=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3282/icaiw_wkmit_2
|storemode=property
|title=The SECI Knowledge Creation Model: A Look through Sociology
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3282/icaiw_wkmit_2.pdf
|volume=Vol-3282
|authors=Patricia Gerlero
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/icai2/Gerlero22
}}
==The SECI Knowledge Creation Model: A Look through Sociology==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3282/icaiw_wkmit_2.pdf
The SECI Knowledge Creation Model: A Look through
Sociology
Patricia Gerlero
Universidad Tecnológica Nacional Facultad Regional Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Abstract
Understanding human behavior as a product of decisions, actions, and cognitions is key to success in
managing software development projects. The SECI knowledge creation model provides the sequence
for the creation of social space. The tools of sociology allow us to identify the characteristics of the
objective and subjective elements in the exercise of praxis. Reality exists twice, in things and in minds,
in fields and in habitus, outside and inside agents. Communicative action allows thought to be made
visible through routines and co-creates solutions in a given context, with agents who occupy a position
in the field, who have habitus, and are capable of exchanging their capital under certain institutions.
An imperfect management model offers the possibility to learn and try solutions. The representation of
knowledge, as an objective and subjective reality, allows the monitoring of the project, anticipating the
possible result before it enters into crisis.
Keywords
Knowledge Management, Co-creation, Project Management, Software Development
1. Introduction
The goal of this article is to describe the elements and relationships that make up the field
of project management in the exercise of practice and decision-making. From a sociological
look at the SECI (socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization) model, it is
intended to formalize the necessary elements for the creation of knowledge through the use of
prior knowledge, identifying the problem, the context, the solution and the result in terms of
success and failure, but also describing the characteristics of the people and the social space.
The registration of these data provides a more complete understanding of the lessons learned,
making it possible to infer the probabilities of success of the new team and make decisions and
actions to change the result if it is not the expected one.
2. State of the art
Project management is a social construction [1] motivated by the need to carry out specific
actions to achieve immediate goals [2], its big challenge being knowledge conservation [3].
ICAIW 2022: Workshops at the 5th International Conference on Applied Informatics 2022, October 27–29, 2022, Arequipa,
Peru
$ pgerlero@frba.utn.edu.ar (P. Gerlero)
0000-0001-8270-1342 (P. Gerlero)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Workshop
Proceedings
http://ceur-ws.org
ISSN 1613-0073
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
288
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
The instability and unpredictability of changes in the system make the traditional approach
of planning, execution, and control ineffective [4]. The temporary organization [2] contains
interconnected elements that need to continuously work and coordinate with each other to
produce changes and desirable results [5]. It is necessary to integrate the subjective aspects of
lived experiences into the analysis of complexity [6], making an imperfect management model.
Through the modeling, experimentation, and learning sequence, knowledge can be built in an
organic way [7].
The information is incomplete and ambiguous and there is a lack of time to gather knowledge,
which makes it difficult to decide whether a project is in crisis [8]. Researchers have identified
the symptoms and risks associated with failure [9], but when interpreting the world in simple
and obvious terms, verbal language tends to extract linear concatenations of cause and effect
that do not always represent reality.
In systematic literature reviews published in [10], the low variability of success and failure
factors over time is shown. The lessons learned in terms of cause and effect are not enough
to address the problem from the viewpoint of the objective and institutionalized world. It is
important to see the social world as meaningful. The structures of the institutions are created by
the action of human beings, they reproduce or change and are at the same time structuring [11].
Whether it is a structure or a system processing information, organized work depends on tacit
knowledge [11]. The creation of knowledge does not only imply the processing of information
but also takes advantage of tacit and subjective perceptions to make ideas available, tested, and
used [12].
Knowledge is a dynamic process of justification of beliefs [13] that arises from the interaction
with the world [14]. At the end of the continuum line is the tacit knowledge rooted in mental
models [12]. On the other end, explicit or codified knowledge is formally transmitted through
language [14]. People rely on the observation of objects, events, and relationships [15] to make
knowledge more explicit. Knowledge creation is an individual and social process [14] that
moves through four modes of conversion known as the SECI [12, 13, 16].
Decision, action, and cognition are the key elements to creating knowledge when solving a
problem during praxis. Cognitive operations depend on supporting processes such as perception,
working memory, and emotion, while reasoning and decision-making depend on the availability
of knowledge about situations, options for action, and outcomes. The nature of the knowledge,
value, and vision of perceived power and the different mentalities form barriers that prevent
the exchange [17]. The choices that are made are not inherent to the situations that arise, but
complex exchanges between the properties of the context and those of the people, with their
doubts and their history. In order to have a true understanding of the problem to be solved, it is
important to identify the mental representations, recognize their power, face them directly and
build new ones that also become solid and lasting. Exposing mental models and making them
increasingly explicit allows us to understand the world, be able to explain it, and make sense of
it.
Project management and knowledge creation are systems that must evolve together and
integrate. But, in order for this to happen, it is necessary to understand the link between projects
and institutions and predict the effects that trigger change, and establish long-term stabilizing
mechanisms of social interaction [18]. The theory of action can be useful in understanding
aspects of human behavior [19]. Identifying the properties of the actors that constitute a social
289
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
space provides valuable tools in the effort to foresee what will happen in the future [20]. Social
changes and power relations build the meanings of success and failure of projects over time
[21, 22]. Identifying the sociological profile of the field of project management provides objective
and subjective tools from which to build.
The concept of wisdom refers to how people correctly use their knowledge through their
practical actions, judgments and decisions [17]. It is recognized as the highest hierarchy of the
DIKW model [23]. Achieving it requires integrating multiple perspectives, internal and external
awareness, emotional cognitive domain, and internal-external reflection as the ability to step
back, think, analyze, evaluate, and learn [24]. Intelligence is the bio-psychological potential to
process information that is activated in a framework to solve problems, but can only be activated
or not, depending on the values, the available opportunities, and the decisions made by the
person or their environment. The multiple intelligences theory makes it possible to identify
the cognitive profile of the people who make up the social space, providing a framework for
personal development and thus achieving wisdom. But participating in the exchange largely
depends on the quality of the communication [25]. Communication barriers are an important
part of human perception. Communicative action allows information to be transferred through
the use of instruments to sustain and review consensus through human potential [26].
Thanks to the knowledge, the world can be read and interpreted. It is necessary to explain the
sociology tools to identify the elements put into play when finding solutions to the problems
that arise in software development projects.
3. Methodology
The snowballing technique [27] is used in order to describe the state of knowledge about
the emerging elements proposed in the systematic review on success and failure in software
development projects [10]. Snowballing refers to the use of the reference or citation list to
identify additional articles by searching backward or forwards, thus establishing a timeline
that allows visualization of evolution. An effective review creates a firm foundation for the
advancement of knowledge and facilitates the development of the necessary theory for those
who want to propose and justify a model [27]. In this sense, systematic reviews of the literature
or the snowballing technique, by themselves, may not be enough to achieve a high result, which
leads to the use of hybrid strategies. A threat in the snowballing technique is that several
articles from the same group of authors could be found since their previous research is usually
relevant and cited [28]. However, it does not represent an obstacle to fulfilling the objective of
describing the appropriate toolbox that can justify the model. The initial set of relevant and
seminal articles [29] are those considered in [10] as emerging elements for success and failure
in software development projects.
4. Results
In [10], the need for a framework that allows content to be co-created and then represented
in decision-making is identified. The Theory of Action (Bourdieu), Communicative Action
(Habermas) and the Knowledge Creation Spiral constitute a solid structure to understand the
290
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
social dynamics in the administration field. The use of thought routines produces practices that
allow the co-creation of intelligent temporary organizations. The Multiple intelligences theory
(Gardner) suggests a framework for cognitive growth. The papers identified in [10] provide
the initial seedbed to apply the snowballing technique and complete this review, yielding the
results presented in the following subsections.
4.1. Nonaka and Takeuchi’s knowledge creation model (SECI)
The creation of knowledge moves through four SECI conversion modes [12, 15, 16] promoting
the evolution of social practices and the necessary conditions of stability [14]. This human
activity that exists in a coherent, complex, and coordinated way allows the use of technology,
significantly influencing the conversion process [30]. Knowledge is created through the dy-
namic interaction between individuals and the environment [31]. By defining a problem and
experimenting with new solutions [14], the limits of the old knowledge are transcended and a
new vision of the world is acquired [32].
Socialization allows the sharing of tacit knowledge through observation, imitation, practice,
and participation in a community [13]. People interact using technology to formalize meet-
ings [30]. There are practices that contribute to the process such as the tacit accumulation of
knowledge through experiences with customers or suppliers and competitors, the collection
of extra-firm and intra-firm social information, and the transfer of knowledge, building envi-
ronments that allow crafts to be understood [32]. Externalization occurs through dialogue and
reflection [13]. Process capture methods, expert systems, and decision support systems are used
as the basis for lessons learned, blogs, wikis, and intuitive mapping tools, as a practice that
contributes to the process, is the facilitation of creative dialogue with abductive thinking and the
use of metaphors [32]. In the Combination phase, the integration of concepts into knowledge
occurs [13]. Web pages, forums, and best practices are accessible to all teams, which facilitates
the acquisition of knowledge. The tools used include content management, statistical analyses,
neural networks, intelligent agents, case-based reasoning systems, knowledge maps, dashboards,
intranet, and web portals. Activities that contribute to the process include the acquisition and
integration (exercise of strategic planning through the use of data, literature, simulation, and
forecast), synthesis and processing (construction of manuals, documents, databases), and dis-
semination. Internalization consists of the incorporation of knowledge. Mining systems help
to search for codified knowledge in large data repositories. The factors that contribute to the
process are personal experience and simulation and experimentation [32].
