Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman

Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning

processes The case of multidisciplinary project teams
Violina Ratcheva
The University of Sheeld Management School, The University of Sheeld, 9 Mappin Street, Sheeld S1 4DT, United Kingdom
Received 13 October 2006; received in revised form 7 February 2008; accepted 19 February 2008

Abstract
It has been previously argued that knowledge heterogeneity compiled with geographic separation of team members hinder eective
sharing and use of a teams knowledge. The paper explores how multidisciplinary teams interact to overcome the barriers and take
advantage of their built in knowledge diversity. The ndings of the research suggest that successful integration of multidisciplinary
knowledge can be achieved through teams boundary spanning activities and reaching to multiple professional and social communities.
Three project boundaries have been identied, project action boundary, project knowledge boundary and project social boundary, which
facilitate team members in articulating diverse knowledge perspectives. The ndings suggest a need to reconceptualise the boundaries
of multidisciplinary teams and to consider the processes of sharing diverse knowledge in a wider professional and social context.
2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Multidisciplinary project teams; Knowledge diversity; Boundaries

1. Introduction
With the intensication of globalisation and expansion
in the use of information technology, particular attention
is being focused on the opportunities and diculties associated with sharing knowledge. The exponential growth
of knowledge has made it nearly impossible for any organisation to exist in isolation. Thus, the networked organisation or alliance is becoming an increasingly common
structural form [1]. Previous studies refer to such new
organisational arrangements as virtual organisations, spiders webs, holonic enterprise and smart organisations.
Although, all describe new ways of organising which
enable people and teams to work across conventional
boundaries there are apparent variations in key
characteristics.
A key component of the virtual organisations, for example, is that they are information computer technology

E-mail address: V.Ratcheva@sheeld.ac.uk

0263-7863/$36.00 2008 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.008

(ICT) enabled [2] and based on computer-mediated communications (CMC) [3]. CMC, therefore, is a powerful tool
to overcome time and distance barriers and a key feature of
virtual organisations. It has been recently argued, however,
that virtual organisational forms emphasise only one element of what is required from organisations in the digital
economy [4]. To be able to respond to the challenges of
the new global marketplace, the organisations have to be
not only technologically enabled, but more importantly
smart in their abilities to enter into virtual collaborations
with other partner organisations and share diverse occupational and cultural knowledge. The main building blocks of
such organisations are the multidisciplinary teams working
from dierent locations and team members belonging to
dierent organisations.
While the potential advantages of multidisciplinary
teams, in terms of creative potential and eectiveness, are
theoretically attainable, empirical evidences suggest that
knowledge diversity constrains eective sharing [510].
These constraints have both occupational and contextual
origins. Dierences in perspectives, priorities, typical

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

approach to problem solving and professional language

can hinder understanding and team cohesion [11]. The difculties of managing these knowledge exchanges amongst
team members can become a major barrier to any successful multidisciplinary operation.
While previous studies on knowledge processes have
examined a variety of settings, most have focused on the
work practices of individuals [12] or that of focal groups
proximate in time and space [13,14]. Little is known about
the process of knowledge building within complex organisations, with more limited information on how this knowledge is geographically distributed.
The paper explores how geographically distributed multidisciplinary teams interact to overcome the communication and occupational barriers and take advantage of
their built in knowledge diversity. Dealing with such challenges requires more than just balanced team composition
of experts in dierent elds, it also requires developing
competences in distributed organising. The focus of the
paper, therefore, is on the processes of distributed knowing
as emerging from the ongoing and situated actions of team
members. The author adopts the view that understanding
the intra-teams dynamics requires considering teams in a
wider context and acknowledges relationships with various
external stakeholders.
The empirical data for this study was gathered through
multi-method eld research of ve dispersed multidisciplinary teams. The ndings indicate that teams often lack common background knowledge at the beginning of the
projects and members are accustomed to dierent working
practices. Therefore, in order to resolve dierences members rely for support on their external intellectual and
social communities. The ndings establish a need to reconceptualise the boundaries of multidisciplinary teams and to
consider the processes of sharing diverse knowledge in a
wider social context. Three project boundaries have been
identied, project action boundary, project knowledge
boundary and project social boundary, which facilitate team
members in articulating diverse knowledge perspectives.
2. Understanding multidisciplinary implications for
teams functioning
Multidisciplinary teams are believed to be useful in
developing innovative and optimal solutions to many types
of business problems [15]. However, apart from the proclaimed advantages, the term multidisciplinary teamwork
has never been dened. At rst glance, it might appear obvious that the denition refers to expertise diversity implying
dierences in the knowledge and skill domains in which
members of a group are specialised. And yet it becomes
apparent from the literature that this is far from a clear concept. Furthermore, the terms multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary are often used interchangeably. Further,
confusion is created by adjectives such as disciplinary
and professional which researchers and practitioners use.
Leathard refers to this as a terminological quagmire

