BP case study: KM team structuration and sense-making (Part II)

C Gorelick,K A April

doi:10.4102/sajbm.v35i2.653

Abstract

This paper summarizes the findings that answered the research questions, stated in Part I of this paper, in the previous edition of SAJBM. The primary research question - In what ways, if any, did the virtual KMT contribute to organizational learning? - was answered: Yes, through the successful completion of performance goals, which included measurable performance as well as learning.The major study findings and conclusions addressed in this paper are: (1) the dynamic interaction among the structural factors, and sense-making factors, human values and emotions plays a central role in effective organizational learning. Strong sense-making factors overcame weak or absent structuring factors, e.g., understanding the various roles internally and externally to BP, and the ability to create a conducive environment for the roles to truly add value, were important aspects which led to success; and, (2) a successful virtual project team, which has executive support and the necessary resources, has both learning- and performing components, and uses collaborative technology and complimentary infrastructures as enablers of that learning.

Highlights

This paper summarizes the findings that answered the research questions, stated in Part I of this structuration and sense-making paper
The study results suggest that the knowledge management team (KMT), a virtual project team contributed to organizational learning at the team and British Petroleum (BP) levels and that collaborative technology played enabling and structural roles
An unanticipated conclusion was that collaborative technology should be defined and analyzed as one of the structuring variables in the dynamic process of organizational learning, and not considered as a separate construct because of the virtual team context

Summary

Introduction

This paper summarizes the findings that answered the research questions, stated in Part I of this structuration and sense-making paper (published in the previous SAJBM edition). Everyone recognized the change in the team’s effectiveness once they added shared norms, which they defined as providing ‘structure’ to the work When he was asked what he would do differently with a new team, based on his learnings from the KMT experience, the leader responded as follows:. Many team members described norms related to team meetings but recognized there was a lack of norms for virtual communication, sharing non-project-related information and experiences (dialoguing forums). The need for face-to-face communication at the right times was acknowledged by all the KMT members This raises issues about trust, and the ability of a project team to function without any face-to-face connections. For information to become knowledge, the human experience (values and emotions) must be added (e.g., describing the action, the feelings and emotions around what happened, including what happened, who was involved, why they were involved, what it felt like with them involved, what could be done better in the future, etc.)

Interpretations and conclusions

Conclusion

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS