Strategic Narratives: Leveraging Generative AI for Project Knowledge Capture

Abstract

Projects are essential for organizations, driving change and progress. Project reviews are crucial to avoid redundancy, prevent repeated mistakes, optimize resources, and foster innovation. Although various review methods exist (e.g., lessons learned), not all knowledge can be fully documented. Capturing knowledge is crucial for innovation, especially in product development. Hence capturing knowledge within the context of innovative product development even more critical. This paper proposes using Campbells Hero Journey framework to harness generative AI for capturing project knowledge more effectively. This research includes an updated literature review on project reviews, knowledge sharing and creation, storytelling in project management, and the use of generative AI for storytelling. To validate the findings, four sample projects and project teams were investigated. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future research opportunities are also discussed.

Headnote

Abstract: Projects are essential for organizations, driving change and progress. Project reviews are crucial to avoid redundancy, prevent repeated mistakes, optimize resources, and foster innovation. Although various review methods exist (e.g., lessons learned), not all knowledge can be fully documented. Capturing knowledge is crucial for innovation, especially in product development. Hence capturing knowledge within the context of innovative product development even more critical. This paper proposes using Campbells Hero Journey framework to harness generative AI for capturing project knowledge more effectively. This research includes an updated literature review on project reviews, knowledge sharing and creation, storytelling in project management, and the use of generative AI for storytelling. To validate the findings, four sample projects and project teams were investigated. Theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future research opportunities are also discussed.

Keywords: Tacit Knowledge Capture, Product Innovation, Project Reviews, Generative AI, Storytelling.

1 Introduction

Projects are vital to organizations, driving strategic objectives and innovation (Von Zedtwitz, 2003). Williams (2003) notes that businesses have become project-oriented, leading to flexible structures focused on strategic projects. Most organizational work is now project-based (Keil et al., 1995). However, many organizations struggle to systematically learn from projects, as knowledge and experiences often aren't integrated into organizational memory (Schindler & Eppler, 2003). Ayas and Zeniuk (2001) argue that learning isn't automatic, resulting in valuable project knowledge not being shared across other projects.

This gap highlights a critical problem. While projects are crucial for generating new knowledge and driving innovation, there is a pressing need for effective mechanisms to capture and disseminate this knowledge. This research proposes using Campbells Hero Journey framework (1949) in combination with Generative AI (GAI) as a method to capture project knowledge more effectively. The Heros Journey framework, introduced by Campbell (1949) and later adapted by Vogler (2007), offers a structured narrative approach that can help share explicit and tacit knowledge across different cultures. By employing this storytelling framework in project management, organizations may improve their ability to capture detailed insights and lessons that might be missed otherwise.

Capturing and sharing project knowledge is vital for continuous innovation therefore sustainable competitive advantage, particularly considering the case of technology startups. This study explores how storytelling frameworks combined with generative AI can improve knowledge capture, advance what is known about project reviews and contribute to the improvement of knowledge and innovation management practices.

2 Research Methodology

Research Questions:

This study aims at answering the following research questions:

1. Main Research Question: How can Campbell's Hero Journey framework, integrated with GAI, be utilized to enhance the creation and sharing of project knowledge to foster innovation within technology companies?

2. Secondary Research Question 1: In what ways does the application of the Hero's Journey framework facilitate the capture of tacit knowledge and enhance innovative outcomes in projects?

3. Secondary Research Question 2: How do technology startups currently manage the creation and dissemination of project knowledge, and what are the key barriers to optimizing these processes for innovation?

4. Secondary Research Question 3: How can GAI improve the effectiveness of storytelling frameworks in capturing knowledge from innovative product development projects?

Scope:

This study employs case study methodology Yin (1994, 2003) to explore the use of Campbell's Hero Journey framework in capturing project knowledge through generative AL The case study approach is particularly suited for this research as it allows for an indepth examination of complex phenomena within their real-life (i.e., economic) context Yin (1994, 2003, 2018). This is essential given the nuanced nature of project knowledge and its capture through storytelling frameworks.