207

[16, p. 6] and it is this which must be claried before multidisciplinary team working can be fully understood or implemented successfully.
For the purpose of this research the author suggests that
what distinguishes multidisciplinary teams from other
types of teams is based upon three dimensions. These are:
numerical, territorial and epistemological. Many argue that
the dierence between inter and multi is largely numerical. For example, how many professions must be present
before a team is truly multi-professional? By way of illustration: the working relationship between technology manager and business manager would be interdisciplinary;
whereas a research scientist, experimental scientist, process
development engineer and production engineer could form
a multidisciplinary team. Moreover, although the number
of professionals involved may provide a clearer platform
for identifying multidisciplinary teams, the dierence
between multi and inter is more than just a numbers
game. Issues of territory and professional boundaries
impact on multidisciplinary working or as Pirrie et al.
put it . . .its like you are crossing into another space. . .
[17, p. 14]. Therefore, simply putting people together in
groups, representing many disciplines, does not necessarily
guarantee the development of a shared understanding. For
example, Fleck discovered in a case of collective problem
solving that dierent occupations have dierent funds of
knowledge and dierent systems of meaning and therefore
they act as if in distinct worlds of thought [18]. Similarly,
Dougherty found in the domain of organisations, that
product development teams including specialists from different organisational functions (marketing, production,
engineering, planning), generally struggle to eectively synthesise and leverage their collective expertise precisely
because their functional diversity acts as an interpretative
barrier [11].
What is therefore, the extra ingredient which turns a
group of professionals from dierent disciplines into an
eective working team? It is argued in this paper that this
distinction is epistemological, dependant not just on a blur
of professional boundaries, but more importantly on the
creation of a new way of working. It is also argued that
a new way of working can not be simply imported in the
team, but it can only emerge and develop through intense
interactions.
3. Challenges of integrating knowledge in a multidisciplinary
context
In spite of the apparent advantages of designing teams
for knowledge diversity, it is by no means clear how team
members make eective use of this knowledge. Grants
[19] observation is that knowledge integration, not knowledge itself, is what generates an advantage for organisations and respective teams. Although, the organisational
form and structure provides the bones, it is the grouplevel knowledge integration that provides the esh and
blood [21]. As new product features are added, new types

208

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

of specialised knowledge may be required [20]. As new

knowledge is brought in on an as-needed basis, it must
be integrated with the existing knowledge held by the team
members. This is perhaps the most compelling explanation
for why some teams comprised from the smartest and
brightest experts still fail to perform well. Although the
aggregate level of knowledge in such teams might be high,
their lack of ability to integrate that knowledge can keep
them from gaining any benets from that resource pool.
Previous research studies indicate that a teams ability to
integrate diverse knowledge domains is primarily inuenced by the dierences/commonalities in the individually
held occupational and contextual knowledge. For example,
individuals trained in a particular discipline, function or
occupation have substantial conceptual and practical
knowledge in common with others from that discipline or
occupation [22,11].
Other organisational researchers have focused on the
relationships between particular context and the unique
knowledge acquired in this way [18,23]. Several authors
have noted the existence of knowledge that resides in systemic routines or ways of interacting, describing such
knowledge variously as organising principles [24], embedded knowledge [25,26] and organising routines [27,28].
Contextual knowledge, therefore, pertains to the broader
milieu of the working environment [18] and is developed
through repetitive collective actions and is expressed in regularities by which members cooperate in a social community [24]. These behaviours are learned over time from
working in a specic setting, and so they are unlikely to
be common knowledge amongst people who are not colocated. In addition, because contextual knowledge tends
to be taken for granted by members of a community, it is
not easily articulated to members of other communities.
Although previous research acknowledges that dierent
prior knowledge is an integral part of any multidisciplinary
operations, little is known about how the interactive relationships between team members evolve, develop and
change.
4. Theoretical story line
Recent studies predominantly focus on enabling context
which resides inside companies organisational boundaries
and therefore the new knowledge creation processes are well
embedded in the organisational culture, routines and established procedures [29]. The social interactions in a distributed environment are rather dierent and more recently
writers started to advocate considering virtualisation as a
major social process [30]. The virtualisation, therefore,
requires a major reconceptualisation of organisational
roles, norms and culture, which traditionally use to constitute the environment in which social interactions took place.
Furthermore, because of the temporally nature of teams,
the embedded, tacit practices and routines of working
together must be recreated every time. Distributed teams,
therefore, require design structure and relationships that