A director must take into account the view that the past makes sense only as a projection of
the future. He must consider the objectives as drivers of dialogue and practices [33]. Insist on
dialogue to create a flow of ideas based on empathy, reciprocity, participation, and openness
that allows going further. Promise shared and systematized practices, and leadership to promote
culture to create knowledge in a continuous and dynamic way. Propose economic or symbolic
incentives such as self-satisfaction of being able to create, peer recognition, and a sense of
belonging to sustain motivation and social context Ba (shared space of cognition and action)
[31]. To promote the spiral of knowledge, intention, autonomy, fluctuation, creative chaos,
redundancy, and variety are necessary. The social context Ba must positively influence the
outcome of the process so that the assets of experiential, conceptual, systemic, and routine
291
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
knowledge are mobilized and shared. Despite the criticism that the model has received, it is still
widely accepted and applicable, and a new interest has arisen in the incorporation of the Ba
concept [33]. However, the elements to be incorporated into the knowledge base have not been
characterized.
4.2. Bourdieu’s theory of action and Habermas’s theory of communicative
action
Bourdieu proposes to integrate the subjective sense of the agent with the objective distributions
of their practices [34]. The social world is something that the agents have to build individually
and collectively, in cooperation and conflict, without ignoring the contradictions that may be
their principle of transformation [35]. It is a multidimensional construction of positions, which
defines approaches and social distances [36]. The different elements cannot be thought of apart
from their position [37]. It is constructed in such a way that agents are distributed according to
the principles of differentiation such as economic and cultural capital. Capital makes it possible
for those who own it to obtain a differential return, it allows them to play cards better. Cultural
capital is found in an incorporated state (durable and permanent provisions of the organization),
in an objectified state (books, computer programs, forming the product of human labor from
the previous state), and in an institutionalized state (objectified and legally guaranteed) [37]. To
know how a social space differs, it is necessary to observe the achievements that are legally
recognized or not, explicit, rationalized, and codified. The field is centered on the objective,
structured according to the position occupied by people influenced by the specific capital they
possess. The greater the capital, the more benefits, more influence, and more power. Such
distribution may vary over time [38]. Capital is social energy, which can be disputed and
accumulated, around which an exchange market arises, there are institutions that regulate it
and agents that dispute it.
Strategies constitute practices aimed at obtaining some type of capital, thus shaping the
observed behavior of agents in the various fields [34]. To understand the practices, it is necessary
to construct things that are the truth of the practice but that the practice does not have as
truth [37]. The social word is objectified in the habitus, permanent dispositions that are the
product of a learning incorporation work. Together with the field, the habitus forms a system
of relationships. The practical sense forms a system of cognitive and motivating structures
in a world of ends already achieved, modes of employment, and procedures to follow. As
a result of history, individual and collective practices originate, registered in each organism
under the scheme of perception, thought, and action with more security than all the formal
and explicit rules. The habitus is differentiated, but they are also differentiating, different and
distinguished, they bring into play various principles of differentiation, they are structuring
structures, classificatory schemes, as well as distinctions of what is good and what is bad, the
distinguished and the vulgar [35]. The habitus is an open system of dispositions constantly
subjected to experiences that either reinforce or modify its structures [39]. They are continually
changing due to new experiences; it creates practices from the internal point of view while also
creating them from the external point of view. They are only in relation to certain structures that
certain discourses or practices are produced, depending on the stimuli or the structures of the
field. The same habitus can generate different and even opposite results. They are systematic, it
292
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
only makes sense if the different habits are related to each other. They are socialized subjectivity
[34] and it originates individual and collective practices, the tacit rules that are registered in the
organism as perception, thought, and action. The habitus is limited by the social conditions that
support them, recording them in the body and mind, forming subjective structures available to
act, think and feel in a certain way throughout history [34]. They are the pillar that makes up
the set of behaviors, preferences, language, and judgments learned throughout the history of
their performance in various social spaces. They contribute to building the field as a significant
world, endowed with meaning and value where it is worth investing energy, guaranteeing
the homogeneity and firmness of practices over time. If the habitus highlights the subjective
end, the field focuses on the objective. The field predetermines and structures the social space
leaving room for improvisation. The field concept allows us to know the objective relations of
the agents, it allows us to know their position and to know the degree of inequality.
Social reality exists in two poles; in things and in minds; in fields and in habitus; outside
and inside agents. The behaviors produced by the habitus depend on the functioning of the
field, making it possible for the field not to vary (a reproduction situation) [38], for the field to
vary, but not the practice p(situation of hysteresis), or for both the habitus and the practice to
varying, producing new practices of innovation.
In [40], the underlying forces that shape the practice of agile software development projects
are theoretically explored, postulating that teams must have different past experiences, goals,
interests, and power levels, which have repercussions on the way in which they collaborate
thus impacting in practice. In [20], the sociological profile of the project manager is determined
by identifying common characteristics that lead to success.
