more across organizations resulted in teams dispersed separated

more domain specific or expert level. Usually
organizational knowledge
or “intellectual
property” is
translated into patents, trademarks, copyright etc. Organization:
This KM school focuses on the
organizational structure.
These structures are often referred as “knowledge communities”. This is a networking
approach for people
to communicate and share knowledge. The main aim is to collaborate and create
knowledge for the organization. Strategic: In this school of knowledge
management organizations identify strategies that add competitive advantages. It is related to developing
conceptual models knowledge management for organizations. Spatial:
This KM school focuses on using
organizations space
for knowledge sharing. Organizations use different office settings to encourage people to
communicate. For example in the case of software organizations agile methodologies promote the use of boards, charts
or other tools to create spatial knowledge. Sometimes even common
spaces like conference rooms, coffee rooms or place for refreshment activities
serve as places where the knowledge
can be shared 23.

The need to foster
multidisciplinary research collaboration across organizations resulted in teams
dispersed separated by time and distance.
However to attain the potential benefits of such collaboration, there is a
critical need for a better management of communication, knowledge and co-ordination
across distributed teams. The importance of these factors is becoming
increasingly known to organizations requiring them to develop methods and
enabling mechanisms in need for more successful and efficient collaboration outcomes
11. Knowledge management, communication and coordination are interconnected
and it influences each other so by addressing the problem of knowledge
management we can address other 2 major challenges of project management also.


Architectural knowledge management (1), Unstructured Architectural knowledge
Management (6), lack of predefined process to cope up with new roles / rotation
of role/ interdependent roles/ knowledge transfer from domain expert to newly
recruited team members/ interdependent tasks (1), lack of communication/ time
lag in communication/ slow collaboration/ Wong media selection for
communication (5) , time zone difference/ limited time window to exchange
knowledge (3), difficulties in building and maintaining trust (1), lack of
knowledge sharing tools and practices, lack of common terminology/ linguistic
differences (3), lack of structured knowledge(1), socio-cultural and temporal
distances (3), transfer of tacit knowledge/ collect and share tacit knowledge
in remote areas (2) lack of documentation/frequent access to project
documentation (4),  knowledge
fragmentation, overload and de-contextualization (1), lack of training (1),
backflow of knowledge doesn’t exist (1), cost of knowledge transfer is not
known (1),   less or missing domain
knowledge (2), Knowledge is not available in explicit form (2), missing
feedback regarding knowledge gaps (1), lack of strong data protection (1), lack
of data externalization (1), team awareness (2), distinct types of knowledge should
be captured (1).


Meta model was proposed by conducting a literature review on architectural
knowledge management. It represents the relationship between different concepts
of knowledge management and their inter relationship. Other Knowledge
management unsolved challenges such as cultural issues, component, and meeting
deadlines were also identified. Also a need of method to
pass on general information across sites such as “how things work, what issues
have priority, responsibility assignments, and who was an expert at what”,
ensuring architectural compliance was sensed 12.

A case study was
conducted to validate the proposed architectural knowledge elements and its
evaluation criteria. The key elements of architecture knowledge management are: Des: The architectural design
itself, Ass: Assumptions that
were made during the architectural design and underpinning design decisions, Env: Linkage to the environment, Dec Design decisions, Dep:
Interdependencies, between the design decisions, Map: Mapping of design decisions to requirements, needs,
constraints, design, and implementation, Dom:
The domain analysis, Pat Architectural
patterns used, Alt: Design
alternatives evaluated, Rat: Rationale.
 The architecture knowledge evaluation
criteria are: Crit. 1: Appropriate
views and viewpoints, Crit. 2: Bottlenecks
identified, Crit. 3: Build and
deployment documentation, Crit. 4: Decomposition
and layering, Crit. 5 : Design
patterns and architectural patterns,
Crit. 6: Design rationale,
Crit. 7: Document application architecture and design. Crit. 8: Explicit external
dependencies, Crit. 9: Explicit
internal dependencies, Crit. 10: Fail-over, Crit. 11: Load balancing, Crit. 12: Rationale, Crit. 13: Scalable capacity, Crit. 14: Single-points-of-failure.
The purpose was to identify the difference in evaluation criteria of on-shore
elements and off-shore elements. Their case study didn’t show much of the
difference 13.

empirical study was conducted to
understand architectural knowledge articulation through unstructured textual
electronic media (UTEM). They conducted
an empirical study on 4 Mexican agile global software development companies
having 20 software engineers as participants and observed and explored the
interaction through UTEM. Ontology was presented that represents the involved aspects in AK
articulation through UTEM in AGSD teams. Their findings provide
evidence of the importance of UTEM interactions, and that AK is shared through
these types of media 14.

knowledge vaporization is a problem of global software development project. A
model ‘SCRUMCONIX’ was proposed to improve architectural knowledge management
in GSD organizations. SCRUMCONIX uses lightweight documentation mainly based on
diagram. This model was implemented in Mexican GSD organization and then the
opinion of participants was collected through questionnaire. They felt that the domain model domain model was useful to
visualize the project’s scope, use cases diagrams helped them identify software
functionality, and robustness diagrams provided a clear and common language.
Also, these artifacts were sufficient to perform an accurate estimation and to
produce test cases. Participants also said that the use of diagrams improved
the communication between local and foreign team members. Finally, it was concluded that
Scrumconix was perceived as useful and lightweight to document
and understand a software project. However, when the client requests a change
over a developed use case, participants do not update the corresponding
artifacts. Also, the participants did not report any experiences about the use
case point’s technique because they did not apply it 15.

Agile Global Software Development (AGSD) is a reality, since nowadays
software products are required to get into the market with more speed than
before. This situation has pushed Global Software Development (GSD) companies
to adopt lighter ways to develop software (Agile Software Development – ASD) to
satisfy market demands. However, AGSD companies have encountered increased
technical debt and architectural knowledge (AK) vaporization, mainly because
the inherent differences between ASD and GSD, especially in documentation
handling. An empirical study was
conducted to evaluate the use of UTEM for architectural knowledge management.
The empirical study raised the need of adding the ‘tagging feature’ in UTEM.
Using UTEM improves the knowledge management in GSD 16.