Uma análise da relação entre gestão do conhecimento e desempenho do projeto: revisão da literatura e quadro conceitual

Favoretto, Camila; Carvalho, Marly Monteiro de

Camila Favoretto

Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal de São Carlos – UFSCar. São Carlos, SP, Brasil. E-mail: cam.favoretto@gmail.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7178-9676

Marly Monteiro de Carvalho

Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo – USP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. E-mail: marlymc@usp.br

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0119-5316

Figuras (6)
Tabelas (6)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Flow chart of the systematic literature review.

Thumbnail

Graph 1
Time evolution of publications and citations.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Authors' co-citation network.

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Network of reference cocitation.

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Core-periphery analysis of themes.

Thumbnail

Figure 5
Network of reference co-citation.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Stratification of Codes.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Most cited articles.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Relevant journals.

Thumbnail

Table 4
Coding of selected articles.

Thumbnail

Code C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 Reference TE1 TE2 TE3 TE4 TE5 TE6 TE7 TE8 A1 A2 A3 NA1 NA2 NA3 S1 S2 S3 S4 C1 C2 IE2 IE2 IE3 IE4 IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4 DDP1 DDP2 DDP3 DDP4 DDP5 DDP6 DDP7 Zhang & Wang (2017) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Suresh et al. (2017) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 McClory et al. (2017) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Oun et al. (2016) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nkuruziza et al. (2016) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Addis (2016) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Spalek (2015) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Olayinka et al. (2015) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Oluikpe (2015) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Chandrasekaran & Linderman (2015) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Todorovic et al. (2015) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Savolainen & Ahonen (2015) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lee et al. (2014) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Reich et al. (2014) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Park & Lee (2014) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lech (2014) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Zangiski et al. (2013) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Palacios-Marques et al. (2013) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Reich et al. (2012) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sáenz et al. (2012) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Reference TE1 TE2 TE3 TE4 TE5 TE6 TE7 TE8 A1 A2 A3 NA1 NA2 NA3 S1 S2 S3 S4 C1 C2 IE2 IE2 IE3 IE4 IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4 DDP1 DDP2 DDP3 DDP4 DDP5 DDP6 DDP7 Liu (2011) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lindner & Wald (2011) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ajmal et al. (2010) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Han & Park (2009) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hanisch et al. (2009) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Landaeta (2008) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Xu & Ramesh (2008) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Akgun et al. (2008) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Anbari et al. (2008) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hong et al. (2008) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Petter & Vaishnavi (2008) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sharif & Kayis (2007) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parolia et al. (2007) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Patnayakuni et al. (2007) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Suikki et al. (2006) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hynes et al. (1999) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Collinson (1999) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Thumbnail

C1 C2 IE2 IE2 IE3 IE4 IT1 IT2 IT3 IT4 DDP1 DDP2 DDP3 DDP4 DDP5 DDP6 DDP7 C1 28 16 6 2 9 2 17 2 13 5 14 14 6 9 4 0 1 C2 16 25 9 4 15 6 11 2 6 3 11 17 5 5 2 0 0 IE2 6 9 9 2 3 1 4 0 1 2 3 6 2 2 1 0 0 IE2 2 4 2 4 2 1 2 1 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 IE3 9 15 3 2 15 4 7 2 4 1 7 10 2 4 1 0 0 IE4 2 6 1 1 4 6 2 1 2 0 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 IT1 17 11 4 2 7 2 17 2 4 3 10 7 3 6 3 0 0 IT2 2 2 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 IT3 13 6 1 0 4 2 4 1 13 0 6 7 3 6 1 0 1 IT4 5 3 2 2 1 0 3 1 0 5 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 DDP1 14 11 3 2 7 4 10 2 6 3 17 4 3 6 0 0 0 DDP2 14 17 6 2 10 3 7 0 7 2 4 21 5 3 2 0 0 DDP3 6 5 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 1 3 5 9 1 1 0 0 DDP4 9 5 2 1 4 1 6 2 6 1 6 3 1 10 0 0 0 DDP5 4 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 4 0 1 DDP6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DDP7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