The sociological explanation must be made considering the relationships between capital,
habitus, and field that generate social practices and interpretation by reading the action in the
different social positions of the actors and not so much in terms of the explicit meaning that
they give to their own behavior [34].
In the social world, action is divided into two categories: strategic action, where language is
used with the intention of influencing others, exercising informal power, and communicative
action, where there is awareness of the social world and reasoning is adopted. logical rather
than dominance to resolve disagreements [25]. The world of life is the work of interpretations
carried out by past generations in which speaker and listener can claim that their emissions
are in accordance with the world and in which they can criticize and exhibit the foundations
of those validity claims and resolve their dissent and reach an agreement [41]. Speakers and
listeners use the reference system as a framework of interpretation within which they elaborate
common definitions of their action situation.
Communicative action, under the functional aspect, serves the tradition and the renewal
of cultural knowledge; under the aspect of action coordination, it serves social integration
and the creation of solidarity; and under the aspect of socialization, it serves the training of
personal identities, giving rise to the structural components; culture (supply of interpretations to
understand something in the world), society (legitimate ordinances of regulation the belonging
to groups) and personality (competencies that make the subject capable of language and action)
[41, 42]. The communicative action forms a determining factor in the socialization process, and
defines cultural reception and reproduction, social integration, and personality development,
they are measured by symbols and respond to the idea of shared recognition [43]. In the learning
293
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
process, argumentation is systematically connected with the validity claim [41]. It is important
to learn from social reality as a situated historical construction of individual and collective
actors, keeping in mind the concept of a constructed world, which can be reproduced but has
the capacity for transformation [44]. Bourdieu’s theory brings conflict, power, and inequality in
the exercise of practice to the surface. Habermas provides, through communicative action, the
consensus and harmony necessary for collective development [45] through self-knowledge for
cognitive, affective, and practical transformation [46].
4.3. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences and Perkins’s thinking routines
An intelligent collaborative system applies artificial intelligence methods to provide better
support to users and is based on interconnection, instrumentation (accumulation of necessary
data), intelligence (making decisions that improve the learning process) and shared activity
[47]. There is intelligence that makes up the profile of a person, and the combination of these
is what gives them unique abilities such as linguistic intelligence (ability to learn languages
and use them to achieve certain goals), logical-mathematical (ability to analyze problems,
perform mathematical operations and scientific investigations), musical, kinesthetic (ability to
use parts of one’s own body to solve problems), spatial (ability to recognize and manipulate
patterns in large and small spaces), interpersonal (the ability of a person to understand the
intentions, motivations, and desires of others), intrapersonal (ability to understand oneself)
and naturalistic (ability to distinguish and classify elements of the environment) [48]. There is
strong evidence that each intelligence possesses neural coherence [49], a unique neural system
[50]. An intelligence differs from a skill in its depth, scope, and complexity [49]. The neural
bases for each intelligence are described in terms of primary regions, sub-regions, and particular
structures [51]. These frameworks have cognitive correlates that are generally well aligned with
the skill sets associated with each intelligence, which makes it possible to personalize learning
[50]. Multiple intelligences are cognitive abilities defining the learning style that can be assessed
to help people develop thinking strategy [52]. The scientific evidence and the naturalized use
for the creation of personalized academic content, considering the specific cognitive profiles,
make the use of this theory an important tool to identify the best strategies for knowledge
management in organizations.
A distinctive feature of wisdom is the breadth of considerations that are considered when
making a judgment or recommending a course of action. A person who can employ multiple
intelligences appropriately is more likely to be wise because they bring more faculties and
factors into the equation [53]]. Comprehension is a process of mental representation underlying
the assimilation and transformation of knowledge. It is important to know the different minds
and design schemes that consider their differences by identifying the previous representations
and the obstacles that must be eliminated [54].
Thought is invisible and remains hidden within the mind, but when it becomes visible it offers
the opportunity from which to build and learn [55]. Thought visualization refers to any type of
observable representation that documents and supports the development of an individual or
group’s developing ideas, questions, reasons, and reflections [56]. Understanding is the result
of application, analysis, evaluation, and creation. To create knowledge, it is necessary to collect
associated activities and thoughts using methods and tools [57]. The process can be tackled
294
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
with thinking routines [58]. It consists of patterns [55] that can be used repeatedly helping to
internalize the message about what learning is and how it occurs, laying the foundations of
teamwork [57].
4.4. Representation of knowledge and co-creation
Knowledge representation is a method to infer reasoning about information in order to achieve
intelligent behavior [59]. It involves five roles; surrogate (allows reasoning about the world
instead of acting on it); ontological (providing an answer to the question), fragmentation
of intelligence (expressed as a mental representation of reasoning), pragmatic medium (for
efficient computation), and human expression medium (language that says things) [60]. The
frame conforms to the habits of human thought, it is good at representing structural knowledge,
can express the internal structure relationship and the connection between knowledge, describe
the detail of things, but also can detect conflicts, and achieve efficient reasoning. The scripts
make it possible to encapsulate the action, the person, and the thing that can be related in a
given context [61].