are as agile as their markets are dynamic. Unlike collocated

teams operating in a stable organisational environment
that largely depend on learning-before-doing (knowledge
stocks) geographically distributed teams must also integrate new and emergent knowledge in real time (learningwhile-doing).
Based on the argument that knowledge can be integrated only by teams or groups, the ability of a multidisciplinary team to execute a project successfully would be
positively associated with the teams ability to integrate relevant knowledge, expertise and skills that might be distributed amongst the teams members. An underlying
assumption in the development of this study was that dispersed multidisciplinary teams represent novel patterns of
information exchanges and relationships. The argument,
therefore, developed in this study is that multidisciplinary
team development and interpersonal processes are likely
to follow specic development and adjustment patterns,
because, as members are part of dierent organisational
cultures, they will bring dierent expectations about work
relationships and perceptions of success. Successful integration of diverse knowledge, therefore, will be largely
determined by two complementary team attributes that
together constitute the teams interaction context (see
Fig. 1): (1) interpersonal interactions and relational capital
developed amongst members and (2) work organisation
practices and procedures and a teams ability to recognise
and interpret information and knowledge from across its
wider social and professional environment.
4.1. Interpersonal interactions and developing relational
capital
As seen in Fig. 1, the rst team attribute is the interpersonal interactions taking place, which can potentially contribute to developing relational capital within the team.
Relational capital is dened as the level of trust, reciprocity
and strength of ties among the members of a project team
[31]. Furthermore, relational capital at team level is inuenced by the organisations or professional communities
from which those members are drawn. Each organisation
brings unique expertise, strengths, and knowledge that
must be integrated in the context of the project. As members are drawn from these organisations to form a project
team, they eectively form a web of relationships amongst
individuals that extend to their parent subunits, organisations, professional and social community. This set of linkages can be described as a relational web.
Integrating a teams capabilities, therefore, depends as
much on the individual abilities to work together (develop
relational capital) as they do on their individual expertise
and skills. Strong, trusting, and active relationships within
project teams reduce the costs of communication, coordination, and combination of individual expertise at a project
level [24]. Furthermore, strong relations facilitate close
interactions amongst project team members of dierent
organisational origins [31]. Higher levels of relational

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

209

Macro environment
Organisational environment
Team Composition

Interpersonal
Interactions and
relational
capital
l

Knowledge
Integration

Knowledge
diversity

Project
Execution
outcomes

Establishing
Working
practices
Team lifespan

Context

Process

Outcomes

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

capital are therefore associated with higher levels of learning and knowledge integration.
The willingness of team members consciously and
actively to perform their duties critically depends on developing trustworthy relationships. In an environment without formal control and coordination mechanisms, trust
has been described as a heartbeat which can prevent geographical and organisational distances of team members
from turning into unmanageable psychological barrier
[32]. The literature acknowledges the existence of impersonal or institutional forms of trust in virtual teams in
addition to interpersonal forms. According to Luhmann
[33], impersonal trust is based on the appearance of everything in proper order, rather than on an emotional bond,
knowledge or past history of interactions. Meyerson et al.
[34] developed the concept of swift trust to explain how
temporary teams can enjoy high levels of trust, even though
members do not share any past aliation and can not necessarily expect to have any further associations. The concept of swift trust maintains that . . .unless one trusts
quickly, one may never trust at all. . . [34, p. 192]. Because
there is not a sucient time to develop trust through interpersonal means, team members import expectations of
trust based on their local organisational environment,
industry practices, or role based stereotypes. Positive
expectations of trust motivate members to take a proactive
part in the team, which can result in strengthening trustworthy relationships amongst team members. Relational
capital, therefore, serves as an eective, cost-ecient, and

self-enforcing mechanism that improves knowledge integration while simultaneously discouraging opportunism.
4.2. Working practices and routines
The second team attribute enabling the integration of
diverse knowledge is the developed working practices and
routines (see Fig. 1).
McGraths time, interaction and performance theory
(TIP) [35], describes work groups as dynamic entities which
are time-based, multi-functional, and with multi-modal
social systems. Eective groups are engaged simultaneously
and continuously in three functions: (1) production (problem solving and task-performance), (2) member-support
(member inclusion, participation, loyalty, and commitment)
and (3) group well-being (interaction, member roles, power,
and politics). Teams carry out three functions by means of
activity that relate to four possible modes: (Mode 1) inception and acceptance of a project, (Mode 2) problem solving,
(Mode 3) conict resolution, and (Mode 4) project execution. The modes/functions, according to McGrath and Hollingshead [36], are not a xed sequence of phases, but
dependant on the team, tasks, technology, time, and other
environmental contingencies. TIP theory suggests that a
team with no past history, which is working on a challenging
problem with much technological and environmental uncertainty, has to engage in all four functions and modes to
avoid detrimental eects on performance. Multiple involvement in various functions and tasks and, therefore, low

210

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

division of roles, can enhance a teams integrity and consequently aect a teams performance.
5. Research methodology and sample denition
Five small and medium size companies in the UK took
part in a longitudinal qualitative study investigating the
team development processes which enable or hinder the
diverse knowledge integration in a geographically dispersed
multidisciplinary context. The results presented in this
paper, are the outcomes of a longitudinal qualitative
research study specically focusing on the processes and
practices of integrating diverse knowledge. A common
characteristic of the sample companies is that they went
through major strategic and structural change processes
in order to maintain their competitive positions. These
change processes revolved around redenition of the vision
and identication of key areas, where innovations and
work process improvements could continually support
the companies strategic edge (see Table 1 for company/
team background information). One of the outcomes of
the restructuring initiatives was the increased reliance on
multidisciplinary virtual teams to handle a variety of business initiatives, formed across organisational and country
boundaries.
The companies selected were initially considered as a
focal point for identifying project partnerships. Each company was asked to identify a multidisciplinary partnership
in which the particular organisation plays a leading role in
terms of resource commitment. In order to maintain consistency between cases, there were three criteria used in
the selection of the ve teams. First, to ensure the diversity
of knowledge and expertise within each case, a starting
selection criterion was: each team includes members which
belong to more than two functional and subject areas.
Therefore, not only that a project team had members representing dierent functions or professions but also that the
scope of the project required diversity of expertise. When
approached, each team was in an initial stage of formation.
Therefore, the author could observe and analyse the interaction processes developing within the teams which could
facilitate or hinder the integration of diverse expertise. Second, to ensure the geographic separation of the team members, teams included members from more than two
organisations (or independent experts) and worked on
the project from dierent locations. This allowed to
observe how the geographic and organisational separation
of team members inuence the way they interact and share
knowledge. Third, it was important to observe whether
electronic communications impede teams interaction and
develops a rapport between team members, which as previously suggested, could have a contra productive eect on
the quality and speed of the shared knowledge. Therefore,
the selected teams were likely right from inception (because
of their geographic separation) to rely on a variety of communication channels with electronic communications being
the main method throughout the lifespan of the project.

The present study was carried out using a multi-method

approach. Data sources included semi-structured interviews and project documentation generated by the teams
and observations about the individual members participation in the project teams. The semi-structured interviews
were the main source of data. Initial face-to-face interviews
were conducted with the project leaders at the conceptual
stage of the projects. Questions addressed project objectives, scope, general practices in each team, criteria for
members recruitment and envisaged milestones. It was
an initial intention to interview all core members in the ve
projects. However, it became apparent that some team
members were involved only for a short duration when
their expertise was required. Unfortunately, it was not possible to interview the members who left the projects. Out of
the 41 project members, 25 were involved for the whole
duration of the projects. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 17 of the 25 permanent project team members.
The issues addressed covered the processes and practices in
each team, approaches to problems/conicts resolution,
challenges faced by individual members, communication
practices and progress monitoring. Moreover, the author
relied on sources of written evidence. Access was given to
the electronic communications between the team members
and the researcher was allowed to observe team meetings,
majority being enabled through telephone conferencing.
The data was collected over a six months period following
the life span of the projects. The triangulation of various
data-collection techniques provided multiple perspectives
on issues and allowed for cross-checking of existing and
emerging concepts.
6. Research ndings
6.1. Teams compositional aspects
There were no signicant dierences observed in relation
to the factors triggering the initial formation of the investigated teams. A common trend is that an opportunity is
spotted or an idea arises before the team is formed. The
teams were formed in order to accomplish a particular project and, therefore, the team selection in all of the cases
reected on personal skills and knowledge. A similarity
amongst teams was that both occupational and contextual
knowledge sources were acknowledged and sought out at
the teams formation stage. Initially, when stang the project teams, the focus was on occupational knowledge. This
was the decisive factor when the companies, which initiated
the projects, approached professionals with expertise considered to be relevant to the projects requirements. The
professionals were drawn from a pool of experts which
the companies considered to constitute their extended professional communities. In consistency with the concept of
swift trust [34], there was an initial expectation that the
approached experts have what it takes in terms of relevant
knowledge, which can contribute to the development of the
projects. As noted by one of the project leaders, I have

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

211

Table 1
Background information about the researched cases
Cases

Team boundaries/no of team members

Case 1: engineering and software project consulting

The company was established in 1992 by 3 computer engineers as an engineering consultancy. The
company currently plays (since 1995) the role of a project integrator for small manufacturing rms in
the region by identifying for them European and UK based projects and assessing their production
compatibilities using interactive graphical simulation software packages. The company currently
employs 11 people and it has doubled its turnover for the last 3 years, currently reaching 13,000,000.
Since 1997 they have developed a database with over 60 small manufacturing companies mainly in
UK and France which are potential partners in dierent projects. The team members in the business
have similar educational and professional background and share responsibilities for major projects

Dierent organisations operating in 2 countries;

8 team members

Case 2: engineering consultancy

This private company was established at the beginning of the 80s, originally specialised as a precision
metal manufacturer for the aircraft industry. Because of the reduction in the defence budgets and the
manufacturing sectors severe recession in the early 90s, the owners started to look for new
opportunities. The appointment of two PhD graduates gave the company expertise as a consultancy
for 3-dimensional computer aided design. Today the company employees 20 engineers and technicians
(respectively 44 employees in 1993) and is involved in a number of project partnerships in the aircraft
industry, wind energy technology and automotive industry

Dierent organisations, operating in 3 countries;

7 team members

Case 3: electronic modem assembly

The company was established in 1994 by ve university graduates. Initially they were involved
primarily in manufacturing of electronic modules for telephone lines, portable computers and
organisational desktops. In 1997 they gradually started to subcontract out some component
production because they faced serious diculties in recruiting people with the required expertise. As a
result the number of components in each modem has been substantially reduced which resulted in
increased protability with over 50%. The company currently operates as an assembly network centre
working with a number of British and European manufacturers

Dierent organisations, operating in 2 countries,

9 team members

Case 4: manufacturer of electrical connectors

The company is privately owned and involved in manufacturing of electrical connectors for aerospace
electronics and telecommunication equipment. The products are specically tailored to customers
needs. As a result, the companys structure is entirely team based with the current 45 employees
participating in six teams. Each team comprises people with complementary expertise and is assigned
to work closely with a particular customer. The ability to work in intra-organisational teams is crucial
for companys overall performance.

Dierent organisations, operating in three

countries; 10 team members

Case 5: research and development engineering consultancy

The company oers software simulation packages for new product development and performance
measurement testing and was established in 1996. It currently employees 7 full time computer
engineers, 4 of whom have prior working experience in large corporations, where they have developed
a number of contacts in the software industry across Europe and United States. Over 25 mainly selfemployed experts also work on dierent projects when additional expertise is required

Dierent organisations, operating in 3 countries;

7 team members

tried to bring into the team the best I knew or colleagues recommended. Talent and experience are the most important. . .but people have to be able to work with each other
as well. From previous experience I know to be mindful of
ery personalities. Positive expectations about members
valuable occupational knowledge motivated participants
to take a proactive part in the team, which consequently
resulted in strengthening the trustworthy relationships
amongst team members and contributed to establishing
more active knowledge sharing practices.
The initial composition of the teams was like assembling
a jigsaw where the missing segments of relevant knowledge
have to be found and tted into a perfect whole. As noted
by one team member, It is a tricky project and it requires
some highly specialist skills. The start of the project was
delayed with four weeks as we have to wait for a particular
IT expert who was tied up in another project. Consistent
with past research in product development, these teams

were expected to leverage expertise of diverse functions

and scientic elds to accomplish challenging development
needs. However, and perhaps surprisingly, in contrast to
Kale et al. [31], which state that strong relations facilitate
close interactions, prior interpersonal aliations or
experts belonging to inuential external professional communities were not initially considered to be of paramount
signicance or as stated by one team member: It is about
the success of the project. . .we do not have to become
friends.
Clear occupational belonging of team members proved
to be an inuential factor during teams initiation and formation. Due to the temporary nature of the projects, team
members input to the partnerships, their perception and
understanding about each others potential to contribute
in terms of having appropriate occupational knowledge.
For example, Hes electrical engineer or Im an information scientist acted as shorthand for conveying information

212

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

about distinct skills, expertise and conceptual insights that

someone might bring to bear on a problem. The relationship building at that stage was based on the potential to
contribute unique personal knowledge and is highly de-personalised. Team members stated that what others can bring
to the project rather than how we feel about working with each
other are the most important initial selection criteria.
6.2. Formation of extended teams boundaries
A clear tendency to access expertise relevant to the particular projects, led to considering the locally based or contextual knowledge as a new and distinct source of value for
the project teams. In some cases, understanding the context
in which the product was targeted for use was critical for
making appropriate social and cultural decisions regarding
its design and implementation. Whenever possible, potential users of the product were intentionally sought to represent that unique viewpoint within the team. As pointed by a
team member, We have tried to avoid the so often wasteful
practice of spending time and resources of making the product
and afterwards trying to modify it for the customer. . .The
person who new the market was involved in our initial discussions about the concept. On a number of occasions contextual knowledge simply entailed knowing whos to be
contacted for further advice or resources in order to accomplish certain objectives. Gradually the initially established
occupational boundaries of the teams started to expand as
the team members started reaching for relevant contextual
knowledge from their social web of professional contactor
and potential customers. Outside professionals were
brought in on an ad-hoc basis to contribute with relevant
expertise. It was observed that two types of boundaries
started to form around the teams. One which was around
the core team of members responsible for developing, monitoring and progressing the projects to which the author
refers as project action boundaries. Another to which is
referred as project knowledge boundary, which was formed
around the pool of relevant knowledge contributing to the
concepts of development.
Interesting relationships were observed between team
members with clear occupational relevance and others with
contextual knowledge. Although acknowledged, that
understanding of the context in which the product/consultancy advice was targeted for use was critical for making
appropriate social and cultural decisions, the occupational
specialists were considered as the knowledgeable hard core
of the teams and to the rest were referred to as social
agents brought in on an ad-hoc basis.
Teams which realised early, in the formation stage, the
importance of continuously combining contextual and
occupational knowledge throughout the lifespan of the
partnership, were more exible in redirecting the project
by recombining knowledge according to external, environmental changes such as changing customer requirements,
new competitive oerings and new technological advances.
These external changes led to a redenition of roles and

responsibilities in the teams and the introduction of complementary external expertise as required. This caused further changes in the teams patterns of interaction and
knowledge base. Therefore, ensuring an appropriate mix
of expertise throughout the lifespan of the project contributed to the progress of the projects, which increased members condence in the ability of the team.
It has been previously hypothesised that cross functional
teams succeed if they manage to apply their collective
knowledge. However, the process of acquiring such collective knowledge has never been clearly identied, perhaps
because the phenomenon has been considered within conned boundaries. The results of this study point a trend
that higher complexity of the project, presupposing higher
requirements for multidisciplinary knowledge integration,
requires higher levels of external experts involvement
and therefore further opening and expansion of the teams
boundaries. For example, very early in the development of
the projects when the concepts and implementation plans
were developed, team members admitted that on a number
of occasions they discussed the technical challenges faced
by their team and sought advice from colleagues or friends
from their personal professional circle. As noted by one
participant, When it gets tricky and the time is running
out, I usually nd a colleague outside the project to bounce
ideas with. . .if noting else this gives me condence that I
am on the right track. The more multidisciplinary the team
was, and therefore with less common knowledge [37]
amongst teams members, the higher was the need to reach
for external advice. In three of the teams such external contacts, which contributed initially with personal advice, were
brought into the team during the stage of concept development. The results of the study conrm that social and personal relationships within a given local (physical) or virtual
community were extremely eective in gaining team members just-in-time access to specialist knowledge and practical skills as and when the team needed it. As indicated by
one team member, My expertise is in a very narrow area,
so in this project I was involved mainly in the conceptual
stage. I am often involved in two or more projects at the same
time. . .but this is the nature of most project work these
days. Through such boundary spanning activities, project
teams gained access to broader and deeper skills and expertise which helped in addressing specic project issues.
Teams members, for example, regularly pulled in their collocated colleagues for assistance with practical advice or
input on decisions, all of which enabled the projects to proceed to the next stage. Seeking assistance from a wider
community, however, was more than just seeking additional feedback and task related assistance, but also looking for moral support when faced with dicult decisions.
Another set of boundaries around the teams started to
emerge which enabled the core team members to articulate
and make sense of their diverse knowledge perspectives. I
refer to such boundaries as project social boundaries. These
are the boundaries within which the integration of diverse
multidisciplinary knowledge can be facilitated.

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

213

Team/project boundaries

Project action
boundary

Project knowledge
boundary

Project social
boundary

Project
team

Occupational
Knowledge

Contextual
Knowledge

Project Relevant
Knowledge

Knowledge types in relation to project boundaries

Fig. 2. Integrating diverse knowledge through boundary spanning.

6.3. Boundary-spanning processes facilitating diverse

knowledge integration
Fig. 2 summarises the process of boundary spanning in
geographically distributed multidisciplinary project teams,
which facilitate/enable the integration of diverse multidisciplinary perspectives.
The projects were initiated by compiling teams of
experts with complementary occupational knowledge.
The teams members were initially drawn from the professional communities around the companies who have initiated the projects. It is referred to the initial team
boundaries as project action boundaries. Within these
boundaries lays the responsibility to plan, develop, accomplish the project and also to identify when a need arises to
reach for external expertise. In accordance with the time,
interaction and performance theory [35], the core team
members are involved not only in problem solving but also
conict resolution. Furthermore, it was their responsibility
to facilitate knowledge integration in accordance with the
project requirements. A second boundary is formed around
the project team, after the project inception, when a need
for relevant contextual knowledge is identied in order to
develop a better understanding about the context for which
the projects outcomes are targeted for. It is referred to
these boundaries as project knowledge boundaries because
compiling the relevant occupational with contextual
knowledge is expected to provide a completeness of the
stock of required knowledge. The knowledge jigsaw is completed. The integration of diverse knowledge, however, is
faced by further challenges. Dierent occupations have different funds of knowledge what members know dierent systems of meaning and how members know [18].
Therefore, information that is well understood within one

