Challenges and Practices for Effective Knowledge Transfer in

Globally Distributed Teams

A Systematic Literature Review

Josiane Kroll

, Juho Mäkiö

and Manal Assaad

Computer Science School, PUCRS, Porto Alegre, Brazil

Department of Information Technology, Hochschule Emden/Leer, Emden, Germany

Keywords: Global Software Development, Globally Distributed Team, Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer,

Challenge, Practice.

Abstract: In the context of Global Software Development (GSD), team members face a number of challenges that

needs to be solved. One of them relates to the transfer of knowledge needed to fulfil the required tasks. The

knowledge transfer (KT) process may be organized and implemented in various ways, as companies use

varying strategies to transfer knowledge from onsite to offshore sites. However, without effective

knowledge management practices, success in GSD will be difficult. In this paper, we aims to identify the

process activities of KT in globally distributed teams, challenges and suitable solutions for effective KT. In

order to achieve this objective, a systematic literature review (SLR) of the existing KT literature is conduct-

ed. Our findings describing the process of KT in GDT, a set of challenges and recommended practices for

effective KT. Finally, we conclude this study with a discussion of the directions for further and future re-

search.

1 INTRODUCTION

Global software development (GSD) turned from an

emerging trend in software engineering then into one

of the important competitive advantages in the in-

dustry today. In GSD, virtual teams are based in dif-

ferent countries. These teams are referred to as

Globally Distributed Teams (GDT). They pursue the

same project goals while working from different lo-

cations (Oshri et al., 2008).

The shift from an industry economy to a global,

decentralized knowledge-based economy has made

knowledge increasingly more important for organi-

zations that now operate, compete and collaborate

worldwide (Hustad, 2014). Knowledge is no longer

seen as just an object of competitive advantage but is

the core of how an organization operates to meet the

growing demands and requirements in this globally

competitive and fast-paced business environment.

Identifying the knowledge that represents the or-

ganization’s intellectual capital is a key point in

Knowledge Management (KM). KM practices, in-

cluding knowledge transfer (KT), are a major suc-

cess factor for software development, influencing

software quality and team performance (Perkins,

2006). While GSD success promises potential bene-

fits, it failure to understand and manage risks, espe-

cially those relating to KT that can result in signifi-

cant losses, including project failure (Verner and

Abdullah, 2012).

The term "knowledge transfer" is used to en-

compass various communication activities to trans-

fer knowledge. The communication model in Shan-

non and Wawer (1963) describes the information

flow from information source to destination through

an information channel. The information transmis-

sion is disturbed by "noise". We consider the "noise"

as the origin of challenges for the KT in GDT. In the

context of GSD, the result of the KT is that the in-

formation receiver has new knowledge that he/she

did not understand or know before to be able to cre-

ate the software as desired.

This work present the findings of a Systematic

Literature Review (SLR) in the field of KT in GDT

in order to identify the KT process, challenges, and

suitable practices for effective KT. Subsequently, we

classify the challenges according their origin to get a

solid basis for their mitigation. As a result, we pro-

vide a structural literature analysis and directions for

further and future research.

156

Kroll, J., Mäkiö, J. and Assaad, M.

Challenges and Practices for Effective Knowledge Transfer in Globally Distributed Teams - A Systematic Literature Review.

DOI: 10.5220/0006046001560164

In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2016) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 156-164

ISBN: 978-989-758-203-5

2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

We conducted a SLR, following the guidelines de-

fined by Kitchenham and Charters (2007). Next, we

describe the research method and all steps taken in

designing and conducting this study.

2.1 Research Questions

GSD has been practiced in industry for quite some

time, and KT has been carried out even longer than

that. Based on the perceived need for conducting a

SLR in this research field, the research questions for

this study are as follows:

 RQ1: How the KT is processed in GDT?

 RQ2: What builds up the "noise" in the KT?

 RQ3: What are the recommended practices for

effective KT in GSD projects?

2.2 Data Sources

We searched studies through five digital libraries

(see Table 1) with a period range from 1990 to 2016.

Table 1: Papers selection.

Digital library

Results

found

Not

selection

Final

selection

IEEEXplore 45 21 24

ACM 243 230 13

Wiley InterScience 252 239 13

ScienceDirect 35 31 4

SpringerLink 99 86 13

Total 674 607 67

2.3 Search String

The main terms were included in the search string in

order to identify as many relevant papers as possible.

The search was conducted using the boolean search

expression as follows:

("globally distributed team" OR

"distributed software development" OR "global software

development" OR "global software engineering" OR "dis-

tributed software engineering") AND ("knowledge trans-

fer" OR "knowledge sharing" OR "knowledge exchange"

OR “distributed knowledge" OR “knowledge engineer-

ing” OR “information transmission”)

2.4 Studies Selection

After the data search, we came up with 674 papers.

Papers were first selected based on the title followed

by the abstract. For the final selection, authors read

the full papers to assess their relevancy and signifi-

cance to the research. The final number of papers

was then reduced to 67, as listed in Table 1.

2.5 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The process of extracting information from the pri-

mary studies followed an inclusion and exclusion

criteria. Primary studies were included according to

the following criteria: Written in English, available

online, published between 1990 and 2016, and have

reported explicitly a KT research topic related to

GDT. Studies were excluded if they are: duplicate

studies, not directly related to the objective of the

research, posters, white papers, editorials, prefaces,

summaries of tutorials, panels, or having an academ-

ic teaching and learning study focus.

2.6 Validity of the Process

The main threats to the validity of the process are

the paper selection, inaccuracy in data extraction,

incorrect classification of studies, research methods

and types, and potential author bias. In order to en-

sure that process of selection and inaccuracy in data

extraction were unbiased, authors followed Kitchen-

ham and Charters (2007) recommendations. Related

to terms used to search studies, no consolidated def-

inition for KT was assumed. Regarding the study’s

classifications and findings, at least two authors dis-

cussed each paper. In case of disagreement, the issue

was discussed until a consensus was reached. There-

fore, there is a possibility that the extraction process

may have resulted in some inaccurate data.

3 RESULTS

To answer RQ2 and RQ3, we limit ourselves to list

the challenges and practices found associated with

their number of occurrences due to the lack of space

to discuss each of the items in depth. The detailed

reference for each study (S) cited in this section can

be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f-

nftp04vBuitivPYVXQcrmcSIsnjL6sxJBsPzc_loo/ed

it?usp=sharing.

3.1 KT in GDT (RQ1)

KT in GDT can be done by structured and unstruc-

tured processes. Structured KT is a formal, planned

and intentional transfer process, such as workshops

and technical presentations. Unstructured KT is an

informal, unplanned and spontaneous transfer pro-

Challenges and Practices for Effective Knowledge Transfer in Globally Distributed Teams - A Systematic Literature Review

157

cess, which occurs during daily work, such as chats

and email (Chen et al., 2013). These KT processes

are carried out in different activities of the software

development life cycle. We adopted a categorization

based on these activities to report our findings and

answer RQ1. The result of the categorization and

activities identified through the SLR are summarized

in Table 2. Altogether there are five categories: (1)

Agile projects, (2) All Project Phases, (3) Initial Pro-

ject phases, (4) Development and (5) Requirements.

The number of studies referring each activity is writ-

ten in column "Studies". The column "Reference"

points the references for each study that are cited in

this section.

The “Agile projects” category represents the ac-

tivities related to KT in agile software development.

Agile software development tends to focus on im-

plicit knowledge and traditional development on ex-

plicit knowledge (Betz et al., 2014). We found that

in globally distributed agile projects, team members

share and transfer project-specific knowledge

through agile practices such as release and sprint

planning, customer collaboration, cross-functional

teams, daily scrum meetings and project retrospec-

tives, etc.

The “All project phases” category represents the

activities of KT conducted during the all software

development process. We found 16 activities in this

category. A great number of studies report the adop-

tion of communication channels and tools (7 stud-

ies), the establishment of a common database (6

studies), and informal and improvised communica-

tion (4 studies) for KT in GDT.

Some KT activities are developed only in the

beginning of the project or to support newcomers.

The “Initial project phases” category represents

those activities that are developed for KT to take

place. We found 7 activities in this category. The

majority of studies report site visits and rotation (7

studies). In such activities, teams spend time togeth-

er to interact and communicate with each other. This

interaction and communication meant that team

members with different levels of experience could

transfer their tacit and explicit knowledge to other

team members individually through shared experi-

ences (Chen et al., 2013).

Table 2: KT evidenced in the literature.

ID Category How the KT is processed in GDT? (Studies)

Reference

1 Agile projects Adoption of agile practices (2) S42, S62

All project

phases

Through communication channels and tools (7) S3, S36, S42, S43, S62, S63, S64

3 Establishment of a common data base (repository) (6) S29, S34, S43, S62, S63, S64

4 Informal and improvised communication (4) S33, S43, S47, S48

5 Email (3) S43, S47, S61

6 Online meetings (2) S43, S62

7 Social events (2) S34, S48

8 SharePoint-based knowledge portal (Intranet) (2) S64, S65

9 Technical discussion forum (2) S62, S63

10 Electronic media (2) S62, S63

11 Online conferences (video conferencing) (2) S42, S62

12 Wiki (2) S42, S64

13 Dynamic interaction between individual (1) S29

Externalization process bridged the group and the organizational

levels (1)

S29

15 Magazines (1) S65

16 Team meetings and on-demand meetings (1) S62

17 Phone calls and personal contacts (1) S64

18 Through people previously involved in activities of the SDLC (1) S33

Development

Establishment of a handoff process (1) S31

20 Knowledge codification and socialization processes (1) S32

Initial project

phases

Site visits / Rotation (7) S29, S43, S45, S47, S57, S62, S63

22 Company training program (4) S29, S34, S45, S48

23 Pair programming (3) S42, S62, S63

24 Initial on-site job training entailing pair work (2) S34, S45

25 Technical presentation (2) S62, S63

26 Bringing the offshore developers onto the customer premises (1) S36

27 Observation of work practices (1) S36

28 Workshops (1) S62

Requirements

Written documents / written text (3) S33, S43, S60

30 Recording detailed knowledge (1) S34

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

158

The categories of “Development” and “Re-

quirements” represent software development phases

in particular. Each activity found in these categories

implements KT for a specific context. In “Develop-

ment”, knowledge is accomplished by the process of

handoff. The goal of handoff is to communicate the

work completed during particular time (Gupta et al.,

2011). We also found that knowledge is transferred

between individuals through knowledge codification

and socialization processes. Knowledge codification

refers to the procedures and shared meanings estab-

lished through encoding processes, while socializa-

tion refers to the interpretation and the use of labels

attached to the transferred knowledge during the

storing process (Oshri et al., 2008).

In “Requirements”, three studies report that GDT

adopt written documents or written text for KT.

Knowledge is captured in a requirements’ specifica-

tion document using a written format and shared in

an informal manner through conversations among

and between stakeholders (Gea et al., 2013). Anoth-

er study reports the adoption of recording data on-

site (Wieandt, 2008).

3.2 KT Challenges (RQ2)

We found 30 challenges to perform KT in GDT. We

mapped these challenges in three categories: Coor-

dination (see Table 3), Communication (see Table

4), and Cultural (see Table 5). We consider the KT

challenges as “noise” in the communication model

presented in Shannon and Wawer (1963).

Further, we categorize challenges in two groups:

Type 1 and Type 2 challenges. In Type 1 challenges

the origin of the challenge is in the fact that the

teams are globally distributed located. These chal-

lenges cannot be overcome without eliminating the

team distribution. The Type 2 challenges may be

eliminated or mitigated while not changing the team

distribution. Instead, they may be relieved by the

participating organizations or teams by eliminating

or by mitigating the challenge. For example, the

Table 3: Coordination challenges.

ID Challenge / Description

Freq/

Type

References

Temporal distance: Due to time zone differences, teams do not have

enough common working time or synchronous meetings.

13/1

S19, S29, S30, S32, S35, S38,

S39, S40, S41, S42, S44, S46, S51

Diversity of organizational environments: Process mismatches, differ-

ing technical and domain vocabularies, incompatible environments and

conflicting assumptions can be problematic in the GSD.

12/2

S3, S30, S32, S36, S37, S39, S44,

S41, S51, S52, S54, S55

Geographical distance: Inter-organizational boundaries get blurred and

relationships become complex. This makes collaboration and KT be-

tween the parties difficult.

9/1

S30, S32, S35, S36, S41, S42,

S44, S48, S56

Infrastructure to support KT: Systems did not always support project-

level KT. It may have negative impact on training and KT.

8/2

S19, S32, S41, S42, S48, S55,

S59, S60

Expertise in applying the knowledge and level of experience: Differ-

ences in skills, expertise, infrastructure, tools and methodologies hinder

KT. In addition, the lack of prior experience of working together and

changes in team membership hinder KT.

7/2 S32, S32, S35, S45, S54, S55, S61

Lack of awareness and control: The client has minimal awareness of

the status of KT and, therefore, no basis from which to manage it.

5/2 S35, S40, S46, S47, S48

Coordination and integration of multiple knowledge sources: Differ-

ent locations and departments use different terminology and tools, mak-

ing KT across departmental boundaries a challenge.

5/2 S36, S49, S50, S51, S61

Content, location and use of knowledge: In GSD, many people are in-

volved in the development activities, and thus organizations tend to have

problems in terms of content, location and use of knowledge.

4/2 S32, S42, S57, S61

Staff management: Cross-site coordination of roles and responsibilities

of the team members can hinder KT between GDT.

4/2 S37, S19, S51, S59

10 Costs management: Costs of KT are not known. 4/2 S19, S30, S40, S51

Unwillingness to communicate: The fixed organizational routines and

rigid structure caused, to a certain extent, an unwillingness to share the

vital knowledge.

3/2 S36, S47, S48

Structure of the development network does not nurture KT: The “tac-

itness” and stickiness of knowledge cause problems for KT.

3/2 S36, S42, S59

Changing vendor: Lack of clients’ operational knowledge needed by the

change of a long-time vendor to a new one vendor.

1/2 S19

Challenges and Practices for Effective Knowledge Transfer in Globally Distributed Teams - A Systematic Literature Review

159

challenge "Diversity of organizational environ-

ments" may be eliminated, for example, by the uni-

fication of the organizational environments. Howev-

er, the needed activities might be not desired or not

possible to conduct. Thus, suitable novel KT strate-

gies fitting to the organizational needs and possibili-

ties are needed, to overcome the challenges.

3.2.1 Category Coordination Challenges

In the category “Coordination” we found 13 KT

challenges. The Type 1 challenges, temporal dis-

tance and geographical distance, are depending on

natural circumstances that cannot be relieved direct-

ly. For their mitigation arrangements mitigating the

consequences of the challenge are needed whereby

the reason of the challenge cannot be eliminated.

However, they are both seen as important to get

solved with altogether 22 references. The rest of the

coordination challenges are Type 2 challenges that

are possible to eliminate, whereby the fundamental

organizational differences (e.g. challenge IDs 2, 7, 9,

and 11) make the elimination difficult.

3.2.2 Category Communication Challenges

We identified 11 challenges in the Communication

category. Some of them occur mostly only in multi-

lingual GDTs in which the team members have no

common spoken language or only limited

knowledge in the project language (e.g. ID 1).

Type 1 challenges occur altogether in 30 refer-

ences whereby the Type 2 challenges occur in 22

references. The "language difference" seems to be

hard to overcome – thus we categorize it as Type 1

challenge. Personal attributes, like in challenges

(IDs 2, 6 and 8) are difficult to overcome, as person-

al attributes are difficult to change. The ID 9 is

founded with the complexity of the information. We

argue that complex information stays complex and it

may get simplified through suitable presentation.

3.2.3 Category Cultural Challenges

In the category Cultural challenges we found 6 chal-

lenges. The frequency of Type 1 challenges is in the

references much higher (21) than the frequency of

Type 2 challenges (6 times). The “cultural diversity”

is considered as Type 1 challenge, as face-to-face

meetings are an exception in distributed teams. In

the cases that the social rules are an issue in GDTs,

they are hard to get eliminated as the implementa-

tion of new cultural rules and habits is a difficult en-

deavour. Also the challenge ID 6 is hard to eliminate

or to mitigate in a GDT, as the political systems are

far above the possibilities to make a change in a

team.

Table 4: Communication challenges.

ID Challenge / Description Freq/ Type References

Language differences: Information may be written or spoken in a language that is

a foreign language for the team members and thus will be hard to understand. The

information may be also represented from different perspectives than expected

leading to misunderstandings.

15/1

S19, S29, S30, S32, S35,

S36, S38, S39, S42, S44,

S45, S47, S48, S48, S50

Poor communication: The effectiveness of KT in virtual organizations is limited

because people tend to simplify knowledge when using technology as a communi-

cation media, and communication messages can lose richness in these settings.

13/2

S19, S32, S35, S36, S37,

S38, S41, S42, S46, S49,

S50, S52, S53

Mental models: Differences in absorptive capacity between knowledge provider

and recipients (personal attributes).

7/1

S19, S29, S30, S32, S42,

S52, S55

Lack of appropriate tools: A few tools support KT in GDT and some of them

were not developed for KT purpose.

4/2 S19, S36, S40, S59

6 Knowledge types and needs: Knowledge needs vary from person to person. 4/1 S37, S47, S48, S56

Poor or lack of documentation: Documentation is an important means to share

and transfer information, and its quality is essential for success.

3/2 S3, S19, S36

Transfer technological knowledge: Technological knowledge between the differ-

ent organizational units is particularly challenging when employees have to dele-

gate sophisticated individual software development tasks to offshore workers,

which requires constant communication and adjustment processes.