There is little consensus on what is considered co-creation [62, 63]. For [64], it consists of
learning collaboratively using and actively combining the knowledge of others, considering
previous knowledge. It involves the collective modification and evaluation of the ideas of others,
which lead to improving one’s own [65]. Enabling active participation in co-creation can lead
to high-quality learning outcomes. One way to promote it is the use of a script that explicitly
guides participants through the process [66] so they can focus on cognitive activities without
feeling pressure to plan or monitor on their own [67].
4.5. Knowledge co-creation model for project management
A project can be seen as an asset (technical characteristics), as a system (the asset with its
context focusing on the equipment, resources, and specifications to build the asset), and as a
conversation (meaning and interactions with stakeholders) [68, 69]. The different perspectives
are complementary and come together through human action that transforms and creates
a unique reality for each software development project. Managing teams requires a careful
understanding of complex human interactions [40]. The planning, execution, and control
sequence fails in unpredictable, ambiguous, and uncertain conditions, requiring an imperfect
management model that allows modeling, experimenting, and learning. The SECI model under
the socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization sequence provides a tool that
allows the creation of knowledge in the exercise of practice. However, this knowledge stored
in a database, as lessons learned, is incomplete when it comes to being represented as similar
cases. It is important to characterize the subjective and objective elements of the social space in
the development of the practice. The project must be seen as a system and a conversation at the
same time. Is important to identify the asset with its context, with people who were part of the
co-creation, the habitus, the motivations, the position they occupy in the field, the capital they
hold, with their mental models and their way of learning. Mental models organize knowledge,
help people describe, explain and predict events in context, and take only what is believed to be
important and eliminate what is believed to be unimportant [6]. The decisions, actions, and
295
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
cognitions of the team must be aware of what subjective meaning, knowledge, and practice
play in the production of the asset [39]. Decision-making, as an integral part of the project, is
complex and multifactorial, which leads to work integrating several paradigms in a systematic
way and analyzing interactions [70]. Teams need multifaceted approaches to be able to deal
with new or unforeseen situations during software development processes and thus manage
projects more effectively [71].
A problem, with its solution and implementation, is part of the project asset. It has technical
characteristics and results in terms of success and failure, which constitute the lessons learned
that are part of the knowledge base. But the features are incomplete. It is important to describe
the social space with the institutions that regulate the exchange market, the people that make it
up, and the capital (economic, cultural, and symbolic) delimiting the position it occupies in the
Ba formed. Identifying people with habitus (history embodied in the body and mind), and a
cognitive profile (unique combination of multiple intelligences) is important to establish where
to start to co-create and learn. It is important to keep the complete characteristics of the social
space, ba, during the exercise of the practice that led to the resolution of a problem using certain
thought routines around the creation spiral under the SECI sequence. These characteristics
must be structured around a sociological profile and a cognitive profile. The sociological profile
is composed of an objective structure such as the position occupied by the described agents
around the capital and the position they occupy in the field and a subjective one, the history
embodied in the body and the mind (habitus). The cognitive profile, as a unique combination of
multiple intelligences, predefines the way agents learn and is constantly changing habitus and
practice, tracing the path to success of the solution in an innovative way.
Figure 1 represents the knowledge co-creation model. In the past, a problem, solution, imple-
mentation, and result were recorded in the knowledge base characterized by the sociological
Figure 1: Knowledge co-creation model based on the SECI model
296
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
and cognitive profile of the field ba institutionalized under the SECI spiral of knowledge creation
using some proposed routine to make thought visible. All interaction was recorded on a virtual
video conference platform. In the present, the social space ba is formed with the members
of the team to solve the problem, and their current sociological and cognitive profile. The
co-creation practices are carried out under the sequence of the SECI model. With the current
characteristics, the knowledge base is inferred, which describes similar problems, implemented
solutions, results obtained, profiles that intervened, and thought routines used. With the current
profiles, it proposes the best routines to create the necessary knowledge and establishes the
probability of success in finding a solution.
The agents that make up the social field ba have a cognitive and sociological profile and play
a role. The role can be manager, developer, client, or deployer. The cognitive profile is made
up of a combination of multiple intelligences (logical, mathematical, linguistic, interpersonal,
etc.) that could historically change and be modified by the habitus, giving the field significant
meaning. Habitus implies knowing how to be and knowing how to do and modify both the
cognitive and sociological profiles. The sociological profile is subjectively structured by habitus
and objectively by capital. Capital can be cultural, economic, social, and symbolic and allows
agents to play cards better. It is the material of exchange in the Ba social field.
The team dedicated to solving a problem in software development projects forms the social
space and structures objectively around its capital and subjectively around habitus. Using
different routines makes thinking visible to co-created and learned. This modifies the cognitive
profile, habitus, and capital of those who participated in the process. Co-creations produce
assets (objects) and recordings. The assets are classified in terms of success and failure, they are
the problems, their solutions, and the characteristics of the people who co-create and implement
them. The recordings are reviewed by agent behavior experts, identifying and recording changes
in habitus and capital, allowing the cognitive and sociological profiles to be modified, which will
then allow the creation of a new social space, unique in future co-creations. The relationship
between the different concepts can be seen in Figure 2.
5. Conclusions and future lines of research
Project management is a social construction and as such must be analyzed with the tools provided
by sociology in order to build successful software development projects. This construction
requires an imperfect model that allows modeling, experimenting, and learning in conditions of
ambiguity and uncertainty. For this, tacit and explicit knowledge must be managed, co-creating
knowledge that allows modifying the conditions of the social field to achieve success. The
description of the problem may be objectively in the past, but the solution is subjectively
co-created in the present, making it necessary to modify practices and habits to innovate
because otherwise the same practices will be used and the same errors reproduced year after
year. As future lines of research, it is proposed to describe the different stages of the process,
the architecture, and the knowledge representation models to validate them through expert
judgment in the environment of technological developments.
297
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
Role Multiple Intelligences
Agent Can be: manager
It can be: Linguistics
It can be: Logical Mathematics
Can be: Developer
Type: Person It can be: music
Can be: Client
They fulfill a: Role It can be: Corporal Kinesthetic
Can be: Deployer
Has a: Cognitive Profile Cognitive Profile It can be: Spatial
Has a: Sociological profile It can be: Interpersonal
Integrates the: Social field Can: change Habitus It can be: Intrapersonal
Modified by: Habitus It can be: Naturalistic
Significant senseof field structure
Owned by: agents
Sociological Profile Skills: Knowhow to be - know how to do
Combination of : multipleintelligences
Social field "Ba" Subjective Structure: Habitus They can historically: Change
Objectivestructure: Capital Modified by: experts (recordingCo-Creations)
Type: Social Field Can: change
Has: creation date Modified by: Capital and Habitus
Composed by: Agents
Exchange Place: Capital
Institutionalized by: Habitus
Thinking Routines Performance spaceby: Routines
Expert
Made: Co-creations
Capital
They are sequences that plan the: Co-creations Type: Person/ System
Could be R1: Think/Explore Roles Agents own it
Watch: Recordings
It can be R2: Synthesize/Organize ideas Can be: Economic
Analyze: behaviors
It can be R3: Explore ideas deeply Can be: Cultural
Define change of: Habitus
It can be R4: Plan/Execute/Control Can be. Social
Define change of: Capital
It can be R5: Model/experience/Learn Can be: Symbolic
The ratio can: Change
Modified by: expert (Recording
Co-Creations)
Recording
Assets Co-Creations
Can be: Reports Type: Video
Can be: Tools Collaborativesolution creation
Produce: Assets Has creation date
Can be: Processes Show: Agents
Modify: Habitus
They have: Date of creation Show: Routines
Have: Agents Modify: Capital
Produce: Recording Show: Habitus
Have: Routines used Show: Capital
It has defined the: Problem They are seen by: experts
It has detailed the:Solution View: Cognitive profile
Has identified: Success / Failure View: Sociological Profile
Figure 2: Relations of the concepts in the knowledge base
References
[1] P. Morris, Reconstructing project management reprised: A knowledge perspective, Project
Management Journal 44 (2013) 6–23.
[2] R. A. Lundin, A. Söderholm, A theory of the temporary organization, Scandinavian Journal
of management 11 (1995) 437–455.
[3] J. Packendorff, Inquiring into the temporary organization: new directions for project
management research, Scandinavian journal of management 11 (1995) 319–333.
[4] R. Picciotto, Towards a ‘new project management’movement? an international develop-
ment perspective, International Journal of Project Management 38 (2020) 474–485.
[5] A. Rezvani, P. Khosravi, Identification of failure factors in large scale complex projects: an
integrative framework and review of emerging themes, International Journal of Project
Organisation and Management 11 (2019) 1–21.
[6] M. F. Mikkelsen, Perceived project complexity: a survey among practitioners of project
management, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (2020).
[7] P. A. Daniel, C. Daniel, Complexity, uncertainty and mental models: From a paradigm of
regulation to a paradigm of emergence in project management, International journal of
project management 36 (2018) 184–197.
[8] C. Muenzberg, V. Stingl, J. Geraldi, J. Oehmen, et al., Identifying product development
crises: The potential of adaptive heuristics, in: DS 87-2 Proceedings of the 21st International
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Vol 2: Design Processes, Design Organisation
298
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
and Management, Vancouver, Canada, 21-25.08. 2017, 2017, pp. 189–198.
[9] S. K. Gupta, A. Gunasekaran, J. Antony, S. Gupta, S. Bag, D. Roubaud, Systematic literature
review of project failures: Current trends and scope for future research, Computers &
Industrial Engineering 127 (2019) 274–285.
[10] P. Gerlero, Successes and failures in software development project management: a system-
atic literature review, CEUR Workshop Proceedings (2021).