discipline or occupation may be dicult for members from

another occupation to absorb, thus hindering the progress
of teams that need to integrate members collective but
diverse occupational expertise. The boundaries around
the team expand further and a third boundary is formed
to which is referred as project social boundary. The boundary is social as team members reach to their social and
professional networks for advice, clarication and further
articulation. Such processes of boundary spanning enable
team members to understand better the interpretative
mechanisms and barriers of dierent professions. Finally,
although the sharing and integration of diverse knowledge
is enabled through expanding the initial teams boundaries,
the knowledge integration takes place within the project
action boundaries. The reason is that the knowledge integration should be purposeful and contribute to fullling
the project objectives.
7. Conclusion
The author argues that the most important distinction
between geographically distributed multidisciplinary teams
and other types of teams is epistemological. Therefore, the
successful functioning of such teams depends not just on a
blur of professional boundaries, but more importantly on
the creation of new ways in working which can only emerge
and develop through intense interaction. The ndings of
the research suggest that the complexity which underlines
knowledge diversity requires these intense interactions to
expand beyond the conned boundaries of the project
team. While team members are responsible for the organisation of relevant knowledge, in a way enabling the accomplishment of the project goals, the articulation and
integration of essential knowledge might take place beyond

214

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

the predened teams boundaries. Therefore, the intellectual, virtual and co-located communities of which members
are part of will become an integral part of the thinking and
discovery processes and ll knowledge gaps by contributing timely and ecient access to broad expertise, practical
assistance and emotional support. However, if a wider
intellectual community is involved, potential diculties
could arise from insuring and protecting knowledge ownership, an issue which requires further careful consideration.
The issue of boundaries, in relation to project work, has
been previously given only limited attention and mainly in
relation to overcoming boundaries, which arise from preexisting divisions of practice amongst team members.
These boundaries, however, have been considered as internal, within the team, and regarded as barriers which have
to be overcome in order to integrate diverse knowledge
rather than expand the teams knowledge [38]. This study
identies that project teams engage in two main boundary-spanning interaction processes, beyond the initial
teams boundaries, which facilitate more ecient knowledge integration. Further, the extended boundaries facilitate not only the articulation of diverse knowledge, but
also enable tapping into additional expertise when
required. Hence, designing a team, members of which
encompass from inception the whole spectrum of required
specialist knowledge, becomes less important. The rst
boundary-spanning interactions take place early in the
development of the project aiming to identify and tap into
additional expertise. The second enable articulation of
diverse perspectives and alleviate dierences resolution.
Developing an in-depth understanding about the
boundary spanning activities in which teams engage, will
require further empirical support. This research highlights
a number of practical challenges in terms of managing such
teams. So far, for example, issues such as teams leadership
and teams eciency have been addressed and solutions
identied within dened teams boundaries. Acknowledging that the boundaries around multidisciplinary teams
are uid will pose new challenges for managers. A question
which needs to be explored further is: Can teams be managed or only directed? What constitutes to manage a team
will call for adopting new managerial practices, moving
away from managing a team as an entity, towards managing project/knowledge boundaries. Managing boundaries,
however, will pose diculties for monitoring and intervening into the project progress, as the team accomplishing it
spans organisational and social boundaries and therefore
members subordinate and report to dierent authorities.
It can be expected that in such extended boundaries, the
core team members and others loosely associated with
the project will have dierent personal objectives and motivations for participation, which do not align with the projects or organisational objectives. Managing expectations
would be of paramount importance for successfully accomplishing a project. Project teams, therefore, will be required
to adopt a much wider set of responsibilities beyond the
immediate technical aspects of the project and be given