Selection of Case Studies:

To ensure a comprehensive understanding of the framework's applicability, four diverse projects in four separate technology companies operating in British Columbia Canada (BC) were selected. These projects were chosen based on their level of complexity, despite different technical contexts, also because of the relative size of the host companies. The four companies are small sized companies in their growth period. BC, more specifically the Metro Vancouver Regional District (MVRD) was chosen for its ethnic and cultural diversity. Each project involved cross-functional teams and had a tenure of at least two years, offering a solid basis for comparison and analysis.

Data Collection:

Data was collected through a combination of qualitative methods.

* Interviews: Semi-structured interviews with key project team members were conducted to gather detailed narratives using Vogler's Hero's Journey framework. This method helped capture explicit and tacit knowledge.

* Questionnaires: A general questionnaire based on Vogler's framework was distributed and collected to help build the profile of companies, and projects, also to help understand the approach teams took to manage project data.

* Document Analysis: Project documents, reports, and publications were analysed to enhance interview data and provide context.

* Observations: During site visits observations were made about layout, colocation (where the team members work), artifacts that represent the team's culture (e.g., pictures, marketing collaterals), technology (including low tech like white boards, Kanban charts).

Data Analysis:

The analysis used a thematic approach to identify patterns in the Hero's Journey stages within each project narrative. This involved:

* Coding: Interview transcripts and questionnaire responses were coded using the adapted Vogler's 9-stage framework, organizing data systematically and identifying key themes.

* Cross-case Synthesis: Comparisons of findings from each case study were made to identify commonalities and differences. This synthesis provided information on how the framework supports knowledge capture across various settings.

* Analytical Generalization: This research aims to generalize findings analytically by connecting them to broader project management and knowledge capture theories.

Validation:

To enhance the robustness of the findings, triangulation Jick (1979) was employed by cross-verify ing data from interviews, questionnaire responses, document analyses, and observations. Feedback sessions with participant teams were also conducted to validate interpretations and conclusions drawn from the data.

Ethical Considerations

The study adhered to ethical guidelines by ensuring informed consent from all participants, maintaining confidentiality, and allowing participants to review findings and observations. The project had to adhere to the university's Research Ethics Board (REB) policies and procedures.

2 Literature Review:

Introduction:

Shenhar et al (2001) view projects as vital for strategic renewal in organizations, while Ayas and Zeniuk (2001) highlight project-based learning for fostering innovation. However, companies often struggle to systematically learn from projects (Von Zedtwitz, 2003; Hobday, 2000). Project-derived knowledge rarely integrates into organizational memory, and lessons are not consistently collected or shared (Ayas & Zeniuk, 2001; Hobday, 2000; Schindler & Eppler, 2003).

Traditional project management approaches have struggled to capture tacit knowledge, which Polanyi (1965) described as experiential knowledge that is difficult to articulate. Nonaka (1991), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) identified the significance of tacit knowledge for innovation in Japanese companies and emphasized socialisation as an essential process for converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) found that Japanese project teams typically employ metaphors and analogies for socialization. Vogler (2007) suggested an alternative approach more fitting for Western cultures, considering Japanese business culture's unique nature. Vogler proposed an adaptation of Campbell's (1949) Hero's Journey as practical application of storytelling for project management. More recently, Chiocchio et al. (2021) presented a model to foster learning in projects through social constructivist methods to boost knowledge sharing. This research adapts Vogler's approach using social constructivism to provide an alternative to metaphors and analogies as proposed by Nonak and Takeuchi (1995).

Project Reviews:

The many approaches to project review (e.g., lessons learned, post-mortem) normally refer to two basic ideas: 1) capturing knowledge generated during project work to be applied in future projects (Von Zedtwitz, 2002; DeSouza & Evaristo, 2006; Wideman, 1992; Ayas & Zeniuk, 2001; Collison & Parcell, 2001); 2) preventing mistakes from happening again (Kerzner, 2000; DeFillipi, 2003; Collier, et ah, 1996; Guliver, 1987).

Regardless of the approach, project management literature appears to have focused on the more tangible aspects of project knowledge (Mathur et al, 2007). Arguably not all the wealth of knowledge involved in such projects can be externalized. Schindler and Eppler (2003) coined the term 'project amnesia' and claimed that most projects are essentially not well-documented, described in generic terms making them difficult to visualize. Von Zedtwitz (2002) talked about barriers to learning from projects. Two types of barriers are particularly interesting for the context of this research. The first type of barrier is psychological. The second type of barrier is epistemological. The former greatly attributed to memory bias and the latter closely related to challenges in abstraction and articulation of tacit knowledge (Von Zedtwitz, 2002). Additionally, Leonard and Sensiper (1998) claimed inequality status and distance (physical and time-related) are also barriers for knowledge sharing. Von Zedtwitz (2002) hints at the development of myths, stories and corporate culture to address some of those barriers. According to Snowden (1999), deliberately creating teaching stories from organizational experiences are essential skills for corporate leadership. More than two decades later Satya Nadella, Microsoft CEO systematically employs storytelling to lead change (Prakash et al, 2021).

Project review in terms of storytelling

Roth and Kleiner (1998) specifically mentioned storytelling as a much richer way to refer to the chronological chain of events that a project represents. Arguably storytelling is a way of sharing tacit knowledge project teams already do it informally (Lesser, 2000). Denning (2006) stated there is no single way to tell a story but proposed different ways of approaching storytelling. One approach is to develop a story to spark action. Another is to develop a story to share knowledge. Referring to the work of Collison & Parcell (2001), an after-action review should focus on understanding the gap between what should have happened and what happened. That would naturally lead to learning and consequently modifying future behaviour. Combining Denning (2006) and Collinson & Parcell (2001) perspectives, stories should be used to share knowledge and spark action. Boyce (1995) went further to talk about storytelling as a symbolic way by which teams construct shared meaning. Furthermore, according to Koners and Goffin (2007), stories and metaphors are useful for understanding tacit knowledge exchanges. Conversely, MacMaster (2000) declared that the most valuable type of learning comes from listening to individuals' stories. Their accounts provide context and nuances hidden within project documentation. Borges and Vivacua (2010) mentioned the idea of a good story containing objective and subjective, emotional and rational aspects. According to the authors, each element of the project team contributes complementary pieces of the story.

Knowledge Management and Knowledge Creation:

Nonaka (1991) initiated a research field related to how companies create and share knowledge. Kogut and Zander (1992) later contended that firms outperform markets in knowledge sharing and transfer. Kogut and Zander (1992, p.387) proposed "inertness of knowledge" related to codifiability and complexity. Codifiability involves structuring knowledge into distinct rules that can be clearly communicated. Complexity is about the number of parameters to define it. Codifiability and complexity are related to how easy it is to transfer knowledge.

A series of dichotomies further explain the concept of knowledge management. These include codification versus personification strategies (Hansen et al., 1999); integrative versus interactive approaches (Zack, 1999b); cognitive versus community perspectives (Newell et al., 2002); object versus process orientations (Figallo and Rhine, 2002); and commodity versus community viewpoints (McMahon, 2004). These dichotomies describe two opposite approaches to knowledge management: one focuses on codifying and storing knowledge, while the other fosters an environment for sharing uncodifiable knowledge (i.e., tacit knowledge). The former emphasizes the technological aspects of knowledge management, while the latter concentrates on the human elements. Seufert et al. (1999) proposed a holistic view on knowledge management, which Umemoto et al. (2004) developed further with the term "Hybridization Strategy" based on Fuji-Xerox, balancing two opposing approaches. An organization implementing a hybridization strategy aims to balance technological methods with human-centric approaches for effective knowledge management. The use of GAI and storytelling may enable organisations to implement a hybrid knowledge management strategy. This is especially relevant for projects developing innovative products and services.

Generative AI, Storytelling, and Project Management:

Ashish et al (2017) launched the GAI race by proposing the use of transformers and attention mechanisms as an approach to significantly improve the performance of large language models. ChatGPT was introduced in November 2022 (OpenAI, 2022) as clear application of Ashish' and team theory. Since its launch, there has been a significant increase in generative AI applications, including in areas such as project management and storytelling (Asrifan et al, 2025). The concept of using AI in storytelling is not a recent development (Chu et al., 2017). Several scholarly articles discuss the connections between General Artificial Intelligence, storytelling, and educational applications (Quah and NG, 2020). There are also numerous articles that focus on Generative AI, storytelling, and more specialized applications such as marketing and corporate communications (Chaisatikul et al., 2023; Nimo, Ravishankar, Rajagopal, 2024). Between 2013 and 2024, 68 papers addressing project management and artificial intelligence were published (Salimimoghadam et al., 2025). Nevertheless, there is no record of publications discussing the use generative AI combined with storytelling for project management, particularly in innovative product development projects.