[11] P. Beynon-Davies, Sistemas de información: introducción a la informática en las organiza-
ciones, Reverté, 2018.
[12] I. Nonaka, A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization science
5 (1994) 14–37.
[13] T. Shibata, Moving toward a more advanced knowledge economy: Lessons and implications,
Knowledge Economy (2006) 147.
[14] I. Nonaka, G. Von Krogh, Perspective—tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Con-
troversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory, Organization
science 20 (2009) 635–652.
[15] l. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi, K. Umemoto, A theory of organizational knowledge creation,
International journal of technology Management 11 (1996) 833–845.
[16] I. Nonaka, H. Takeuchi, The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation, Oxford Press, 1995.
[17] A. E. Akgün, H. Keskin, H. Ayar, Z. Okunakol, Knowledge sharing barriers in software
development teams: A multiple case study in turkey, Kybernetes (2017).
[18] J. Söderlund, J. Sydow, Projects and institutions: Towards understanding their mutual
constitution and dynamics, International Journal of Project Management 37 (2019) 259–268.
[19] T. Williams, The nature of risk in complex projects, Project management journal 48 (2017)
55–66.
[20] T. Kalogeropoulos, V. Leopoulos, K. Kirytopoulos, Z. Ventoura, Project-as-practice: Apply-
ing bourdieu’s theory of practice on project managers, Project Management Journal 51
(2020) 599–616.
[21] Z. Baghizadeh, D. Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. Schlagwein, Review and critique of the in-
formation systems development project failure literature: An argument for exploring
information systems development project distress, Journal of Information Technology 35
(2020) 123–142.
[22] H. Florez, M. Sánchez, J. Villalobos, G. Vega, Coevolution assistance for enterprise architec-
ture models, in: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Models and Evolution,
2012, pp. 27–32.
[23] J. Rowley, The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the dikw hierarchy, Journal of
information science 33 (2007) 163–180.
[24] N. Dalal, D. J. Pauleen, The wisdom nexus: Guiding information systems research, practice,
and education, Information Systems Journal 29 (2019) 224–244.
[25] M. Sarhadi, S. Yousefi, A. Zamani, Participative project management as a comprehensive
response to postmodernism criticisms: The role of communication, International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business (2018).
[26] J. Geraldi, J. Söderlund, Project studies: What it is, where it is going, International journal
of project management 36 (2018) 55–70.
299
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
[27] C. Wohlin, Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in
software engineering, in: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on evaluation
and assessment in software engineering, 2014, pp. 1–10.
[28] S. Jalali, C. Wohlin, Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snow-
balling, in: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on Empirical software
engineering and measurement, 2012, pp. 29–38.
[29] K. R. Felizardo, E. Mendes, M. Kalinowski, É. F. Souza, N. L. Vijaykumar, Using forward
snowballing to update systematic reviews in software engineering, in: Proceedings of
the 10th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and
Measurement, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[30] A. Obeidat, It adaption with knowledge conversion process (seci)?, Management Science
Letters 9 (2019) 2241–2252.
[31] I. Nonaka, R. Toyama, A. Nagata, A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective
on the theory of the firm, Industrial and corporate change 9 (2000) 1–20.
[32] I. Nonaka, R. Toyama, N. Konno, Seci, ba and leadership: a unified model of dynamic
knowledge creation, Long range planning 33 (2000) 5–34.
[33] A. O. Adesina, D. N. Ocholla, The seci model in knowledge management practices: Past,
present and future., Mousaion 37 (2019).
[34] J. S. M. García, El habitus. una revisión analítica, Revista internacional de sociología 75
(2017) e067–e067.
[35] P. Bourdieu, Las estrategias de la reproducción social, Siglo xxi, 2012.
[36] J. C. Passeron, P. Bourdieu, Los herederos: los estudiantes y la cultura, 2009.
[37] P. Bourdieu, Curso de sociología general 2: El concepto de capital, Siglo XXI Editores, 2021.
[38] P. Bourdieu, El sentido práctico, Siglo XXI de España Editores, 2008.
[39] P. Bourdie, Una invitación a la sociología reflexiva, Siglo xxi, 2005.
[40] M. Tanner, C. Wallace, Towards an understanding of the contextual influences on dis-
tributed agile software development: A theory of practice perspective, 2012.
[41] J. Habermas, Acción comunicativa y razón sin trascendencia, in: Acción comunicativa y
razón sin trascendencia, 2003, pp. 104–p.
[42] D. Görlich, Societal xr—a vision paper, ParadigmPlus 3 (2022) 1–10.
[43] L. G. Vergara, Habermas y la teoría de la acción comunicativa, Razón y palabra 75 (2011)
01–19.
[44] G. N. Sánchez, Una aproximación teórica a habermas y bourdieu. nociones de acción,
racionalidad y lenguaje, in: VII Jornadas de Jóvenes Investigadores, Instituto de Investiga-
ciones Gino Germani, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, 2013, pp. 1–12.
