MANAGING LESSONS LEARNED AND TACIT KNOWLEDGE IN NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

What are the most important lessons that can be learned from new-product development projects? Is your organization learning them and are you making most of the tacit knowledge of your NPD teams?

Keith Goffin, Ursula Koners, David Baxter, and Chris van der Hoven

Keith Goffin is professor of innovation and new product development at Cranfield School of Management, UK. Prior to joining Cranfield, he worked for fourteen years in marketing and new product development for Hewlett-Packard. His research interests include new methods of market research, innovation, and knowledge management in R&D. He has published extensively. The second edition of his book Innovation Management: Strategy and Implementation Using the Pentathlon Framework was published by Palgrave in 2010. He teaches at a number of European business schools, including Stockholm School of Economics, Mannheim Business School, and Bocconi University, Milan. k.goffin@cranfield.ac.uk

Ursula Koners is a senior manager with Siedle, a German manufacturing company. She has previous experience in R&D management at DaimlerChrysler and in product management at a publishing company. She received her PhD in management from Cranfield School of Management and is now a visiting fellow. She has published papers in Creativity and Innovation Management, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, and Journal of Product Innovation Management. Parallel to her management career, she is continuing her research on tacit knowledge and has recently taught in the MBA program at Mannheim Business School. ursula_koners@hotmail.com

David Baxter is a senior research fellow in the innovation group at Cranfield School of Management, UK. His PhD in engineering management from Cranfield University focused on knowledge management for engineering design. He has published over 20 papers, including articles in Research in Engineering Design, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, and International Journal of Production Research. His current research is developing the theme of how R&D managers can make the most of tacit knowledge. d.baxter@cranfield.ac.uk

Chris van der Hoven is a lecturer in innovation at Cranfield School of Management, UK. In the earlier part of his career, he worked as a specialist (QS/cost engineering) and then as a general manager dealing with capital projects. As a member of the Centre for Innovative Products and Services (CIPS), Chris spends most of his time working on executive development and carrying out his research. Chris also lectures in his native South Africa and in MBA programs in France, Sweden, and the United States. He is a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (FHEA). chris.vanderhoven@cranfield.ac.uk

OVERVIEW: Every new product development (NPD) team learns a unique set of lessons in solving the many problems that arise in a typical project, and it is important to ensure that these lessons are shared. Since much of the learning is tacit in nature, it is difficult to articulate, to capture, and to disseminate. Therefore, managers face a challenge in trying to stimulate project-to-project learning. Many companies hold post-project reviews (PPRs)—meetings at the end of projects to determine the lessons learned and document them for the future. However, discussing a project, noting down the lessons learned, and entering them into a database is not sufficient. Our research at five leading German companies shows that written reports fail to convey much of the key learning from NPD teams and so managers need to focus on stimulating individual learning and running PPRs in specific ways to generate and transfer tacit knowledge. Managers also need to integrate PPRs with other mechanisms, such as mentoring schemes and knowledge brokering, to stimulate the flow of lessons learned and tacit knowledge.

KEY CONCEPTS: lessons learned, tacit knowledge, post-project reviews, knowledge management, organizational learning, project-to-project learning

New product development (NPD) is a complex, iterative problem-solving process in which experience plays a key role (Thomke and Fujimoto 2000). Developing the problem-solving skills of individuals and NPD teams takes time, as the learning process is based on generating and sharing knowledge. In order to improve the performance of NPD teams, the lessons learned from one project need to be passed to other project teams. Lessons learned are “key project experiences which have a …. relevance for future projects” (Schindler and Eppler 2003, 220). If lessons are not shared, there is a risk that other project teams will waste time and effort solving problems that have been solved in the past. However, the complex nature of NPD projects means that much of the knowledge generated is tacit knowledge, which is closely connected with practical activities, difficult to express, and difficult to share. Therefore, managers need to take specific steps to promote the transfer of lessons learned and tacit knowledge between NPD teams.

An important mechanism for stimulating NPD learning is the post-project review (PPR). This is “a formal review of the project examining the lessons that may be learned and used to the benefit of future projects” (von Zedtwitz 2002, 255). PPRs are widely recommended as a mechanism for identifying the key lessons learned by NPD teams (Williams 2008). Normally, the lessons identified in PPR discussions are entered into a database, so that they can be accessed by other NPD teams; this is viewed as an effective way to capture and transfer NPD knowledge. However, our research shows that much of the key learning generated by NPD teams is lost even when databases are used. To counter this, PPRs need to be integrated with other mechanisms, such as the use of knowledge brokers and mentoring of less experienced personnel.

We studied knowledge generation and sharing in new product development teams at five German companies in an effort to determine the role of PPRs in stimulating and sharing knowledge. Based on our unique data set, we have derived key insights into the role of knowledge in NPD and the power of PPRs and other tools to capture and disseminate knowledge throughout the NPD organization.

Knowledge in New Product Development

NPD is a knowledge-intensive activity, requiring teams to draw on both explicit and tacit knowledge (Table 1). Explicit knowledge, sometimes referred to as know-that, is knowledge that can be readily identified, explained, documented, captured in databases, and shared. Explicit knowledge is synonymous with information. Tacit knowledge, or know-how (Brown and Duguid 2001), is difficult to articulate, hard to record, based on experience, and intimately connected to the way we carry out tasks and solve problems (Polanyi 1966). It has been said that tacit knowledge is more like a process of learning, comprising the understanding we gain of how to learn particular skills, rather than the information related to the skills themselves (Wilson 2002). This means that tacit knowledge is difficult to capture ND convey in a stable form.

Tacit knowledge may be transferred in a variety of ways. Shared experiences give the richest opportunities for transferring tacit knowledge, as when a master craftsperson passes his or her knowledge to an apprentice. Frequent, intense personal interaction in a work context can enable tacit knowledge to be shared; this process is called socialization (Nonaka 1994). Although socialization is generally held up as the preferred medium for transmitting tacit knowledge, the effectiveness of socialization has not been validated by empirical studies, at least in part because most knowledge management research has been theoretical in its approach (Gourlay 2006). There is some evidence that less frequent personal interaction may work just as well in supporting tacit knowledge transfer, provided that the lessons to be learned are clearly identified in advance and the people involved trust each other (Levin and Cross 2004).

Metaphors and stories offer another vehicle for the sharing of tacit knowledge (Swap et al. 2001; Leonard and Swap 2004). By using metaphors and stories, we are able to articulate experiences that we are otherwise unable to express (Srivastva and Barrett 1988). Their usage supports the generation and transfer of tacit knowledge (Nonaka 1994). Metaphors and stories also allow complex situations to be described in a way that others can identify with, so that they can recognize and anticipate similar situations. However, it should be noted that metaphors and stories do not transfer tacit knowledge directly; rather, they are a useful vehicle for capturing complex situations in a way that listeners can engage with and understand on a deep level.

In addition to shared experiences and the use of metaphors and stories, the transfer of tacit knowledge can be aided by codification, whether through the use of existing codification systems or the development of new codification schemes. Suitable codification schemes can help convert certain aspects of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Before musical notation was developed, for instance, there was no way for musicians to exchange songs other than by traveling with each other for extended periods. Pope Gregory I (whose name was given to Gregorian chants) sponsored the development of one of the first musical notation systems to enable the accurate reproduction and spread of religious music. What once could be shared only through personal contact could now be written down and accessed from a distance. However, this did not mean that all of the tacit knowledge connected to a song was converted into explicit knowledge; rather, certain aspects of tacit knowledge were codified as information and therefore became easier to transfer. Musicians still needed to learn what a piece sounded like and how to listen and practice in order to perform well. Not every aspect of tacit knowledge can be codified (Cook and Brown 1999).

Explicit and tacit knowledge are similarly interwoven in the NPD context. The physical dimensions and characteristics of a product—explicit knowledge—can be conveyed by engineering drawings. But the correct interpretation of a drawing in the context of a specific project may require tacit knowledge, for example, about the materials required or the interpretation of the notations used. If we consider information (the musical score, the engineering drawing) as explicit knowledge, then we must recognize the importance of the tacit dimension in its understanding and interpretation. In other words, codification helps in the sharing of explicit knowledge, and it can help to articulate and capture certain aspects of tacit knowledge, but it does not substitute for direct interaction. The development of new codification schemes (such as the one for music described above) can be useful in helping to capture more knowledge, but many NPD teams do not even think of the possibility of developing new codification schemes to help capture their knowledge.

Many organizations treat knowledge as if it were synonymous with information (Wilson 2002). This leads them to overlook the tacit dimension, although tacit knowledge is a key source of sustainable competitive advantage (Ambrosini and Bowman 2001). Rather than focusing on capturing information, R&D managers need to stimulate the flow of knowledge (Armbrecht et al. 2001)—both explicit and tacit.

This is a complex undertaking, but there are a number of tools available to facilitate knowledge sharing, including mind maps and team sharing sessions in the form of post-project reviews (PPRs). PPRs are a particularly valuable way to capture knowledge generated from NPD projects. Also called “post-mortems” (Collier, DeMarco, and Feary 1996), PPRs can help companies prevent mistakes being repeated from one project to the next (Tidd et al. 2001). An emerging body of literature has found that PPRs are becoming popular. One study discovered that 56% of 212 participating U.S. companies used formal PPRs for NPD projects (Saban et al. 2000); another investigation of 94 NPD teams in multinational companies found that approximately 80% of them used PPRs regularly (Hoegl and Schulze 2005).

In addition to investigating the level of PPR usage, researchers have looked at how reviews are managed. Von Zedtwitz (2003) stressed the importance of establishing clear goals for the review, having a professional facilitator, ensuring the team is well prepared and given sufficient time to conduct a complete review, having the meeting in the right environment, and producing a clear summary document. However, his study did not consider the role of tacit knowledge and its transmission in successful PPRs. A study at NASA (Kotnour and Vergopia 2005) partially considered tacit knowledge and showed that different levels of learning can be achieved, such as the transfer of facts or ways in which specific projects could be improved. This research also indicated the importance of presenting project data in visual representations, as a way to stimulate learning. Our own previous work (Koners and Goffin 2007), which built on earlier studies, produced detailed recommendations for managing PPRs (Table 2).

Our review of the literature on the role of knowledge in NPD has shown that developing products is an iterative and complex process in which ongoing learning is crucial. Surprisingly, the specific types of lessons that teams learn from NPD have not been identified, and the tacit dimension of that learning has been largely ignored. Our own research was designed to fill these gaps.

Evidence From Our Research

Our study included in-depth case studies at five leading German companies, identified here by pseudonyms related to their industries. We inspected confidential company documentation, interviewed experienced NPD personnel, and observed PPRs. In analyzing our transcribed data, we looked for instances when metaphors and stories were used in discussions or in interviewees’ answers, as these indicate that tacit knowledge was being shared. Our rich data set produced four key findings:

• There are eight categories of lessons learned that NPD personnel perceive to be the most important.
• Three of these categories are closely related to tacit knowledge.
• Many of the lessons learned that emerge in PPR discussion are not fully captured; tacit elements are most commonly overlooked or unrecorded.
• Experienced NPD personnel recognize that written reports cannot adequately share all of the learning generated at PPRs and perceive other mechanisms as appropriate for conveying this depth of knowledge.

Key Lessons Learned

The first part of our analysis identified the key lessons that 30 experienced personnel (6 at each of the five case companies) perceived they had learned from their years of working on NPD projects. A total of 273 individual lessons learned were identified in the 30 interviews. The interview data were coded systematically; 21 categories emerged. Repertory grid analysis criteria were applied to these 21 categories, resulting in identification of 8 categories of lessons learned that were perceived by interviewees as particularly important. These were budget and costs, potential to apply learning, organizational complexity, problem solving, product specification, project objectives, resources, and schedule (Table 3).

The 21 categories can be thought of as umbrella terms for a range of factors; inexperienced NPD personnel may recognize the terms but not understand clearly the full range of factors associated with them. For example, “project objectives” includes a variety of components. Learning about the importance of clear project objectives is demonstrated by one interviewee's statement that “if you do not have an objective that is clearly defined, you cannot but end up in a dead end.… So with the projects concerned I learned very quickly that the definition of objectives is critical and that the Board needs to check these thoroughly” (Interviewee 2, AppliancesCo). The lessons that respondents reported they had learned about project objectives included knowing when project objectives were clear enough; knowing to whom and how objectives should be communicated (“It is critical how a goal and objective is communicated” [Interviewee 1, PublishingCo]); knowing when to set appropriate milestones; and knowing whether to check that projects are on track.

“Organizational complexity” captures organizational structures and practices that make projects harder to manage. Interviewees mentioned factors such as the number and type of departments involved, reporting structures, the range of suppliers involved, overly complex organizational structures, colocation (or the lack of it), and the size of organization. For example, one interviewee explained, “With more than one project site, it always becomes more difficult” (Interviewee 2, EngineeringCo).

The full set of 21 categories that emerged from the coding process was also used in coding the PPR reports we reviewed and the transcripts of PPRs we observed. In this way, we were able to compare the lessons that emerged in PPR discussions with those appearing in PPR reports and with individuals’ perceptions of their key learning identified in the interviews.

Tacit Lessons Learned

Several of our interviewees stressed that they learned new things in PPRs. So, we were interested in identifying whether our data contained clear evidence that NPD teams generate tacit knowledge in PPR discussions. In pursuit of this goal, we analyzed the transcripts of the four PPRs we observed to identify when metaphors and stories were used. We found that metaphors and stories emerged often in PPR discussions—on average, NPD teams used them in their discussions about every 20 minutes. For example, one participant in the AppliancesCo PPR described a series of technical problems that arose in the following way: “It was like this mole game. You hit one on the head and somewhere else 4 or 5 others appear.” Here, the metaphor concerned the continuous cycle of problem solving in NPD, where the team had to deal with numerous technical issues that emerged around the proposed product design. In comparing the experience to a popular German children's board game in which the goal is to anticipate when and where a mole will create molehills on an otherwise perfect lawn, the metaphor captures how the team worked to anticipate and deal quickly with technical problems.

How the Research Was Conducted

This study is part of an ongoing program of research on the importance of knowledge in new product development (NPD). For this phase of our work, we conducted in-depth case studies with five German companies in the high-tech region of Stuttgart, each of which is a leader in its market segment. Due to the confidential nature of R&D projects, we promised anonymity to participating companies, which are identified here only by pseudonyms related to their sector: EngineeringCo (manufacturing equipment; 5,000 employees), AppliancesCo (power tools; 7,500 employees), MachineryCo (manufacturing packaging equipment; 2,500 employees), MedCareCo (medical devices; 10,000 employees), and PublishingCo (toys and games; 1,500 employees). The companies chosen were not direct competitors; this was a crucial factor in convincing them to share confidential documentation on past and current NPD projects with us. Each of the participating organizations routinely conducts PPR meetings at the conclusion of major NPD projects.

Previous studies have collected data from one source, such as by interviewing managers (for example, von Zedtwitz 2002) or by observing PPRs (for example, Busby 1999). In contrast, we collected an array of data from three main sources and spent five or more days on site at each participating company.

Our first source of data was confidential PPR reports from the last four or five major NPD projects at each company; we analyzed 19 reports in this phase, plus another two that we received after observing the actual PPRs, for a total of 21 reports. Our second data source was in-depth interviews with 30 NPD professionals (6 at each company, selected by the companies to include a range of experience levels). Many of these interviewees had 10 or more years of experience with NPD projects. All interviews were conducted in German by a native speaker and a non-native fluent German speaker. In these interviews, we used two approaches: semi-structured questions to identify respondents’ views on knowledge and learning in R&D and, to probe interviewees’ tacit knowledge, an approach from psychology called repertory grid technique (Goffin 2002).

In the repertory grid technique, interviewees were asked to name six NPD projects they had worked on in the past; these formed the elements of the repertory grid and were written on numbered cards. Groups of three cards, selected randomly, were presented to the interviewee and each time the same question was asked: Looking at the three projects written on the cards: how are two of these projects similar and different from the third, in terms of what you would do differently if you were doing the projects again? Answers to this question elicited the key attributes of the subject under investigation—in our case, lessons learned—which are called “constructs” in repertory grid terminology. The advantages of the technique are that it identifies the issues that respondents perceive to be the most important (as opposed to those that are most frequently mentioned), and it probes deeply into subconscious knowledge.

Our third and final source of data was the four PPRs we were able to attend (one company refused access to its PPRs). For two of the PPRs we attended, we were also given access to the official PPR reports, which allowed us to compare the reports to the discussions we had recorded. At the PPR meetings, we identified the lessons learned that emerged from the discussions, observed the interaction between NPD personnel, and checked to see when metaphors and stories were used by teams in their discussions.

Having three types of data allowed us to compare the lessons learned that were perceived as important by our interviewees with what was discussed in PPR meetings and what was documented in reports. To do this, we applied a systematic coding process across all of the data, with different categories of lessons learned identified and then checked by several different researchers to ensure validity and reliability. We also checked our data for the usage of metaphors and stories, and this allowed us to identify which lessons were closely linked to tacit knowledge.

Having completed five in-depth case studies, we are currently extending our study to collect data at more companies and to investigate the sources of the ideas used to solve the major problems that arise during NPD. Building on our previous methodology, our new case studies include a leading supplier of pumps and valves, which we will call ValveCo, and a telecommunications equipment developer, TeleCo. Some relevant anecdotes from these case companies are related in this paper, although they were not included in the coded data we present here.

In another part of their discussion, the same team used the term Reichsbedenkenträger (a German expression for someone who has strong doubts about everything; it could be translated as “Secretary of State for Doubt” or “Minister of Doubt”). The metaphor was used in discussions about the value of having someone make a critical appraisal of risk during the NPD process. The project team discussed the problems that were created when another small project was integrated into their original NPD project. Although the risks associated with this management decision were clear to the team, in hindsight it was thought that someone (for example, the project manager) should have acted as a Reichsbedenkenträger and clearly voiced the team's concerns, so that management was forewarned and ready to assign the necessary resources to solve the problems that emerged.

In further analysis of the PPR transcripts we wanted to look at whether tacit knowledge was shared in PPRs. To determine this, we looked at the lessons that NPD teams most often discussed using metaphors and stories. When NPD teams talked about problem solving during PPRs, metaphors and stories emerged spontaneously in two-thirds of the discussions. Given the relationship between tacit knowledge and the use of metaphors and stories, this would seem to indicate that NPD problem solving is closely linked to tacit knowledge. Two other categories were also found to be closely linked to tacit knowledge: budget and costs and product specifications. Indeed, interviewees’ comments indicated that these categories are linked to tacit knowledge. In describing the challenge he had faced in learning how to deal with specification changes, one interviewee said, “When you start your first project you are not aware that the basic specifications can change—even several times—that is what you call training on the job” (Interviewee 3, MachineryCo). The interviewee recognized that acquiring the knowledge of how to anticipate and deal with the consequences of specification changes is something that can only be learned in practice.

Key Lessons Lost

In our review of PPR reports, we checked whether the written documentation reflected the depth of PPR discussions that we had ourselves observed. We found that PPR reports, which are a method of codifying knowledge generated in PPRs, included very few lessons learned; on average only three lessons were documented in each report. This is in stark contrast to the 56 lessons (on average) that were discussed in each of the PPRs we attended. Even allowing for the fact that not all of the 56 lessons discussed are crucial, clearly many lessons are not being captured by the process of writing PPR reports.

Written reports capture explicit knowledge, and so much of the tacit knowledge that emerges in PPRs is likely to be lost. Further analysis of the PPR reports showed that the lessons that were most often discussed using metaphors and stories were not included in the reports. There could be several reasons for this. Such discussions may be hard to distill into a written report, managers writing the PPR reports may not consider them “serious enough,” or the documented lessons may seem too hard for others to understand. One of the NPD teams that we observed recognized one of these issues themselves; one of the participants in the MachineryCo PPR remarked, “There is no use writing this down—no one on the distribution list apart from us will know what we are talking about.” This comment was made after the team had discussed a lesson and had spontaneously used a metaphor. It implies that simple codification—writing a description—is not an adequate way of capturing some knowledge.

Perceptions of PPRs and Learning

Our research gave us further insight into how NPD personnel view learning. Interviewees thought that attending PPRs triggered learning for them. Several interviewees offered comments such as “I learn a lot via these meetings.” (Interviewee 3, MedCareCo) and “It is only during the [PPR]… that one becomes aware of all the issues” (Interviewee 6, EngineeringCo). The way a PPR is facilitated was perceived as crucial; as one interviewee put it, “You can and have to learn from your mistakes… if you do it in a very open manner… you can learn for the next project” (Interviewee 6, PublishingCo). A few interviewees saw the way their PPRs were facilitated as ineffective. “If we do it the way we do it today, we might as well stop doing them,” said one (Interviewee 5, PublishingCo). In the PPRs we attended we observed different facilitation styles and techniques and how these impacted the discussions. We also had access to the five case companies’ guidelines for running PPRs and so we could closely analyze how such meetings were structured. This analysis led to insights on how PPRs should be managed (Koners and Goffin 2007).

As much as they valued the PPRs themselves, interviewees were skeptical of the value of written reports as a medium for disseminating lessons learned. Reports summarizing PPR discussions and presenting checklists of lessons learned were not perceived to reflect the depth of the discussions that took place in the meetings themselves. As one interviewee put it, “During the discussion, the really important points emerge within the team—you will never find those points in minutes or databases” (Interviewee 7, AppliancesCo). Similarly, Interviewee 2 at PublishingCo said: “You cannot really write down experiences, even if you try. This is almost impossible and it would be a huge book.”

In our interviews, NPD personnel also indicated ways in which they thought key lessons could be better disseminated to other teams. Ideas included presentations to other teams (“A verbal presentation always works best if you ask me” [Interviewee 4, EngineeringCo]), mentoring schemes to teach less experienced personnel the key aspects of NPD (as one interviewee described it, a “godfather project manager for [every] new project manager” [Interviewee 2, AppliancesCo]), and a conscious effort by team members to disseminate the lessons they had learned to their next project teams (“I think I can only disseminate lessons learned if I register them myself and then use them again in the projects I work in. And like that [I can] pass the experience on to my colleagues” [Interviewee 3, MachineryCo]).

Several interviewees recognized the importance of socialization (although they did not use that term). One interviewee told us, “We probably have to do it more on an informal personal level to make it happen” (Interviewee 2, AppliancesCo). Similarly, another said, “It is really against my character to write down experiences. I would much rather talk to my colleagues about it” (Interviewee 2, PublishingCo). One interviewee described how they personally try to disseminate lessons learned, “I always prefer to do personal presentations [to other NPD teams] after the PPR took place, because only the interaction between people can really transfer the knowledge gained during the meeting” (Interviewee 4, MachineryCo).

In the latest part of our research, at case companies ValveCo and TeleCo, the perceived importance of new methods of codifying knowledge has emerged. Both companies have found that when key personnel leave, their knowledge and problem-solving skills are lost and while not all of this knowledge can be codified, it is important to attempt to capture some of it.

Implications and Recommendations

Tacit knowledge emerges in team PPR discussions, as evidenced by the high usage of metaphors and stories in discussing issues such as changing product specifications and technical problem solving. Similarly, experienced NPD personnel recognize that they learn more in PPRs than is captured in the documentation. Therefore, companies need to take a range of steps to manage the lessons learned and tacit knowledge generated in NPD projects.

Project-to-project learning can be supported through a variety of mechanisms, including codification and the careful use of knowledge brokers and kick-off meetings to disseminate lessons learned. Ideally, the result will be a steady flow of knowledge from project to project (Figure 1). A PPR held at the end of Project A, with a focus on capturing tacit knowledge, generates documentation, such as a PPR report and database entries, and other knowledge in the form of the team's shared experiences. Knowledge brokers share that tacit knowledge with other teams at kick-off meetings and in less formal venues. Each PPR leads to more knowledge, which can be shared at future kick-off meetings.

Companies seeking to better leverage knowledge generated in one NPD project for future efforts should strive to:

1. Facilitate PPRs in ways that stimulate and transfer tacit knowledge while recognizing the need to supplement PPRs with other mechanisms.

2. Focus on developing new codification schemes to capture key technical knowledge.

3. Foster individual learning through individual reflection, participation in communities of practice, and mentoring, particularly for less-experienced project leaders.

4. Designate specific team members to act as knowledge brokers charged with sharing relevant knowledge from one team to another.

5. Use project kick-off meetings as an opportunity to review and disseminate existing knowledge and focus NPD teams on applying existing knowledge and generating new knowledge.

In combination, these mechanisms can help ensure the maximum dissemination of NPD knowledge (Table 4).

Facilitate PPRs to Stimulate Tacit Knowledge

Effective facilitation can make the difference between a desultory PPR and a truly effective knowledge-sharing session. A number of factors affect the success of PPRs. A PPR should be run at an external location to avoid interruptions but, more importantly, because the choice of location impacts the quality of the discussions. A suitable location will stimulate a more creative analysis and can stimulate more informal interaction. An experienced facilitator is essential to create the right atmosphere and guide the discussion, especially as effective facilitation skills can have an impact on tacit knowledge generation. A list of the eight categories of key lessons learned can be used to ensure that the discussions cover the most important aspects of NPD learning. In addition, visual representations, such as timelines, cause-and-effect diagrams, and charts, can stimulate more productive discussions, as can discussions around motivation levels and feelings at different stages of a project.

Figure 1.—Post-project reviews (PPRs) are a key mechanism for stimulating NPD team learning, but to achieve project-to-project learning, complementary mechanisms are also needed. The main mechanisms are clear kick-off meetings for new projects and the use of knowledge brokers charged with transferring key lessons learned from one project to another.

To capture tacit knowledge effectively, facilitators need to recognize when metaphors and stories emerge and try and capture the key points of such discussions. Similarly, facilitators can focus on capturing the pertinent stories from a project, as relating and explaining these stories is more likely to spread tacit knowledge throughout the organization than trying to capture everything in a written form.

Although PPRs are a valuable way to stimulate learning, they need to be augmented by other mechanisms, such as codification, a focus on individual learning, the use of knowledge brokers to share knowledge between teams, and kick-off meetings.

Develop New Codification Schemes

As new product development involves solving complex technical problems encountered during a project, the know-how generated by teams is significant. The technical solutions are often original and it is appropriate to consider whether these solutions can be codified to make them easier to share. The potential of new codification schemes for capturing knowledge is demonstrated by the experience of ValveCo. When testing showed that a supplier's specifications were not sufficient to describe the full properties of a new plastic when it was used in the demanding environments typical of ValveCo's markets, the company struggled to resolve the problem. Although the new valve using the plastic component was successfully developed and marketed, managers and the NPD team felt that they did not fully understand how they had solved the problem. Consequently, ValveCo is now investigating how it can measure (and codify) the performance of the plastic in different environments. As the interaction between the plastic and the environment is complex and not clearly understood, a new way of codifying this is required. If the project team can find a way to fully describe the characteristics of the plastic in different environmental conditions, that information could prevent a long, costly cycle of work integrating the plastic into the next product.

Foster Individual Learning

NPD managers need to take action to stimulate individual team member's knowledge (Armbrecht et al. 2001); this can be accomplished via any of four mechanisms: direct project experience, mentoring, participation in communities of practice, or individual reflection (Figure 2). Of course, direct project experience is invaluable, and NPD personnel will learn most from being assigned to challenging and varied projects. Managers should assign personnel to teams based not only on their current skills but also on the learning that they can achieve through their work on a specific project. Learning can be accelerated by an emphasis on personal reflection, and particularly the use of learning logs that include short notes of the key points they have learned at each stage (Barker and Neailey 1999). Managers will need to make time available for personal reflection because, as one interviewee pointed out, “If you are ready with one product, then you are already running towards the next… you simply do not have the time to reflect” (Interviewee 5, PublishingCo).

Figure 2.—R&D professionals need to be encouraged to develop their expertise. The key mechanisms for stimulating individual learning are direct project experience, reflections on their experiences, mentoring, and interactions through communities of practice.

Communities of practice can foster individual learning by linking NPD professionals with others with a shared experience of professional practice and so supporting their professional development (Earl 2001). Such communities have been shown to have a significant positive impact in a variety of areas, including problem solving and idea generation, cost savings, and sales. Individuals and organizations gain significant benefits from participating in communities of practice (Brown and Duguid 2001), as it gives them access to repositories of knowledge and to networks of experts, with all of their associated tacit knowledge. Managers should actively encourage NPD personnel to join communities of practice by giving them to time to participate, for example, in professional associations.

The final important mechanism to support individual learning is mentoring. The literature on mentoring stresses that, if mentoring is to be effective, it must be targeted at clear learning objectives (Swap et al. 2001). Our findings regarding key categories of lessons learned can facilitate this. Knowing which lessons are closely connected to tacit knowledge can help make R&D mentoring schemes more targeted and thus more effective. Managers should consider personal coaching for less-experienced NPD project managers to help them learn to deal more effectively with areas where tacit knowledge is important.

Designate Knowledge Brokers

Knowledge brokers are NPD personnel tasked with transferring specific learning between projects. They make project-to-project learning tangible and, in addition, identify gaps and seek out knowledge to fill them. Knowledge brokering ensures that the focus is on transferring relevant learning. Short, informal presentations by knowledge brokers and social interaction between them and different NPD teams can help disseminate knowledge. Such contacts are more effective than written reports, because NPD personnel can ask questions and interact, which encourages the circulation of tacit knowledge.

Use Project Kick-Off Meetings

The best opportunity for managers to influence the learning that will take place within an NPD team is at the start of a new project, when the team is facing fresh challenges and is keen to try new approaches. Therefore, it makes sense to hold a kick-off meeting to clarify the project goals, to ensure that the process is clear, motivate the team, and share lessons learned from previous projects. At kick-off meetings, knowledge brokers can present key insights from other projects and make the new team aware of the issues that can arise. Examining key lessons from a previous project in the context of a new project can spur new insights, encourage the reuse of effective solutions, and prevent the repetition of mistakes.

In addition to the focus on project goals and learning, an effective kick-off meeting can bring a high level of motivation and determination to the team. Managers should not underestimate the long-term value that their involvement in such meetings can contribute.

Conclusion

Our findings have a number of implications for managers. The challenge has always been that, as one interviewee put it, “the knowledge is of course in the heads of a lot of people” (Interviewee 5, AppliancesCo). Knowing what experienced NPD personnel perceive as the most important lessons they have learned and which of these lessons are most closely associated with tacit knowledge gives managers new possibilities for disseminating learning throughout the organization. Although the specific mechanisms we have described are important, managers also need to recognize that top management encouragement, supplemented by suitable reward and recognition, is essential to create a learning culture (Tirpak 2005). Among our case companies, AppliancesCo was notable in that senior managers encouraged reflection and always took the time to attend PPRs, thus clearly demonstrating their commitment to learning. In the PPR we observed at AppliancesCo, the attendees were highly motivated, knowing that management would be attending later to hear their key conclusions.

Our research has provided tangible ways to encourage the flow of tacit knowledge. Far more research will be needed, however, before a full understanding of the role of tacit knowledge in an R&D context is achieved and more measureable ways for spreading tacit knowledge are identified. We will continue to investigate the role of tacit knowledge in NPD. In particular, our latest case studies are exploring how problems are solved during NPD. Since problem solving appears to be closely connected to tacit knowledge, we are investigating the source of the ideas most instrumental in solving major problems (“critical incidents”) in NPD.

References

Ambrosini, V., and Bowman, C. 2001. Tacit knowledge: Some suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management Studies 38(6): 811–829.

Armbrecht, F. M. R. Jr., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., Farris, G. F., Friga, P. N., Hartz, C. A., McIlvaine, W. E., Postle, S. R., and Whitwell, G. E. 2001. Knowledge management in research and development. Research-Technology Management 44(4): 28–48.

Barker, M., and Neailey, K. 1999. From individual learning to project team learning and innovation: A structured approach. Journal of Workplace Learning 11(2): 60–67.

Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. 2001. Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science 12(2): 198–213.

Busby, J. S. 1999. An assessment of post-project reviews. Project Management Journal 30(3): 23–29.

Collier, B., DeMarco, T., and Fearey, P. 1996. A defined process for project post-mortem review. IEEE Software 13(4): 65–72.

Cook, S. D. N., and Brown, J. S. 1999. Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science 10(4): 381–400.

Earl, M. 2001. Knowledge management strategies: Toward a taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1): 215–233.

Goffin, K. 2002. Repertory grid technique. In Essential Skills for Management Research, ed. D. Partington, 198–225. London: Sage Publications.

Gourlay, S. 2006. Conceptualizing knowledge creation: A critique of Nonaka's theory. Journal of Management Studies 43(7): 1415–1436.

Hoegl, M., and Schulze, A. 2005. How to support knowledge creation in new product development: An investigation of knowledge management methods. European Management Journal 23(3): 263–273.

Koners, U., and Goffin, K. 2007. Learning from post-project reviews: A cross-case analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24(3): 242–258.

Kotnour, T., and Vergopia, C. 2005. Learning-based project reviews: Observations and lessons learned from the Kennedy Space Centre. Engineering Management Journal 17(4): 30–38.

Leonard, D., and Swap, W. 2004. Deep smarts. Harvard Business Review 82(9): 88–97.

Levin, D. Z., and Cross, R. 2004. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science 50(11): 1477–1490.

Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1): 14–28.

Polanyi, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday.

Saban, K., Lamosa, J., Lackman, C., and Peace, G. 2000. Organizational learning: A critical component to new product development. Journal of Product and Brand Management 9(2): 99–119.

Schindler, M., and Eppler, M. J. 2003. Harvesting project knowledge: A review of project learning methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management 21:219–228.

Srivastva, S., and Barrett, F. J. 1988. The transforming nature of metaphors in group development: A study in group theory. Human Relations 41(1): 31–64.

Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., and Abrams, L. 2001. Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1): 95–114.

Thomke, S., and Fujimoto, T. 2000. The effect of “front-loading” problem-solving on product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management 17(2): 128–142.

Tidd, H., Bessant, J., and Pavitt, K. 2001. Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change, 2nd ed. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Tirpak, T. M. 2005. Five steps to effective knowledge management. Research-Technology Management 48(3): 15–16.

von Zedtwitz, M. 2002. Organizational learning through post-project reviews in R&D. R&D Management 32(3): 255–268.

von Zedtwitz, M. 2003. Post-project reviews in R&D. Research-Technology Management 46(5): 43–49.

Williams, T. 2008. How do organizations learn lessons from projects—and do they? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 55(2): 248–266.

Wilson, T. D. 2002. The nonsense of “knowledge management.” Information Research 8(1), paper no. 144. http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144 (accessed April 28, 2010).