3/1 S34, S45, S51

Complexity and stickiness of knowledge: The diversity of contexts exacerbates

the ‘stickiness’ of information.

1/1 S36

Inadequate understanding of the customer’s business: The shared understand-

ing may not reflect the original needs.

1/2 S36

Loss of knowledge in project hand-off processes: Different locations and de-

partments use different terminology and tools in handoff processes making KT

across departmental boundaries a challenge.

1/2 S3

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

160

Table 5: Cultural challenges.

ID Challenge / Description

Freq./

Type

References

Cultural diversity: Cultural barriers negatively affect face-to-

face interaction, communication and collaboration.

17/1

S19, S29, S30, S32, S33, S36, S38, S39, S40,

S41, S42, S43, S44, S45, S46, S47, S48

Social rules: Cultural rules, habits and subconsciously accepted

rules affect offshored business process and IT outsourcing.

3/1 S29, S47, S51

Trust and motivation to transfer and share knowledge:

Knowledge source may be not trustworthy, and trust affects co-

operative learning.

3/2 S19, S29, S47

Incentives and Priorities: Incentives and priorities for taking

the necessary time to engage in the KT.

3/2 S37, S48, S56

Climate: Working conditions and physical surroundings in GSD

projects.

2/2 S29, S44

Political philosophy: Political issues cause rigidness and routine

in the operating models.

1/1 S29

3.3 Practices for Effective KT (RQ3)

We identified 43 practices for effective KT in GDT.

The practices are sorted according to the challenges

in the KT.

- Practices for Coordination Challenges

 Use of enabling technologies: different technol-

ogies must be employed to successfully ensure that

various offshore sites can efficiently share

knowledge resources (Gupta et al., 2011).

 Transactive memory system: it can be devel-

oped and maintained to support KT through the

propagation of certain rules and standardized work

that can overcome differences in local contexts, skill

levels and work routines (Manteli et al., 2011).

 Adoption of common platforms and tools

among sites: the organizational unities should pro-

vide a common infrastructural platform, which

makes use of different project-specific and generic

environments in which members of projects can in-

teract using collaboration tools (Clerc, 2008).

 Adoption of personal coordination mecha-

nisms: mechanisms such as routines that encourage

personal interfacing have a direct influence on KT

effectiveness (Chen et al., 2013).

 Mitigation of project issues: project guidelines

should define the teams’ participation in require-

ments elicitation and mapping during KT and week-

ly meetings (Nidhra et al., 2013).

 Share point-based knowledge portal: it pro-

vides specific information to all employees (Apte

and Hofmann, 2012).

 Development of guidelines and handbooks:

describes architectural solution, quality conformance

rules, configuration tools (Zahedi and Babar, 2014).

 Project knowledge: all the knowledge generated

in the project should be made as accurate, complete

and updated as possible (Gea et al., 2013).

 Promote staffing motivation: individual moti-

vation stimulation, mentoring and shadowing, and

credible knowledge sender (Nidhra et al., 2013).

 Increase personal attributes: education in

business processes, technology management and in-

terpersonal skills (Nidhra et al., 2013).

 Mitigation of project issues for requirements:

conducting oral and written tests/quizzes, reverse

presentations for requirements validation, support

simulation, playback or replay sessions (Nidhra et

al., 2013).

 Mitigation of project processes: understanding

the organizational learning sub process, leveraging

knowledge base and experience of peers, dynamic

navigation aids to search information, modulariza-

tion, use of outside expertise, joint collaboration,

personal identities at work (Nidhra et al., 2013).

 Requirements understanding: for newcomers

is important to experiment with the system than to

have up-to-date and complete documentation. New-

comers need to have ways to find and access rele-

vant documentation (Nidhra et al., 2013).

 Adoption of traditional mechanisms: coordina-

tion and control frameworks, combined with appro-

priate integrated voice, data and video communica-

tion technologies could be effective methods and

tools for KT in projects (Wongthongtham et al.,

2005).



On-site customer: when customers are working

on-site with the team, collaboration can be enhanced

through effective participation in release planning,

daily meetings, review meetings and retrospectives

(Dorairaj et al., 2012).

 Jointly modelling processes: it can be an ap-

propriate solution to enhance KT if the effort is not

too big in comparison with the project itself, which

can be the case, especially if the involved companies

Challenges and Practices for Effective Knowledge Transfer in Globally Distributed Teams - A Systematic Literature Review

161

are not process driven (Betz et al., 2014).