[45] B. Forchtner, C. Schneickert, Collective learning in social fields: Bourdieu, habermas and
critical discourse studies, Discourse & Society 27 (2016) 293–307.
[46] E. S. V. Merino, Racionalidad, diálogo y acción: Habermas y la pedagogía crítica, Revista
Iberoamericana de educación 56 (2011) 1–15.
[47] S. Katalnikova, L. Novickis, N. Prokofyeva, V. Uskov, C. Heinemann, Intelligent collabora-
tive educational systems and knowledge representation, Procedia Computer Science 104
(2017) 166–173.
[48] H. Gardner, La inteligencia reformulada: las inteligencias múltiples en el siglo XXI, 159.955
G171i Ej. 1 020338, Paidos„ 2001.
300
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
[49] C. B. Shearer, A detailed neuroscientific framework for the multiple intelligences: describ-
ing the neural components for specific skill units within each intelligence, International
Journal of Psychological Studies 11 (2019) 1–26.
[50] B. Shearer, Multiple intelligences in teaching and education: Lessons learned from neuro-
science, Journal of Intelligence 6 (2018) 38.
[51] C. B. Shearer, Multiple intelligences in gifted and talented education: Lessons learned
from neuroscience after 35 years, Roeper Review 42 (2020) 49–63.
[52] T. Armstrong, Inteligencias múltiples en el aula: Guía práctica para educadores, volume
185, Grupo Planeta (GBS), 2006.
[53] S. Moran, H. Gardner, Hill, skill, and will: executive function from a multiple-intelligences
perspective., 2018.
[54] H. Gardner, Mente no escolarizada, Paidcs, 1997.
[55] D. Perkins, ¿ cómo hacer visible el pensamiento, Artículo publicado por la Escuela de
Graduados de la Universidad de Harvard. Traducido por Patricia León y María Ximena
Barrera (1997) 1–4.
[56] S. Tishman, P. Palmer, Pensamiento visible, Leadership compass 2 (2005) 1–3.
[57] R. Ritchhart, M. Church, K. Morrison, Hacer visible el pensamiento, Grupo Planeta Spain
(2014).
[58] R. Ritchhart, P. Palmer, M. Church, S. Tishman, Thinking routines: Establishing patterns
of thinking in the classroom, Citeseer, 2006.
[59] A. Patel, S. Jain, Formalisms of representing knowledge, Procedia Computer Science 125
(2018) 542–549.
[60] R. Davis, H. Shrobe, P. Szolovits, What is a knowledge representation?, AI magazine 14
(1993) 17–17.
[61] X. Li, S. Zhang, R. Huang, B. Huang, C. Xu, Y. Zhang, A survey of knowledge representation
methods and applications in machining process planning, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 98 (2018) 3041–3059.
[62] V. Ramaswamy, K. Ozcan, What is co-creation? an interactional creation framework and
its implications for value creation, Journal of business research 84 (2018) 196–205.
[63] P. Gómez, M. E. Sánchez, H. Florez, J. Villalobos, An approach to the co-creation of models
and metamodels in enterprise architecture projects., J. Object Technol. 13 (2014) 2–1.
[64] M. Farrokhnia, H. J. Pijeira-Díaz, O. Noroozi, J. Hatami, Computer-supported collab-
orative concept mapping: The effects of different instructional designs on conceptual
understanding and knowledge co-construction, Computers & Education 142 (2019) 103640.
[65] I. Dubovi, I. Tabak, An empirical analysis of knowledge co-construction in youtube
comments, Computers & Education 156 (2020) 103939.
[66] E. Vuopala, P. Näykki, J. Isohätälä, S. Järvelä, Knowledge co-construction activities and
task-related monitoring in scripted collaborative learning, Learning, Culture and Social
Interaction 21 (2019) 234–249.
[67] X. Wang, I. Kollar, K. Stegmann, Adaptable scripting to foster regulation processes and
skills in computer-supported collaborative learning, International Journal of Computer-
Supported Collaborative Learning 12 (2017) 153–172.
[68] M. Floris, S. Cuganesan, Project leaders in transition: Manifestations of cognitive and
emotional capacity, International Journal of Project Management 37 (2019) 517–532.
301
Patricia Gerlero CEUR Workshop Proceedings 288–302
[69] P. Gómez, M. Sánchez, H. Florez, J. Villalobos, Co-creation of models and metamodels for
enterprise architecture projects, in: Proceedings of the 2012 Extreme Modeling Workshop,
2012, pp. 21–26.
[70] V. Stingl, J. Geraldi, Errors, lies and misunderstandings: Systematic review on behavioural
decision making in projects, International Journal of Project Management 35 (2017)
121–135.
[71] J. B. De Vasconcelos, C. Kimble, P. Carreteiro, Á. Rocha, The application of knowledge
management to software evolution, International Journal of Information Management 37
(2017) 1499–1506.
302