greater autonomy. It is recommended that future research

in this area investigates further how teams boundaries
are formed, maintained and managed.
References
[1] Leonard DA, Brands PA, Edmondson A, Fenwick J. Virtual teams:
using communications technology to manage geographically dispersed development groups. In: Bradley SP, Nolan RL, editors. Sense
and respond: capturing value in the network era. Boston: Harvard
Business School Press; 1998. p. 28598.
[2] Mowshowitz A. Virtual organisation: a vision of management in the
information age. Inform Soc 1994;10:26788.
[3] Jarvenpaa S, Leidner DE. Communication and trust in global virtual
teams. Organ Sci 1999;10(6):791827.
[4] Filos E, Banaham E. Will the organisation disappear? The challenges
of the new economy and future perspectives. In: Camarinha-Matos
LM, Afsarmanesh H, Rabelo RJ, editors. E-business & virtual
enterprises. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 2000. p. 320.
[5] Orlikowski WJ. Knowing in practice: enacting a collective capability
in distributed organizing. Organ Sci 2002;13(3):24973.
[6] Boutellier R, Gassmann O, Macho H, Roux M. Management of
dispersed product development teams: the role of information
technologies. R&D Manage 1998;28(1):1326.
[7] Gorton I, Motwani S. Issues in co-operative software engineering
using globally distributed teams. Inform Software Technol
1996;38(10):64756.
[8] Madhavan R, Grover R. From embedded knowledge to embodied
knowledge: New product development as knowledge management.
J Marketing 1998;62(4):112.
[9] Prokesch SE. Unleashing the power of learning: an interview with
British
Petroleums
John Browne.
Harvard Bus
Rev
1997;75(5):14764.
[10] Brown S, Eisenhardt K. Product development: past research, present
ndings, and future directions. Acad Manage Rev 1995;20(2):34378.
[11] Dougherty D. Interpretative barriers to successful product innovation
in large rms. Organ Sci 1992;3(2):179202.
[12] Orr J. Talking about machines: an ethnography of a modern job. NY:
ILP Press; 1996.
[13] Pentland B. Information systems and organizational learning: the
social epistemology of organizational knowledge systems. Account
Manage Inform Technol 1995;59(1):121.
[14] Cook SD, Yanow D. Culture and organizational learning. J Manage
Inquiry 1993;2(4):37390.
[15] Mohrman SA, Cohen SG, Mohrman AM. Designing team based
organisations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers; 1995.
[16] Leathard A. Going inter-personal. Working together for health and
welfare. London: Rutledge; 1994.
[17] Pirrie A, Wilson V, Elsegood J, Hall J, Hamilton S, Harden R, et al.
Evaluating multidisciplinary education in health care. Edinburgh:
SCRE; 1998. p. 17.
[18] Fleck J. Contingent knowledge and technology development. Technol
Anal Strateg Manage 1997;9(4):38398.
[19] Grant R. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the rm. Strateg
Manage J 1996;170:10922 (winter special issue).
[20] Penrose ET. The theory of the growth of the rm. New York: Wiley;
1959.
[21] Van den Bosch F, Volberdsa H, Boer M. Co-evolution of rm
absorptive capacity and knowledge environment: organizational
forms and combinative capabilities. Organ Sci 1999;10(5):55168.
[22] Vicenti WG. What engineers know and how they know it: analytical
studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore & London: John
Hopkins University Press; 1990.
[23] Tyre MJ, Hippel EV. The situated nature of adaptive learning in
organisations. Organ Sci 1997;8(1):7183.
[24] Kogut B, Zander U. Knowledge of the rm, combinative capabilities,
and the replication of technology. Organ Sci 1992;3(3):38397.

V. Ratcheva / International Journal of Project Management 27 (2009) 206215

[25] Badaracco J. The knowledge link. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press; 1991.
[26] Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of
embeddedness. Am J Sociol 1985;91(3):481510.
[27] Levitt B, March JG. Organizational learning. Stanford Univ Ann Rev
Sociol 1988;14:31940.
[28] Nelson R, Winter S. An evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard Business School;
1982.
[29] Nonaka I, Konno N. The concept of ba: building a foundation for
knowledge creation. California Manage Rev 1998;40(3):4054.
[30] Diemers D. Information quality and its interpretative reconguration
as a premise of knowledge management in virtual organisations. In:
Malhotra Y, editor. Knowledge management and virtual organizations. Hershey, PA, USA: Idea Group Publishing; 2000. p. 36579.
[31] Kale P, Singh H, Perlmutter H. Learning and protection of
proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital.
Strateg Manage J 2000;21:21737.

215

[32] Jarvenpaa S, Tiller E. Integrating market, technology, and policy

opportunities in e- business strategy. Strateg Inform Syst
1999;8(3):23549.
[33] Luhmann N. The autopoiesis of social systems. In: Geyer F, Van der
Zouwen J, editors. Sociocybernetic paradoxes. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications; 1986. p. 17292.
[34] Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM. Swift trust and temporary
groups. In: Kramer RM, Tayler TR, editors. Trust in organizations:
frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994. p. 16695.
[35] McGrath JE. Time, interaction and performance (TIP): a theory of
groups. Small Group Res 1991;22(2):14774.
[36] McGrath JE, Hollingshead AB. Groups interacting with technology.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
[37] Cramton CD. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences
for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci 2001;12(3):34671.
[38] Carlile P. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary
objects in new product development. Organ Sci 2002;13(4):44255.