 Team set up and adjustment: it is obtained

through the learning of agreement roles, responsi-

bilities and authorities, definition of an explicit

statement of the project goals, communication about

the design rationale, management of resources and

aligning teams (Parviainen and Tihinen, 2014).

 Team synchronizing: definition of clear and

fixed requirements, a common shared understanding

of the architecture and information about the per-

formed tests and test results, the compatibility of the

partners’ development tools and environments, and

the identification of cultural differences (Parviainen

and Tihinen, 2014).

 Implementation of virtual environments to

develop competences: if individuals possess more

of a certain type of competence, they will be able to

achieve higher performance (Wang and Haggerty,

2009).

 Define responsibilities: it includes asking di-

rectly when problems occur, asking emergent peo-

ple, when required (Kwan and Damian, 2011).

- Practices for Communication Challenges

 Communication tools: it includes document

management, video conferencing, e-mails, wikis and

instant messaging can support communication

(Nidhra et al., 2013).

 Awareness improvement: frequent meetings

can improve awareness among distributed sites

(Wende et al., 2013; Gea et al., 2013).

 Face-to-face interaction: it facilitates effective

KT between team members (Razzak and Mite,

2015).

 Explicit KT: it can be successfully transferred in

the form of documentation and data (Wende et al.,

2013).

 Informal communication: the offshored teams

should continually have on going informal conversa-

tions with onshore teams (Kristjánsson et al., 2012).

 Adoption of a centralized communication

structure: it can help new teams to remain aware,

whereas a decentralized structure decreases commu-

nication (Gea et al., 2013).

 Community of practice: define a community of

practices to share common interests and have face-

to-face meetings (Nidhra et al., 2013).

 Social media tools for urgent requests: adop-

tion of social media tools provides services for dis-

tribution of information as an urgent request mecha-

nism for KT (Apte and Hofmann, 2012).

 Discussions: it facilitates openness and commu-

nication between teams in different locations. Dis-

cussions with subject matter experts on specific is-

sues faced in the teams provide opportunities to re-

fine, reprioritize, and generate requirements and so-

lution (Dorairaj et al., 2012).

 Information though magazines: monthly quali-

ty magazines to disseminate best practices (Apte and

Hofmann, 2012).

 Communication between remote teams: re-

mote team members shall find a way to socialize,

interact virtually and perhaps even simulate a shared

space for creating and exchanging tacit knowledge

(Razzak and Mite, 2015).

 Email lists: e-mail lists are characterized by fre-

quent discussions and questions on a specific topic

related to project. These topics are not further struc-

tured, but allow for fellow practitioners to share ex-

periences and respond to questions (Betz et al.,

2014; Clerc, 2008).

 Implement a knowledge repository: a central-

ized knowledge repository shared by client and ven-

dor is considered important for successful KT (Betz

et al., 2014).

 Group problem solving: it is obtained through

the adequate communication means and information

sharing and management of collaboration related

risks (Parviainen and Tihinen, 2014).

 Division of work and responsibility into small-

er units: minimizing communication-related prob-

lems is to decrease communication needs and con-

tact points to a minimum by splitting the project into

smaller, independent units managed by a local man-

ager. If no local project manager can be appointed,

at least a contact person should be named for an-

swering questions and acting as a contact point

(Komi-Sirviö and Tihinen, 2005).

- Practices for Cultural Challenges

 Cultural bridges: cultural bridges can be estab-

lished by creating collectivist culture, onsite visits

and replay sessions, and cultural workshops (Nidhra

et al., 2013).

 Visits: GSD teams should visit other members in

different locations when and as needed to gain better

understanding of critical situations through face-to-

face interactions that offer rich communication and

effective KT (Dorairaj et al., 2012).

 Rotation: rotation of team members between

different locations, often between 3-6 months, pro-

motes the distribution of the business and domain

knowledge across the teams (Dorairaj et al., 2012).

 Creating a common culture: to create a com-

mon culture, one needs to choose a specific, com-

mon language that is to be used within the organiza-

tion (Gea et al., 2013).

 Establish relationship among team members:

the success of implicit KT is further moderated by

the quality of the relationship among group mem-

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

162

bers. If knowledge recipient and source do not have

a trusting relationship, willingness to transfer back-

ground information and implicit knowledge is inhib-

ited (Wende et al., 2013).

 Promoting trust: understand the language and

business culture of the clients, reinforce communica-

tion, pay attention to client relationship manage-

ment, frequent travelling, and private contacts

(Nidhra et al., 2013).

 Mentoring technique: mentoring has been iden-

tified as one of the leading success factors in ex-

panding the organizational culture (Casado-

Lumberas and Colomo-Palacios, 2015).

4 DISCUSSION

The results of this review have given us useful in-

sights into KT in GDT. First, KT process in GDT

includes different activities. There are activities that

are for specific phases of the software development

life cycle and others are performed over the project

development. What is interesting to observe is that

agile practices promote KT in GDT. Since, agile de-

velopment is becoming more popular in literature

and in the software industry, we consider further in-

vestigate agile software development for effective

KT in GDT and the transition of knowledge between

collocated teams and GDT.

Second, we found the relationship between prac-

tices and challenges. The practices to eliminate or to

mitigate the challenges in KT are focused mostly on

Type 2 challenges as they may be eliminated or mit-

igated while keeping the team distribution upright

and because they are easier to implement with con-

crete and clear actions. However, a significant part

of the referenced challenges belong to the group

Type 1. They are difficult or not possible to address

directly with commonly used practices. Thus, novel

concepts are needed to address those challenges.

As aforementioned, the term "knowledge trans-

fer" is used to encompass various communication

activities to transfer knowledge. In GSD it is im-

portant that the information receiver has the required

knowledge to be able to fulfil his/her part in the

software development process. A number of various

practices can be applied to perform KT. However, as

shown in this paper, a number of challenges are still

unsolved.

We propose to consider the KT as a teaching

process, in which the sender teaches the information

receiver. In this, e-learning practices may be used

for the KT in GDTs. The material that is to be taught

needs to be prepared adequately, to be suitable for

the e-learning environment.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In summary, a number of conclusions can be drawn

from this study as follows:

Conclusion 1 - The temporal, geographical and so-

cio-cultural distance of GDT may limit KT: Our re-

view has revealed that there are several contextual

factors of a project that may impact on the KT in

GDT. Some of the factors are identified as challeng-

es in the reviewed studies as shown in Tables 3, 4,

and 5.

Conclusion 2 - Agile practices can promote effective

KT in GDT: Based on results of our review, agile

practices are helpful to support KT in GDT. Howev-

er, the differences between software development

processes for KT in collocated teams and GDT still

not clear. KT can be approached in a different way

in GDT.

Conclusion 3 - There is no one size fits it all solu-

tion to solve the KT challenges in GDT: Our review

has revealed that there is a number of KT challenges

in GDT. However, additional research is needed to

define, when and which KT practices may be seen as

best practices for GDTs.

Conclusion 4 - A deeper understanding about the

characteristics and the effects of Type 1 and Type 2

challenges is needed for GDT is needed: The results

of this review provide information that can be useful

for GSD practitioners’ understanding of the various

challenges that may impact KT in distributed set-

tings. However, the difference between the two

types of challenges is needed to be able to develop

suitable strategies to mitigate them.

Findings from this study present a key start for

further research in this area. Finally, the evidence

found in literature about the identified mitigating

strategies is very low. Therefore, it is difficult to of-

fer any specific advice to practitioners solely based

on this review. There is no one fits it all solution in

this field. Much more, there is a set of various prac-

tices that may be installed in a specific situation to

make KT effective in GDT.

REFERENCES

Apte, M., Hofmann, K. 2012. Process Harmonization across

Remote Sites. In 7th Int. Conf. on Global Software En-

gineering, Washington DC, US, pp. 202-206.

Challenges and Practices for Effective Knowledge Transfer in Globally Distributed Teams - A Systematic Literature Review

163

Betz, S., Oberweis, A., Stephan, R. 2014. Knowledge trans-

fer in offshore outsourcing software development pro-

jects: an analysis of the challenges and solutions from

German clients. In Expert Systems, Vol. 31, N. 3, pp.

282–297.

Casado-Lumbreras, C., Colomo-Palacios, R. 2015. Mitigat-

ing issues in global software developments by means of

mentoring. In 16th Int. Conf. on Computer Systems and

Technologies, Boris Rachev and Angel Smrikarov

(Eds.), NY, US, pp. 69-74.

Chen, J., McQueen, R.J., Sun, P.Y.T. 2013. Knowledge

transfer and knowledge building at offshored technical

support centers. In Journal of International Manage-

ment, 19 (4), pp. 362–376.

Clerc, V. 2008. Towards architectural knowledge manage-

ment practices for global software development. In 3rd

Int. Workshop on Sharing and reusing architectural

knowledge, US, pp. 23-28.

Dorairaj, S., Noble, J., Malik, P. 2012. Knowledge Man-

agement in Distributed Agile Software Development. In

Agile Conference (AGILE), pp.64-73.

Gea, J.M. Carrillo de, Nicolás, J., Fernández, J. L., Toval,

A., Vizcaíno, A., Ebert, C. 2013. Reusing requirements

in global software engineering. In: Maalej W, Thu-

rimella AK (eds.). Managing Requirements Knowledge.

Springer, pp. 171–197.

Gupta, A., Crk, I., Bondade, R. 2011. Leveraging temporal

and spatial separations with the 24-hour knowledge fac-

tory paradigm. In Information Systems Frontiers 13, 3,

pp. 397- 405.

Hustad, E. 2004. Knowledge networking in global organiza-

tions: the transfer of knowledge. In SIGMIS Conf. on

Computer Personnel Research: Careers, Culture, and

Ethics in A Networked Environment, pp. 55-64.

Kitchenham, B., Charters, S. 2007. Guidelines for perform-

ing systematic literature reviews in software engineer-

ing. Technical Report EBSE-2007-01, School of Com-

puter Science and Mathematics, Keele University.

Komi-Sirviö, S., Tihinen, M. 2005. Lessons learned by par-

ticipants of distributed software development. In Jour-

nal of Knowledge and Process Management, 12, pp.

108-122.

Kristjánsson, B., Helms, R., Brinkkemper, S. 2012. Integra-

tion by communication: knowledge exchange in global

outsourcing of product software development. In Expert

Systems - The Journal of Knowledge Engineering.

Kwan, I., Damian, D. 2011. The hidden experts in software-

engineering communication: NIER track. In 33rd Int.

Conf. on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 800-803.

Manteli, C., Hooff, B.v.d., Tang, A., Vliet, H. v. 2011. The

Impact of Multi-site Software Governance on

Knowledge Management. In Int. Conf. on Global Soft-

ware Engineering, pp. 40-49.

Nidhra, S., Yanamadala, M., Afzalb, W., Torkar, R. 2013.

Knowledge transfer challenges and mitigation strategies

in global software development - A systematic literature

review and industrial validation. In Int. Journal of In-

formation Management, 33, pp.333-355

Oshri, I., Fenema, P. van, Kotlarsky, J., 2008. Knowledge

transfer in globally distributed teams: the role of trans-

active memory. In Information Systems Journal, 18, pp.

593-616.

Parviainen, P., Tihinen, M. 2011. Knowledge-related chal-

lenges and solutions in GSD. In The Journal of

Knowledge Engineering, 1, p.22.

Perkins, T.K. 2006. Knowledge: The Core Problem of Pro-

ject Failure. CrossTalk, The J. Def. Software Eng.,

19(6), pp.13-15.

Razzak, M.A, Mite, D. 2015. Knowledge Management in

Globally Distributed Agile Projects - Lesson Learned.

In 10th Int. Conf. on Global Software Engineering, Ciu-

dad Real, pp. 81-89.

Shannon, E.C., Weaver, W. 1963. The Mathematical Theo-

ry of Communication, University of Illinois Press: Ur-

bana and Chicago.

Verner, J.M., Abdullah, L. M. 2012. Exploratory case study

research: outsourced project failure. In Journal of In-

formation and Software Technology, pp.866-886.

Wang, Y., Haggerty, N. 2009. Knowledge transfer in virtual

settings: The role of individual virtual competency. In

Information Systems Journal, 19, pp. 571-593.

Wende, E., Philip,T., G. Schwabe, King, G. 2013. KAIWA:

Towards a method of knowledge transfer in the transi-

tion phase of offshore outsourced projects. In Oshri, I.,

Kotlarsky, J., Willcocks, L. P. Advances in Global

Sourcing, Springer, pp. 180-191.

Wieandt, M., 2008. Step by step: the development of

knowledge transfer and collaboration in a nearshore

software development project. In Outsourcing Global

Services: Knowledge, Innovation and Social Capital,

p.260.

Wongthongtham, P., Chang, E., Cheah, C. 2005. Software

engineering sub-ontology for specific software devel-

opment. In 29

IEEE/NASA software engineering work-

shop (SEW 2005), pp 27–33.

Zahedi, M., Babar, M. A. 2014. Knowledge sharing for

common understanding of technical specifications

through artifactual culture. In 18th Int. Conf. on Evalua-

tion and Assessment in Software Engineering, NY, US.

KMIS 2016 - 8th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

164