Japan and the USA. Thirdly, research\ud in this field has failed to assess the impact that cross-project learning has had on\ud other organisational processes in product development. The conclusions of these\ud studies are context-specific, fragmented and lack any critical assessment of the\ud process of introducing cross-project learning.\ud This study argues that a rather different approach to cross-project learning is\ud needed. A three-level analysis is applied in the present study that highlights\ud operational, dysfunctional and strategic aspects in cross-project learning. The\ud empirical core of the research is the evidence from three in-depth case studies\ud conducted in the Israeli electronics defence industry.\ud Three different approaches to cross-project learning have been identified at the\ud operational level, offering organisational mechanisms and managerial practices\ud that have not previously been reported. At the dysfunctional operations level, the\ud study reveals that the introduction of innovations in cross-project learning has\ud impacted the past harmony between expertise development and knowledge\ud management practices. The findings suggest that this harmony has broken down\ud while the knowledge management and expertise development practices have been\ud further transformed and developed. Lastly, at the strategic level of analysis, two\ud potential cross-project learning strategies have been detected: exploit product\ud success and design to reuse. A contingency model that emphasises the\ud evolutionary development path of 'modes of reusability', subject to the 'strategic\ud development' of the studied companies, concludes this study.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Oshri 1., Pan S.L. and Newell S. (under revision after 2nd review), "Managing Dynamics of Knowledge Activities: A Case Study of a High-tech Company", Journal of Management Studies.
    • 2. Oshri 1. (June 2000), "Managing Knowledge in a Multiple-Project Environment: Developing Knowledge and Transferring Knowledge", Project Management Institute Conference, Jerusalem, Israel
    • 3. Oshri 1. (July 1999), "Conditions for Inter-Project Knowledge Transfer: Interactions between Problems and Solutions", 15th EGOS colloquium, University of Warwick, UK - - - . 17 Jul 1997. "Work Stoppages at Airport, Broadcast Authority, Electric Co and IAI to Show Solidarity With Bezeq Employees (In Hebrew)." Globes (Israel).
    • McCollum J.K. and Sherman J.D. 1993. "The Matrix Structure: Bane or Benefit to High Tech Organizations?" Project Management Journal XXIV(2):23-25.
    • McDonough E.P. and Barczak G. 1991. "Speeding Up New Product Development: The Effects of Leadership Style and Source of Technology." The Journal of Product Innovation Management 8(3):203-12.
    • Meyer M.H. and Utterback J.M. 1993. "The Product Family and the Dynamic of Core Capability." Sloan Management Review:29-38.
    • Mintzberg H. 1987. "Crafting Strategy." Harvard Business Review.
    • _ _ _. 1979. "An Emerging Strategy of Direct Research." Administrative Science Quarterly 24:580-589.
    • _ _ _. 1983. Structures in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations. N.J.: Prentice Hall.
    • _ _ _. 1988. "The Structuring of Organizations." Pp. 276-314 in The Strategy Process, Quinn J.B., Mintzberg H., and James R.M. (Eds.) Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
    • Mintzberg H. and Waters J.A. 1985. "Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent." Strategic Management Journal 6:257-72.
    • Morris P.W.G. 1997. The Management of Projects. London: Thomas Telford Services.
    • Pelz D. C. 1985. "Innovation Complexity and the Sequence of Innovation Stages." Knowledge. Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 6(3):261-91.
    • Penrose E.T. 1952. "Biological Analogies In the Theory of the Firm." American Economic Review 42(5): 804-19.
    • Perlow L. 1999. "The Time Famine." Administrative Science Quarterly 44:57-81.
    • Peters TJ. 1979. "Beyond the Matrix Organization." Business Horizons 22(10): 15-27.
    • Pettigrew A. 1987. "Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm." Journal of Management Studies 24(6):649-70.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article