C1 - Type of study Franco et al. (2018)Franco, E. F., Hirama, K., & Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Applying system dynamics approach in software and information system projects: A mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 93, 58-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.08.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017....	C5 - Knowledge Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995)Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
TE1 – Modeling	C1 – Tacit
TE2 – Theoretical-conceptual	C2 – Explicit
TE3 – Survey
TE4 – Literature review	C6 – Explicit-oriented indicators
TE5 – Simulation	Choi & Lee (2003)Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance. Information & Management, 40(5), 403-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00060-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)...
TE6 – Case study	IE1 - Knowledge coding
TE7 – Action research	IE2 - Acquiring knowledge of codified forms
TE8 – Experimental	IE3 - Documentation
	IE4 - Sharing knowledge through coded forms
C2 – Approach Franco et al. (2018)Franco, E. F., Hirama, K., & Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Applying system dynamics approach in software and information system projects: A mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 93, 58-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017.08.013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2017....
A1 – Qualitative	C7 – Tacit-oriented indicators Choi & Lee (2003)Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance. Information & Management, 40(5), 403-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00060-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)...
A2 – Quantitative	IT1 - Acquiring knowledge from specialists and co-workers
A3 – Multi-method	IT2 - Face-to-face help by experts
	IT3 - Informal dialogues for knowledge sharing
C3– Level of analysis	IT4 - Acquisition of knowledge by individual guidance
NA1 – Individual
NA2 – Project	C8 – Dimensions of project performance Carvalho & Rabechini (2015)Carvalho, M. M., & Rabechini, R., Jr. (2015). Fundamentos em gestão de projetos: construindo competências para gerenciar projetos. São Paulo: Atlas
NA3 – Organizational	DDP1 – Product / service
	DDP2 – GP efficiency
C4 – Sector Choi & Lee (2003)Choi, B., & Lee, H. (2003). An empirical investigation of KM styles and their effect on corporate performance. Information & Management, 40(5), 403-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00060-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)...	DDP3 – Impact on team
	DDP4 – Present impact on business
S1 – Manufacturing	DDP5 – Future impact on business
S2 – Service	DDP6 – Impact on the customer
S3 – Financial	DDP7 – Social and environmental impact
S4 – Others

Title	Authors	Year	Citations
Success factors of knowledge management in temporary organizations	Lindner, F.; Wald, A.	2011	75
Critical factors for knowledge management in project business	Ajmal, M; Helo, P; Kekale, T.	2010	55
Systems development process improvement: A knowledge integration perspective	Patnayakuni, R.; Rai, A.; Tiwana, A.	2007	43
Knowledge management in project environments	Hanisch, B; Lindner, F; Mueller, A; Wald, A.	2009	40
Knowledge sharing in information systems development projects: Explicating the role of dependence and trust	Park, J.; Lee, J.	2014	38
Post-project reviews as a key project management competence	Anbari, F. T.; Carayannis, E. G.; Voetsch, R. J.	2008	37
Process-centered knowledge model and enterprise ontology for the development of knowledge management system	Han, K. H.; Park, J. W.	2009	35
Evaluating benefits and challenges of knowledge transfer across projects	Landaeta, R. E.	2008	35
New product development team intelligence: Antecedents and consequences	Akgun, Ali E.; Dayan, Mumin; Di Benedetto, Anthony	2008	32

Journal	Publications	Impact factor
International Journal of Project Management	8	4,2
Journal of Knowledge Management	5	2,0
Expert Systems with Applications	2	3,9
Information & Management	2	3,3
Technovation	2	3,3
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management Procurement and Law	2	-

C1 – Type of study	Articles	%	C5 - Knowledge	Articles	%
TE1 – Modeling	3	8	C1 – Tacit	28	76
TE2 – Theoretical-conceptual	6	16	C2 – Explicit	25	68
TE3 – Survey	22	54
TE4 – Literature review	1	3	C6 – Explicit-oriented indicators	Articles	%
TE5 – Simulation	0	0	IE1 - Knowledge coding	9	24
TE6 – Case study	5	14	IE2 - Acquiring knowledge of codified forms	4	11
TE7 – Action research	2	5	IE3 - Documentation	15	41
TE8 – Experimental	0	0	IE4 - Sharing knowledge through coded forms	6	16
C2 – Approach	Articles	%	C7 – Tacit-oriented indicators	Articles	%
A1 – Qualitative	13	35	IT1 - Acquiring knowledge from specialists and co-workers	17	46
A2 – Quantitative	20	54	IT2 - Face-to-face help by experts	2	5
A3 – Multi-method	3	8	IT3 - Informal dialogues for knowledge sharing	13	35
			IT4 - Acquisition of knowledge by individual guidance	5	14
C3 – Level of analysis	Articles	%
NA1 – Individual	6	16	C8 – Dimensions of project performance	Articles	%
NA2 – Project	25	68	DDP1 – Product / service	17	46
NA3 – Organizational	18	49	DDP2 – GP efficiency	21	57
			DDP3 – Impact on team	9	24
C4 – Sector	Articles	%	DDP4 – Present impact on business	10	27
S1 – Manufacturing	8	22	DDP5 – Future impact on business	4	11
S2 – Service	16	43	DDP6 – Impact on the customer	0	0
S3 – Financial	0	0	DDP7 – Social and environmental impact	1	3
S4 – Others	19	51

[1] Source: Adapted from the articles presented in the table.

Brasil

Brasil

Uma análise da relação entre gestão do conhecimento e desempenho do projeto: revisão da literatura e quadro conceitual

Resumo: