International Journal of Innovation E-ISSN: 2318-9975 [email protected] Universidade Nove de Julho Brasil

Silveira Chaves, Marcirio; Santos Veronese, Giuliana A PROPOSAL TO MANAGE LESSONS LEARNED IN PROJECTS: WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES TO PROMOTE INNOVATION International Journal of Innovation, vol. 2, núm. 1, enero-junio, 2014, pp. 1-17 Universidade Nove de Julho Valdivia, Brasil

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=499150609001

How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative

Received on December 05, 2013 / Approved on April 6, 2014 Responsible Editor: Leonel Cesar Rodrigues, Ph.D. Evaluation Process: Double Blind Review E-ISSN: 2318 -9975

PROPOSAL TO MANAGE LESSONS LEARNED IN PROJECTS: WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES TO PROMOTE INNOVATION

1Marcirio Silveira Chaves A 2 Giuliana Santos Veronese

ABSTRACT

The web 2.0 is transforming the project management in organizations by improving communication and collaboration. The new generation of web-based collaborative tools provides much better experience than the traditional software package allowing document sharing, integrated task tracking, enforcing team processes and agile planning. Despite of the indubitable benefits brought by web 2.0, the use of these technologies to promote knowledge management remains unexplored. For many project managers to obtain and integrate information from different tools of previous similar projects in global organizations remains a challenge. This theoretical paper presents a proposal that suggests an innovation in the knowledge management area applying web 2.0 technologies. The main goal is to provide an integrated vision of a set of technologies that could be used by organizations in order to promote better management of lessons learned. The proposal includes the lessons learned processes (e.g. capture, share and dissemination), the process-based (e.g. project review and after action review) and documentation-based (e.g. micro article and learning histories) methods. Results show how web 2.0 technologies can help project managers and team project to cope with the main lessons learned processes and methods to learn from experience. Moreover, recommendations are made for the effective use of web 2.0 components promoting innovation and supporting lessons learned management in projects.

Key-words: Project Management; Lessons Learned Processes; Lessons Learned Methods; Project Learning; Web 2.0 Technologies; Innovation.

1 Doctorate in Informatics at University of Lisbon. Professor and researcher at Nove de Julho University (UNINOVE), São Paulo – SP (Brazil). Currently, he is leading the research line Managing of Projects and the research group Managing Web 2.0 Technologies in Projects - TiP 2.0. [[email protected]] 2 Doctorate in Computer Engineering at University Lisbon. Currently, she is working at Stefanini IT Solutions. [[email protected]]

1 INTRODUCTION Innovation generally refers to the use have received little attention from PM of a novel idea or method in order to researchers. In a review of PM literature, renew, change or create more effective Jugdev (2012) verified that the topic of LL processes and products. Inside of this has yet to gain more prominence. context, this paper proposes an innovation One of the main difficulties of project in the knowledge management area managers is to manage LL during the applying the use of web 2.0 technologies project. While 62.4% of organizations to promote an effective managing process have formal procedures to document LL, of lessons learned providing an ideal 89.3% of organizations are not doing it environment to project teams learn from (Williams, 2008). Schindler & Eppler the experience. Lessons learned (LL) is a (2003) found that the main causes of the well-known project management tool and lack of documentation of LL on projects can be defined as the learning gained are time, motivation, discipline and skills. during the process of performing a project. Although LL are often used throughout This learning should be applied on future a project, few collaborators seem to be projects to promote the recurrence of willing to share their knowledge. Petter & desirable outcomes and to avoid or Vaishnavi (2008) found that 64% of mitigate possible problems. participants in an experiment reported One of the main challenges that having learned from the documents filed organizations have faced is little incentive by his peers. However, only nine percent or structure for long-term organizational were willing to contribute to the learning (Hobday, 2000). Although documentation due to the time and level of systematic project learning enables an effort required. To minimize the time and enterprise to develop project competencies effort, web 2.0 tools technologies (e.g. that lead to a sustainable competitive wikis, and microblogs) can be an advantage, organizations have failed in alternative to be explored, considering the provide an environment to promote the use high investment by companies in the last of lessons learned. Researches in Project years. According to (Singer, 2008) Management (PM) have highlighted the companies would have spent $4.6 billion relevance of lessons learned to support and by 2013 to integrate web 2.0 technologies improve results of current and further into their corporate computing projects (Weber, Aha, & Becerra- environment. Fernandez, 2001; Schindler & Eppler, Emerging web 2.0 technologies and 2003; Petter & Vaishnavi, 2008; Williams, applications start to gain visibility and use 2008; Jugdev, 2012, Veronese, 2014). by project managers to better support daily Moreover, LL are relevant because they tasks and processes (Boulos, Maramba, & can provide insights on both the decisions Wheeler, 2006; Cleveland, 2012; Grace, taken regarding communications issues 2009; Shang, Li, Wu, & Hou, 2011). and the results of these decisions in Gholami & Murugesan (2011) detail how previous similar projects. the managers of global IT projects are Although LL to be theoretically using web 2.0 technologies to support important, in practice LL are a complex everyday tasks and thus improve the issue that evolve people, processes, management of a project as a whole. (Chi, activities and technologies. Moreover, LL 2008) also describes as project managers are present in all phases of a project as are using web 2.0 technologies such as well as they make part of the contextual, blogs and Rich Site Summary (RSS). behavioral and technical competences. Despite the use of web 2.0 technologies Probably because of this complexity, LL be broad in PM (e.g. creation of A Proposal To Manage Lessons Learned in Projects Management: Web 2.0 Technologies To Promote Innovation deliverables, status reports, “great ideas” support LL in PM. Instead of using saved for later, standards and practices), commercial and legacy LL systems such this paper focuses on their use to cope with those listed by (Weber et al., 2001), free LL. Web 2.0 technologies need to be better web 2.0 technologies can provide a simple, grasped to store, capture, share and easy and more efficient way to deal with disseminate LL in a project. LL. Despite the theme of LL involve Although some projects successfully human and technological issues; this paper deal with LL, this subject remains being an focuses on technological issues. appellant challenge to project managers, This paper is structured as follows: since as (Polanyi, 1966) stated “we can Section 2 describes the theoretical know more than we can tell.” Tacit background, which involves LL process knowledge is implicit in the expression and methods, and the main web 2.0 “know more”, and consequently is more technologies. Section 3 details the difficult to operationalize. One of the proposal to manage LL through web 2.0 issues approached in this paper is to technologies. Section 4 presents a provide facilities to capture LL from the discussion on the main topics of this paper, project team. concludes the paper and outlines further The aim of this study is to present a works. proposal for using web 2.0 technologies to

2 THEORETICAL LITERATURE that is factually and technically correct; REVIEW and applicable in that it identifies a specific design, process, or decision that 2.1 Lessons Learned reduces or eliminates the potential for Senge (1991, p.8) describes learning failures and mishaps, or reinforces a organizations as “organizations where positive result.” Lessons learned can be people continually expand their capacity to categorized as follows (Weber et al., create the results they truly desire, where 2001): new and expansive patterns of thinking are ● Informational (e.g. how nurtured, where collective aspiration is set employee‟s duties could be free, and where people are continually changed during times of learning how to learn together”. LL are an emergencies); intrinsic part of learning organizations. ● Successful (e.g. capture effective Project Management Institute (2013) responses to a crisis); defines LL as the knowledge gained during ● Problem (i.e. describe examples of a project which shows how project events actions that failed and potential were addressed or should be addressed in ways to resolve them). the future with the purpose of improving further performance. However, Weber et al. (2001) suggest Although the literature is rich in the categorizing lessons by their contribution definitions of LL, this paper adopts the one rather than, or at least in addition to, the proposed by Secchi, Ciaschi, & Spence type of experience from which they were (1999). “A lesson learned is a knowledge derived (e.g., success or failure). or understanding gained by experience. The experience may be positive, as in a 2.1.1 Lessons Learned Processes successful test or mission, or negative, as The literature on learning organization in a mishap or failure. Successes are also has described a set of LL processes named considered sources of LL. A lesson must as follows: collect, capture, gather, verify, be significant in that it has a real or assumed impact on operations; valid in store, share, distribute, disseminate, reuse,

and apply. Weber et al. (2001) propose to prompt users with relevant lessons. four LL processes: collect, verify, store, Finally, the reactive dissemination and disseminate. They also highlight the occurs when users realize they need sub-processes into each of process additional knowledge, they can invoke a proposed by them. help system to obtain relevant lessons and Five sub-processes compose the related information (Weber et al., 2001). collection process: passive collection, This paper summarizes the essential reactive collection, after action collection, processes to simplify the management of proactive collection and active collection. LL, which are described in the following. Passive collection occurs when ● Capture: The process of bringing organizational members submit their own together information or knowledge lessons using a form (e.g. online). In from different sources has been reactive collection, members are indistinctly denominated gather interviewed to collect lesson. After action and collect in the PM literature. In collection is accomplished during or near this paper the process of capture the completion of a project. In proactive includes to gather and collect LL. collection, lessons are captured while According to Hornby & Turnbull problems are solved. Active collection can (2010), to gather means to bring together be carried out through two ways: 1) Active information which are spread around scan attempts to find lessons in documents within a short distance. Hornby & and in communications among Turnbull (2010) also defines the verb to organization‟s members. 2) Problems collect as to get examples of something demanding lessons are identified and a from different people or places that are collection event is planned to obtain physically separated. To capture is defined relevant lessons. by the same dictionary as to represent or The process of verification focuses on record in lasting form. In a PM validating LL for correctness, consistency, perspective, the capture of LL includes redundancy, and relevance. The store information spread around within a short process addresses issues related to the distance and people physically separated. representation (e.g., level of abstraction) Lessons learned can be captured through and indexing of lessons, formatting, and text, audio, video or image. the repository‟s framework. Lesson representations can be structured, semi- ● Storage: The storage process structured, or in different media (e.g., text, searches to define the environment video, audio) (Weber et al., 2001). where LL will be stored. It should The process of dissemination is also consider a range of formats to decomposed into five sub-processes: allow the capture process to collect Passive dissemination, which users search talks (audio and video), technical for lessons in a (usually) standalone procedures (image and video), and retrieval tool. In active casting lessons are formal and informal documentation broadcast to potential users via a dedicated (text). list server. Broadcasting uses bulletins are ● Share and Verify: Share LL sent to everybody in the organization, as is means to make them available at made in some LL organizations. In the the same time for a team of experts active dissemination sub-process users are who, according to (Weber et al., dynamically notified of relevant lessons in 2001), focuses on validating them the context of their decision-making for correctness, consistency, process. In the proactive dissemination redundancy, and relevance. sub-process the system builds a model of Moreover, each lesson need to the user‟s interface events to predict when meet the criteria proposed by A Proposal To Manage Lessons Learned in Projects Management: Web 2.0 Technologies To Promote Innovation

Secchi, Ciaschi, & Spence (1999): the Lessons Learned Report is gradually to be significant, valid and built up (and acted on) during the project applicable. and handed over as one of the products at Project Closure. In this paper, I follow this ● Distribute or Disseminate: To recommendation and adopt the project spread the knowledge contained in review, after action review methods the LL by a team, department or because they can be executed in the course organization. of the project and during the work process. ● Apply or Reuse: To make useful Moreover, web 2.0 technologies are the LL on current and further available throughout the project not being projects. necessary to wait the end of the project to ● Withdraw: To recognize when an start some process to deal with LL. LL is no longer useful on current Project review or project audit can be and further projects. characterized has follows: participants are 2.1.2 Lessons Learned Methods project team and third parties that are Lessons learned are relevant ways of involved into the project. Its purpose is gathering and sharing (Secchi et al., 1999) status classification, early recognition of formal and informal project knowledge possible hazards, and it has also a team- (Jugdev, 2012). Project learning has been internal focus. The main benefits include captured and shared through structured the improvement of team discipline, project lessons (project reviews) and less prevention of weak points and validation structured Community of Practice (CoP). of strategies. The interaction mode is face- Both project reviews and CoP are methods to-face meetings. organized in the scope of a set of After action review has as participant processes. the project team and its purpose are Schindler & Eppler (2003) classify learning from mistakes and knowledge methods to foster learning in two groups. transfer inside the team. The main benefit Process-based methods stress the relevant is the immediate reflection of the own steps and their sequence in course of a doings to improve future actions. The project‟s time line while documentation- interaction mode is cooperative team based methods focus on aspects of the meetings. content wise representation of the On the other hand, the documentation- experiences and the storage of contents based methods described by Schindler & within the organization (Schindler & Eppler (2003) are micro articles, learning Eppler, 2003). histories and RECALL. A micro article is The four process-based methods are written in an informal style with a project review or project audit, after action framework that consists of a topic, an review, post-control and post-project introductory short description of its appraisal. Post-control is carried out content and a keyword part for indexing the article (Schindler & Eppler, 2003). exclusively at project's end and post- project appraisal is performed Learning history is a written story approximately two years after project consisting of the main events of a project completion. arranged in a chronological order. Taking into account that project Contrary to micro article that has at most processes are generally temporary and one page, a story can contain between unique, with nonroutine features, hindering twenty and one hundred pages following a learning, we should retain the knowledge story-telling approach. Once compiled, generated along the project since the beginning. According to Bentley (2010) learning histories are validated in

discussions with the people involved. connects present with the past and future, RECALL was a prototype used by and (3) learning, the development of a new National Aviation and Space Agency perspective based upon one's critical (NASA) where users could submit their analysis and the application of new LL directly using a Web browser. The knowledge to the learning situation under lessons were directly inserted in a reflection. Loo (2002) also suggests a set database. After the insertion, users were of questions to help building a journal. asked to answer a set of questions to the . What was the learning situation/event? system to add relevant context . What have I learned, and how did I information. The most appropriated documentation- learn it? based methods described by Schindler & . How do I feel (good or bad feelings) Eppler (2003) to use with web 2.0 about what I learned? technologies are micro articles and . How could I have learned more learning histories. RECALL was an effectively/efficiently? example of prototype supported by a LL . What actions can I take to learn more system and used internally at NASA, effectively/efficiently in the future? which makes difficulty to adapt to the reality of the most project-based . In what ways do I need to change my organizations. attitudes, expectations, values, and the The last method to foster LL in this like to feel better about learning paper is journaling. According to Loo situations? (2002) a journal is an articulated narrative Lessons learned methods are plentiful that follows from the reflective and critical in literature, as summarized in Table 1. thinking about one's learning experiences or specific learning events. (Loo, 2002) In addition, Busby (1999) classifies presents a three-stage model of reflective post-project reviews into two types: learning, (1) awareness, the present chronological reviews and categorical situation, (2) critical analysis, which reviews.

Table 1: Main lessons learned methods in the literature. Lessons Learned Methods Authors Project Review Schinder and Eppler (2003) Postcontrol or Post-Project Review Schinder and Eppler (2003) After Action Review Schinder and Eppler (2003) Post-Project Appraisal (two years after project completion) Gulliver (1987) Journaling Loo (2002) Learning Histories Roth and Kleiner (1998) Micro article Willke (1998) Project history day Collier, DeMarco and Fearey (1996) Appreciative Lessons Learned Method (4ALL) Baaz et al. (2010) Retrospective Meetings Derby, Larsen & Schwaber (2006) Source: The authors. 2.2 Web 2.0 Technologies Web 2.0 technologies have been used to A Proposal To Manage Lessons Learned in Projects Management: Web 2.0 Technologies To Promote Innovation support knowledge management, rapid easily skimmed, and entries easily application development, customer accessed (Grudin, 2006). In a survey of relationship management, collaboration 212 participants, Hsu & Lin (2008) and communication, training, and found that ease of use and enjoyment, and innovation (Andriole, 2010). Additionally, knowledge sharing (altruism and Glória Júnior, Oliveira and Chaves (2014) reputation) were positively related to introduce a proposal for using web 2.0 attitude toward blogging. technologies in agile methodologies such Reverse blog, which is composed by a as SCRUM. In the same vein, according to set of bloggers rather than a single blogger, the survey carried out by Andriole (2010), is also useful in the context of a project. It knowledge management, collaboration and allows the coworkers report the progress of communication are the areas which web the project for managers or clients and 2.0 technologies contributed most. describes lessons learned. As regards knowledge management, web 2.0 technologies have also the 2.2.2 potential to complement, enhance, and add Microblogging “allow[s] users to new collaborative dimensions to the exchange small elements of content such processes of storing, capturing, sharing, as short sentences, individual images, or disseminating and applying lessons video links” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). It learned. Web 2.0 technologies are is a broadcast medium in the form of characterized by ease of use and rapidity blogging that allows users to write brief of deployment, making possible powerful text updates (usually less than 200 information sharing and straightforward characters) and publish them, either to be collaboration (Boulos et al., 2006). viewed by anyone or by a restricted group Further, these technologies afford the which can be chosen by the user. Notable advantage of reducing the technical skill active microblogging services are Twitter, required to use their features, allowing Identi.ca, Tout and Yammer. Actually, in a users to focus on the exchange of lessons typical day, Twitter has more than 500 learned and collaborative tasks themselves million tweets sent a day which means without the distraction of a complex about 5,700 tweets a second, on average technological environment. Contrary to (Twitter, 2013). lessons learned repositories in off-the-self The simplicity and ability to post software, web 2.0 sites and applications frequently seem to be what attract most to provides simple and easy ways to store, the concept. The characteristics also make capture, share and disseminate lessons the use of microblogs successful are a) the learned. The main web 2.0 technologies to creation of ambient awareness; b) a unique be applied to these tasks evolving lessons form of push-push-pull communication; learned are described in the following. and c) the ability to serve as a platform for virtual exhibitionism and voyeurism 2.2.1 Blogs (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2011). Creation of A blog is a discussion or informational ambient awareness refers that in site published on the Web and consisting combination, different tweets sent out over of entries typically displayed in reverse time can paint a very accurate picture of a chronological order. Most blogs are person‟s activities. interactive (i.e. open to comments by This feature allows project managers visitors) and have a set of characteristics follow the progress of a team as well as the that allow them to gain popularity. individual members. The technical and behavioral characteristics of project blogs are very lightweight, chronologically sequenced, Push-push-pull communication refers to

the feature of one author‟s tweets are implementation of wikis is Wikidot automatically pushed onto the Twitter (wikidot.com), a platform with more than main page of all followers. If the receiver 17 millions of pages and close to 1.3 of the message finds the news so million of people, which is also used to interesting and intriguing that he decides to support group projects. Wikis have unique give it an additional push by re-tweeting it features such as collaborative authorship, to their own followers. Once the message instant publication, versioning and has been pushed and pushed again through simplicity of authorship. the whole network, it may motivate some (Standing & Kiniti, 2011) stress the use user to go out and „pull‟ additional of wikis for innovation, while (Parker & information on the subject from other Chao, 2007) emphasize their use to sources. This feature makes it easy to enhance the learning process. (Grace, augment the knowledge among the 2009) highlights other advantages in the members of a project. usage of wikis, including ease of use, Lastly, the platform for virtual central repository for information, tracking exhibitionism and voyeurism means and revision feature, collaboration among “Twitter is like a huge one-way mirror organizations and solve information which allows millions of people to sit on overload by e-mail. She also lists the main one side and watch the day-to-day lives of existing types of wikis: a select few who have decided to share their each and every move with the whole ● Personal Wiki where user keeps it world.” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2011). Such as a form of concept map or journal a feature seems do not be applicable in the for an idea. context of PM. Literature is rich in examples of use of ● Semantic Wiki where knowledge microblogs by organizations (Günther, used is described in a formal term Krasnova, Riehle, & Schoendienst, 2009). which allows for machine- Directly related to the main topic of this processing like a semantic web. paper, (Cleveland, 2012) proposes to evaluate the use of microblogs in the task ● Corporate Wiki where it is mostly of recording the lessons learned from the used internally in a corporate projects. He investigates if microblogging context contrary to public wiki on will be accepted and used for capturing Internet. lessons learned in projects, to what extension microblogging lessons result in ● Structured Wiki combines knowledge reuse and how significant are benefits of sharing and the time savings for capturing collaboration of a plain wiki with microblogging lessons when compared to structured elements of a database lessons captured via the traditional post- by allowing the structuring of project review method. Considering that information when needed. lessons learned are often informally reported microblogging has the potential to ● Peer-to-peer Wiki where wiki support this communication among sites are shared between peers on a coworkers. server-less system. It is stored on computers of the users and 2.2.3 Wikis provides less security features. A wiki is a web application which allows people to edit content in Wikis allow implementing the process collaboration with others. Beyond or task of socially constructed knowledge Wikipedia, another successful creation. In a PM perspective, personal, A Proposal To Manage Lessons Learned in Projects Management: Web 2.0 Technologies To Promote Innovation corporate and structured wikis can be or a blog been used in a project, implemented to support collaboration eliminating the need of periodic visits to among coworkers. (Majchrzak, Wagner, & search for updates in these sites. Yates, 2006) conducted a survey with 168 Because of social networks (e.g. corporate wiki users. They found three Facebook), VoIP (Voice over Internet main types of benefits from corporate Protocol - e.g. Skype) and Web-based wikis: enhanced reputation, work made Office Suite (e.g. googledrive.com) are easier, and helping the organization to considered the most popular web 2.0 improve its processes. technologies, this paper will not describe Finally, to choose a wiki platform, a them. project manager can take into account the Next section describes how to better wiki's selection and implementation leverage web 2.0 technologies and framework proposed by (Grace, 2009). applications to improve the use of LL Moreover, a comparison among the along a project. Associated with each existing wiki platforms can be made using process, we propose some lessons-learned the site Wikimatrix (www.wikimatrix.org). methods using web 2.0 technologies. Wikis platforms usually contain a set of built-in or embedded web 2.0 technologies 3 A PROPOSAL FOR USING WEB 2.0 such as blogs, RSS, and tagging. TECHNOLOGIES IN PROJECT

MANAGEMENT 2.2.4 Other Web 2.0 Technologies The web 2.0 is transforming the project A service is a management in a thousand of centralized online service which enables organizations by improving users to add, annotate, edit, and share communication and collaboration. The bookmarks of web documents (Noll & new generation of web-based collaborative Meinel, 2007). In the context of PM, the tools (e.g. application lifecycle use of a platform of bookmarking (e.g. management tools) provides much better diggo.com) among members of a project is experience than the traditional software crucial to capture and share lessons learned package allowing document sharing, from external environment. Technical integrated task tracking, enforcing team problems are often discussed in specialized processes and agile planning. Despite of forums and blogs which store and describe the indubitable benefits brought by web a set of recurring problems and solutions. 2.0, the use of these technologies to Once a project member find a useful promote LL remains completely lesson learned in a forum or blog, he/she unexplored. For many project managers to can bookmark the web site or page and obtain and integrate information from share it with co-workers. Moreover, the different tools of previous similar projects search process is facilitated by the use of in global organizations remains a tags. For instance, lessons learned about challenge. the planning phase of a project can be The proposal introduced in this paper bookmarked with the “planning”, presents an overview of the most used web which can help further searches about this 2.0 technologies and apply them in the PM topic. perspective. One of the objectives is to Rich Site Summary (RSS) is a set of provide an integrated vision of a set of formats used to publish technologies that could be used by project frequently updated works such as wiki and members promoting the application and blog entries, audio and video in a reuse of LL. standardized format. Using this technology, project members can be This proposal suggests an innovation in automatically notified of updates in a wiki

the knowledge management letting the and external social networks (Andriole, project team collaborate and share 2010; Moqbel, 2012), we propose that the information easily. Figure 1 outlines such organization or the knowledge vision. management officer define and adopt a In this proposal a wiki platform is used social network model in order to promote as a centralized repository of LL collected communication and dissemination. LL can during the entire project life cycle. The be also shared by the team members centralized repository facilitates the access through posts in microblogs using of all information related to the projects. in order to facilitate information retrieval. The blog and RSS technologies are built-in The wiki should present minimal or embedded in order to facilitate LL structured information to identify the capture and dissemination respectively. In project and URLs of collaborators to allow spite of providing a flexible structure and that all members have access to the taking into account the different discussions posted in the social network. preferences of project members (e.g. one Videos recorded in meetings or in the prefers use voice, other texts), this execution of technical procedures, relevant proposal presents a broad use of web 2.0 conversations carried out through VoIP technologies. Orbiting around the wiki and URLs of the documents in web-based platform are the following technologies: collaborative tools should be also stored in microblogging, social bookmarking, social the wiki. The flexibility provided by web network, video, VoIP and web-based 2.0 technologies allows integrating project collaborative tools. information managed for different Due to the strong acceptance of internal applications and media.

Figure 1: Using web 2.0 technologies in Project Management. Source: The authors.

According to Jugdev (2012), to conduct that better fit with the web 2.0 an effective LL implementation is required technologies. Based on the LL processes management support, the right and methods described in the previous stakeholders should be involved and sections, Table 2 presents a proposal of use knowledge should be shared in both of web 2.0 technologies in order to support codified and uncodified ways. Therefore, the LL processes in PM. we propose a semi-structured approach

A Proposal To Manage Lessons Learned in Projects Management: Web 2.0 Technologies To Promote Innovation

Table 2: A proposal for using web 2.0 technologies to support the most relevant lessons learned processes. Lessons learned Type of data and Sub- Web 2.0 technologies processes processes Storage Structured -- Semi-structured Wiki, Web-based Collaborative tools Different media VoIP and video Capture Passive collection Wiki, Web-based Collaborative tools, blog, VoIP and video Reactive collection VoIP and video After action collection Wiki and Web-based Collaborative Suite Proactive collection Wiki, Web-based Collaborative tools, VoIP and Video Share and Verify Passive share Wiki, Web-based Collaborative Tools, Social Network and Social Bookmarking Active verification Wiki, Web-based Collaborative tools Disseminate Passive dissemination Wiki, Blog, Microblogging and social Network Active casting RSS Broadcasting Email Active dissemination RSS Proactive dissemination Social Bookmarking Reactive dissemination Discussion Group Source: The authors.

3.1 The Storage Process structured approach better fits to store LL The application of web 2.0 using web 2.0 technologies. In order to technologies in the LL context brings facilitate the information retrieval some some interesting differences in the templates can be defined to present basic implementation of LL process. As information about the project (name, presented in the previous sections to project manager, scope, etc.) or LL in promote LL reuse the literature defines textual data (e.g. in question/answer or processes to collect, validate, store, and problem/solution format). disseminate. Weber et al. (2001) propose According to Figure 1, several tools are to deal explicitly with storing after the used to store LL and a wiki centralizes verification process. their contents through links to external The proposal introduced in this paper sources such as documents in web-based argues that using web 2.0 technologies the collaborative tools, videos in video-sharing LL storage process should be defined first. websites or web pages in social The project managers must to define which bookmarking web services. technologies will be used and how they 3.2 The Capture Process will be integrated with each other in order The process of capturing LL involves to combine the technologies that better fit sub process, methods and technologies. with the project´s features (e.g. projects The passive sub-process usually is related to user experience can disseminate performed through a set of forms in a more useful LL using videos). legacy system. In our proposal the passive Furthermore, define how the sub-process is carried out exploring the information will be stored is also a point of best features of the web 2.0 technologies attention. Structured data requires the use such as collaborative authorship (wiki), of forms and metadata which makes the speedy communication (microblog) and process slow and bureaucratic inhibiting the capture of LL. In our proposal lessons easy integration (web-based collaborative learned can be stored in text format or in tools, video, calls on VoIP). The most different media. Therefore the semi-

appropriated methods to perform passive processes are described in sequence, they collection are project review, retrospective occur almost simultaneously, once a meetings, learning history, micro article project member report a lesson in this and journaling. structure, the lesson is stored Interviews with project team members automatically. Finally, it is important to are used in order to cope with the reactive mention that more available methods and sub-process. To innovate, we propose that technologies, higher probability of lessons the results of this collection should be be captured by the project team members. shared through videos becoming this LL capturing process more dynamic and 3.3 The Sharing and Verification attractive for the participants. Processes The after action sub-process is The main goal of sharing and verifying performed during the entire project's processes is to validate the accuracy and lifecycle conducive to the project´s team applicability of submitted lessons. LL are members review important events allowing submitted by team members in order to be them analyzing what and why happened validated by domain or subject matter and how to improve the results to execute experts. Due to the collaborative aspects the same, or similar, tasks. Therefore the provided by the web 2.0 technologies, the suitable methods to perform this sub sharing and verification processes can be process are action review and retrospective significantly improved. A team member meetings. Due to the features of this sub- that find a technical solution for a problem process, the most appropriate technologies in a forum can easily share the URL of the are Wiki and microblogs since they enable web page using a social bookmarking tool. coworkers to capture lessons throughout Once the other members have access to the project. this information, they can contribute The main goal of the proactive sub- criticizing or providing more details and process is share important events in the posting this information, for instance, in moment that they are happening (e.g. the project´s wiki. This approach provides project member solving a problem). a first level verification which team Microblog, Web-based Collaborative tools members collaborating to improve the LL and videos can improve this LL capturing description becoming it more accurate. sub-process. The second verification level can be It is important to mention that methods conducted by a set of subject matter to capture lessons can be carried out experts in order to determine whether or individually or in group. Micro article and not a lesson is pertinent for a particular journaling are individual methods to project, department or can be applied to capture LL that can be supported by wikis the organization as a whole. Once decided or blogs. On the other hand, group the relevance of the published information methods including project review, after- it can be highlighted in some specific action review and learning history can be communication channel(s) (e.g. intranet, performed using wikis or blogs. Project internal social network and corporative daily board can use blogs, specifically wiki) in order to disseminate for a large reverse blog. However, project managers number of people. should take into account that these methods can consume a lot of time of the 3.4 The Dissemination Process project team members. We suggest The dissemination process allow users increasing the periodicity of reports and to retrieve information from past posting only the relevant decisions or experiences on specific topics and directly events (e.g. weekly dashboard). communicate last verified lessons learned Although the storage and capture to various audiences. Passive A Proposal To Manage Lessons Learned in Projects Management: Web 2.0 Technologies To Promote Innovation dissemination can be performed using wiki the subject matters experts need to check platforms, blogs, microblogs and social post by post. Moreover, in the social networks. RSS is a useful tool to promote networks LL retrieval is more difficult active casting dissemination. LL related to when compared with other tools such wiki. a specific topic are sent to an interested In this context, Figure 2 presents a web group of users (e.g. Project‟s members are 2.0 technologies-centered perspective of only notified about the lessons relevant to the LL processes. It summarizes the most their project´s tasks). indicated technologies to be used with Broadcasting is carried out through each process. Corporate Wikis appear as bulletins which are sent to everybody in more comprehensive technologies to the organization using e-mail. Proactive support the four main processes. dissemination can be partially performed Adjoining, wiki technology can easily using a bookmarking service through the integrate the huge amount of information automatic suggestion of tags when project provided by different web-based members are tagging websites or web collaborative tools used during the project pages. Discussions group can be a useful lifecycle. tool to support reactive dissemination Web-based collaborative tools and allowing the project team share project social bookmarking are also indicated to issues and obtain information from their deal with storage, capture, share and partners. It is also interesting to observe verification processes. The dissemination that the traditional methods to capture LL process can be better performed using do not refer (or explicitly mention) to the blogs, social networks, microblogging, use of technologies as VoIP and videos. RSS and e-mail than web-based Table 1 showed that this tool should be collaborative tools or social bookmarking. considered while capturing LL. VoIP and video are more suitable for the Finally, some processes to deal with LL storage and capture processes. Blog is which involve the application, reuse and appropriate for capturing and withdraw them are not being considered in disseminating LL, while social networking this proposal once they are post- can be used to support the processes of implementation processes. sharing and disseminating. Similarly to the processes, web 2.0 3.5 Web 2.0 technologies-centered technologies can also support the LL Lessons Learned Processes and methods. Figure 3 presents the web 2.0 Methods technologies-centered LL methods. The Some of web 2.0 technologies corporate wiki, web-based collaborative described in this paper can be applied in office suite, VoIP and video, and blog other processes than those presented in the technologies can be used to support previous section. Microblogging could be process-based methods as project review used to share LL, but become more and after action review. Journaling and complex the first level of sharing and micro articles can be done in a corporate verification processes when project wiki, web-based collaborative suite, or a members need to augment its content. LL blog. Wikis or web-based collaborative can also be captured through social suites support longer texts, such as used in networking; nevertheless, the verification a learning history. process is remarkably complicated once

Figure 2: Web 2.0 technologies-centered lessons learned processes. St: Storage, C: Capturing, Sh: Sharing, V: Verification and D: Dissemination. Source: The authors

Figure 3: Web 2.0 technologies-centered lessons learned methods. PR: Project Review, AAR: After Action Review, JML: Journaling, Micro article and Learning history. Source: The authors

Finally, this section presented an technologies can better fit with the project overview about how web 2.0 technologies features and how they can be explored to can be used to support the management of promote LL. It can start with the LL in the PM perspective. Figures 2 and 3 implementation of a wiki and gradually illustrate that corporate wiki is the most accommodate other technologies complete tool to deal with LL processes considered relevant to the project. and methods. In this sense, instead of Technologies such as blog and RSS can be introduce all technologies at the same time easily integrated in the project because in a project, we suggest an adoption they come built-in or embedded in the phased in order to verify which platform.

4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION some of these important points. First, the implementation of a new The proposal introduced in this paper technology in an organization is a apply web 2.0 technologies to support challenging process. Standing & Kiniti processes and methods providing an (2011) list a set of challenges related to the effective LL management model. On the use of wiki in organizations, which other hand, the use of these technologies includes: management support, risk of release a set of issues which organizations, vandalism and the uncertainty over quality knowledge management officers and control and evaluation, absence of project managers should take into account organized culture of collaboration and in order to succeed in the implementation knowledge sharing, failure to integrate the of LL processes. This section discusses A Proposal To Manage Lessons Learned in Projects Management: Web 2.0 Technologies To Promote Innovation wiki within established work practice, lack increase group communication taking of clear guidelines and policies for wiki project managers to identify new skills in use, and wiki usability and accessibility. the project members and to designate the Organizations should take into account all role of communication leader to some of these challenges before to implement wikis them. To coordinate the amount of and other web 2.0 technologies. information generated along the project is As also noted by (Levy, 2009), another critical factor of success in the organizations do not have the mass of implementation of web 2.0 technologies in people as Web does. Depending on the project management. dimension of an organization, the maturity Web 2.0 technologies have also a process of the technologies implemented significant impact on the cost, duration and can vary according to the number of users scope of a project. Instead of spend involved in the project. Moreover, it is thousands of dollars in commercial LL relevant to motivate the users to share their applications, web 2.0 technologies provide knowledge. an affordable solution to manage LL. Once One key issue to promote learning in that LL are applied and reused, the organizations is the motivation of the duration of activities is reduced releasing stakeholders to share their knowledge with physical and human resources for other the pairs. However, Petter & Vaishenavi activities. Thinking about a set of activities (2008) found that only nine percent of where LL are applied, the scope of the project members were willing to contribute project is positively changed. Moreover, to the documentation. Considering this, we the dynamic environment provided by web strongly suggest organizations to create 2.0 technologies can help in the some kind of incentive to stimulate project identification of leaders and promote members collaborate sharing to an innovation. The most active users of wikis, effective implementation of the LL blogs and microblogs can be considered processes. potential leaders in a team. It is also important to mention the There is not a true one-size-fits-all problem of “the obsession with tools and approach that will result in effectively techniques” highlighted by Scarborough, learning process. Based on their own Swan, & Preston (1999). They state that culture, organizations need recognize the this obsession causes four problems: the profile of their project members and assumption that all knowledge is codable, features of their projects before define the an overemphasis on new information appropriate tools to manage LL. Once the technologies, an assumption that people technologies implemented to support a are willing to share their knowledge and to project are well accepted, their use can be use the knowledge from systems, and a extended to support organizational rigidification of the informal and intuitive learning process. practices that are essential in a flexible Finally, we have outlined how wider firm. used web 2.0 technologies can effectively As Williams (2003, p. 253) noted support LL processes in PM. These “projects are complex entities, and technologies facilitate the processes of learning from complex systems needs a capturing, sharing, storing, and allow LL more sophisticated approach than simply to be widely disseminated by a team, writing down lessons”. Web 2.0 department or organization. The proposal technologies also allow dealing with LL introduced in this paper is mainly based on throughout the project, instead of deal with both the LL processes described in Weber LL only in the end of the project as in et al. (2001) and on the methods to learn post-project evaluation reviews. This from experiences introduced by Schindler change in the management of LL will & Eppler (2003).

process, it will be possible to find the main As future work, the proposal should be limitations of the proposal as well as its validated on project-based organizations extension with regards the processes, using the action-research and case study methods and the introduction of other web research methods. Along this validation 2.0 technologies.

REFERENCES

Andriole, S. J. (2010). Business impact of Web 2.0 Conference on System Sciences (p. 57a–57a). technologies. Communications of the ACM, IEEE. 53(12), 67-79. Gulliver, F. R. (1987). Post-project appraisals pay. Baaz, A., Holmberg, L., Nilsson, A., Olsson, H. H., Harvard Business Review, 65(2), 128. & Sandberg, A. B. (2010). Appreciating Günther, O., Krasnova, H., Riehle, D., & Lessons Learned. Software, IEEE, 27(4), 72- Schoendienst, V. (2009). Modeling 79. Microblogging Adoption in the Enterprise. In Bentley, C. (2010). PRINCE2: a practical AMCIS 2009 Proceedings. Paper 544. handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth- Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based Heinemann. organisation: An ideal form for managing Boulos, M., Maramba, I., & Wheeler, S. (2006). complex products or systems?. Research Wikis, blogs and : a new generation Policy, 29(7-8), 871–893. of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative Hornby, A. S., & Turnbull, J. (2010). Oxford clinical practice and education. BMC Medical advanced learner’s dictionary of current Education, 6(41). English. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Busby, J. S. (1999). An assessment of post-project Press. reviews. Project Management Journal 30 (3), Hsu, C.-L., & Lin, J. C.-C. (2008). Acceptance of 23–29. blog usage: The roles of technology Chi, E. H. (2008). The Social Web: Research and acceptance, social influence and knowledge Opportunities. Computer, 41(9), 88–91. sharing motivation. Information & doi:10.1109/MC.2008.401 Management, 45(1), 65–74. Cleveland, S. (2012). Using Microblogging for Jugdev, K. (2012). Learning from Lessons Lessons Learned in Information Systems Learned: Project Management Research Projects. In International Research Workshop Program. American Journal of Economics and on IT Project Management (pp. 122–128). Business Administration, 4(1), 13–22. Collier, B., DeMarco, T., Fearey, P. (1996). A Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the defined process for project postmortem world, unite! The challenges and opportunities review. IEEE Software Journal, 65–71. of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59- 68. Gholami, B., & Murugesan, S. (2011). Global IT Project Management Using Web 2.0. Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2011). The early bird International Journal of Information catches the news: Nine things you should Technology Project Management, 2(3), 30– know about micro-blogging. Business 52. Horizons, 54(2), 105–113. Glória Júnior, I., Oliveira, R. & Chaves, M. S. Levy, M. (2009). Web 2.0 implications on (2014). A Proposal for Using Web 2.0 knowledge management. Journal of Technologies in SCRUM. In Proc. of the Knowledge Management, 13(1), 120–134. 22nd European Conference on Information Loo, R. (2002). Journaling: A learning tool for Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel, 9-11 June. project management training and team- Grace, T. P. L. (2009). Wikis as a knowledge building. Project Management Journal, 33(4), management tool. Journal of Knowledge 61–66. Management, 13(4), 64–74. Majchrzak, A., Wagner, C., & Yates, D. (2006). Grudin, J. (2006). Enterprise Knowledge Corporate wiki users: results of a survey. In Management and Emerging Technologies. In Proceedings of the International Symposium Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International on Wikis (pp. 99–104). Odense, Denmark: A Proposal To Manage Lessons Learned in Projects Management: Web 2.0 Technologies To Promote Innovation

ACM Press. Shang, S. S. C., Li, E. Y., Wu, Y.-L., & Hou, O. C. L. (2011). Understanding Web 2.0 service Moqbel, M. (2012). Explaining user acceptance of models: A knowledge-creating perspective. social networking: Employees‟ Perspective. In Information & Management, 48(4-5), 178– Proceedings of the Southwest Decision 184. Science Institute Forty Third Annual Conference, February 29–March (Vol. 3, pp. Singer, M. (2008, April 21). Web 2.0: Companies 110-118). Will Spend $4.6 Billion By 2013, Forrester Predicts. News. Retrieved September 9, 2013, Noll, M. G., & Meinel, C. (2007). Web Search from http://goo.gl/fuYBkt Personalization Via Social Bookmarking and Tagging. In K. Aberer, K.-S. Choi, N. Noy, D. Standing, C., & Kiniti, S. (2011). How can Allemang, K.-I. Lee, L. Nixon, … P. Cudré- organizations use wikis for innovation? Mauroux (Eds.), The Semantic Web (Vol. Technovation, 31(7), 287–295. 4825, pp. 367–380). Springer Berlin Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Newell, S. (2010). Heidelberg. Why don‟t (or do) organizations learn from Parker, K., & Chao, J. (2007). Wiki as a Teaching projects? Management Learning, 41(3), 325– Tool. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning 344. and Learning Objects (IJELLO), 3(1), 57–72. Twitter (2013). New Tweets per second record, and Petter, S., & Vaishnavi, V. (2008). Facilitating how! The Twitter Blog Network. Blog. Last experience reuse among software project access 2013/08/21. Retrieved from managers. Information Sciences, 178(7), https://blog.twitter.com/2013/new-tweets-per- 1783–1802. second-record-and-how Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden Veronese, G. S. (2014). Métodos para Captura de City, N.Y., USA: Doubleday & Co. Lições Aprendidas: Em Direção a Melhoria Contínua na Gestão de Projetos. Revista de Gestão Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to e Projetos, 5(1), 71-83. Doi:10.5585/gep.v5i1.250 the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide). (5th ed.). Project Weber, R., Aha, D. W., & Becerra-Fernandez, I. Management Institute. (2001). Intelligent lessons learned systems. Expert Systems with Applications, 20(1), 17– Roth, G., & Kleiner, A. (1998). Developing 34. organizational memory through learning histories. Organizational Dynamics, 27(2), Westbrook, R. N. (2012). Online Management 43-60. System: Wielding Web 2.0 Tools to Collaboratively Manage and Track Projects. Scarborough, H., Swan, J., & Preston, J. (1999). Journal of Library Innovation, 3(1), 86–100. Knowledge management: a literature review. London: Institute of Personnel and Williams, T. (2003). Learning from projects. Development. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(5), 443–451. Schindler, M., & Eppler, M. J. (2003). Harvesting doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601549 project knowledge: a review of project learning methods and success factors. Williams, T. (2008). How do organizations learn International Journal of Project Management, lessons from projects - And do they? 21(3), 219–228. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 55(2), 248–266. Secchi, P., Ciaschi, R., & Spence, D. (1999). A Concept for an ESA Lessons Learned System. Willke, H. (1998). Systemisches In P. Secchi (Ed.), Proceedings of Alerts and Wissensmanagement. Stuttgart: Lucius & LL: An Effective way to prevent failures and Lucius Verlagsgesellschaft. problems (Tech. Rep. WPP-167). The Zhang, J., Qu, Y., Cody, J., & Wu, Y. (2010). A Netherlands: ESTEC. case study of micro-blogging in the enterprise: Senge, P. M. (1991). The fifth discipline, the art Use, value and related issues. In Proceedings and practice of the learning organization. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors Performance + Instruction, 30(5), 37–37. in Computing Systems (pp. 123–132). ACM Press.