Understanding the impact of knowledge transfer in projects

Abstract

Knowledge is increasingly recognised as a strategic resource for sustaining organisational competitiveness. While theoretical models describe knowledge transfer (KT) as a continuous and structured process, project-based work often presents a more fragmented and contingent reality. Projects are characterised by temporality, shifting team compositions, and resource constraints, making the transfer of knowledge both essential and fragile. This thesis has been motivated by the gap between established theoretical models of KT and the ways in which experienced project managers in knowledge-intensive industries understand and enact these processes. The objective of this study is to investigate how KT is defined, implemented, and evaluated within projects, and to identify the challenges and enabling factors that influence its effectiveness. The study is guided by four research questions: how experts define and implement KT in their projects, what main challenges they encounter, what strategies and tools they use to support the process, and whether a gap exists between theory and practice. The conceptual foundation of the study combines perspectives from the Resource-Based View and Knowledge-Based View with process-oriented models of knowledge creation, ontological shifts, and knowledge management cycles. These frameworks provide a layered view of the contextual conditions, epistemological and ontological processes, enabling mechanisms, and expected outcomes of KT in projects. A qualitative research design has been applied to capture nuanced, practice-based insights. Data have been collected through nine semi-structured interviews with experienced project managers working in knowledge-intensive industries. The interviews have been analysed thematically, allowing for the identification of recurring patterns, divergences from theoretical expectations, and the role of both formal structures and informal practices. The findings show that KT is not experienced as a continuous spiral but as a pragmatic and selective activity. Formal mechanisms such as repositories, governance structures, and onboarding packages provide continuity, while informal mechanisms such as mentoring, peer reviews, and communities of practice are vital for transmitting experiential and tacit knowledge. Several barriers have been observed, including time pressure, knowledge silos, outdated repositories, and uneven motivation among team members. These constraints demonstrate that systems and tools alone are insufficient; KT requires supportive leadership, validation routines, and opportunities for reflection and informal exchange. The study concludes that the gap between theory and practice is significant. While models present KT as structured and measurable, practitioners experience it as contingent and fragile. The research highlights the importance of individual motivation, absorptive capacity, and informal infrastructures as decisive enablers that are often underemphasised in theoretical frameworks. The results suggest that organisations need to balance formal systems with trust-based social practices to ensure that KT strengthens not only internal efficiency but also client satisfaction and long-term competitiveness.