The Framework

Vogler (2007) is the starting point for developing the framework. Considering the objectives of this study, Vogler (2007)'s 12 steps were adapted to the context of innovation projects, Fig.l.

In the proposed framework, step 1 is equivalent to a call to adventure. It happens when a trigger first sparks an idea for a new product or service. This trigger can come from a variety of sources. For instance, if the founders have a solid science background, the idea may come from the literature, participation in conferences or lab experiments. In more general terms, this type of trigger comes from observations made while operating in a certain market. It can also come from monitoring what other companies are doing. It can even come from feedback users of products already in the market.

Step 2 is more deliberated process and methodologies like design thinking come to mind. Step 3, concept validation is completed by collecting and analysing supporting data, including initial feedback from potential users. This phase is equivalent to trials in the Hero's Journey (Vogler, 2007). During step 3 the project team becomes more knowledgeable the market potential and technology feasibility of the new concept. It is also during step 3 the project clears its first threshold. This resembles Cooper (1991) concept gate.

Step 4 is heavily dependent on the nature of the project and the technology ecosystem necessary, but it typically includes researching available and new technology solutions. This is the beginning of the transformation, when knowledge creation intensifies. Step 5 it is about the application of everything that has been learned on previous steps, particularly step 4. This is equivalent to "Temptations and Ordeals" within the Hero's Journey (Vogler, 2007). Step 6 represents critical moments during the project. The prototype represents the invention aspect of the innovation process (Etille, 2000., p.38). It is when ideas materialize into something tangible. Uncertainty, discrepancy within results, disagreements between team members are some of the challenges that may occur when the This phase is also expected to be intense in knowledge creation, particularly in the case of diverse, cross-functional teams. In the case of a successful project, it is during this phase that a Eureka moment occurs, and the project clears the second threshold.

Step 7 is when conclusions and main findings related to feedback received on the prototype are compiled and prepared to be translated into a configuration that is ready to be shared outside of the project team. Step 8 is about testing the product and its final configuration in the market. Technical conferences, roadshows, working with lead users (in case of business-to-business solutions) are common approaches.

Step 9 is about launching the product in the market and in many ways reap the benefits of the project work or learn from the process. This is the equivalent of the return of the hero (Vogler, 2007). Because of the dynamic aspect of research and knowledge generation and because of the nature of technology ecosystems, step 9 is expected to trigger new ideas to be develop in the future. This represents the fourth threshold and the reiteration of the cycle.

The framework and the process described in this section were used to develop semistructured interview questions. The interviews and site visits were used to test the effectiveness of storytelling with GAI for the capture of explicit and tacit knowledge. The names of the companies and the names of interviewees were kept confidential to encourage more honest responses to the questions. All companies listed operate within the MVRD. These companies have been fully incorporated and have been operating for at least two years. Only Startup 1 is pre-revenue. The development teams of the startups range from 3 to 9 people.

The story uncovered by interviewing Startup 1 is a common one. The founder identified an issue important to them. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the fragility of global supply chains and the inefficient use of resources. Over a year, after developing the concept, the team interacted with farmers and retailers in India and Canada to assess product-market fit. This process led to several refinements of the solution and a recent pivot in business model and market. The team never considered anything beyond objective evidence of their progress. However, the interviews and interactions with the team reveal what connects and drives team members is their values. They all deeply believe in purpose-driven business. The company wants to promote positive social impact even more than they want to profit from their operations. This is idea is closely related to how the team will defines project success, and it was yet another insight produced as the result of the interview process. A narrative extracted from following the framework is being used to pitch investors, and they are trying to focus on investors who seek purposedriven companies.

Startup 2 also started in a familiar way with the main cofounder frustrated with something they face daily (i.e., poor road conditions). The trigger were questions like. Why does it have to be this way? Why is the city administration so slow to fix the problem? Is this problem better managed elsewhere? Is there a better way of dealing with it? Prevention was identified as the primary strategy in areas where the problem was effectively managed, compared to the management observed in Vancouver. The innovative leap was about doing preventive maintenance more effectively and more sustainability by employing technology. The initial developments focused included a device (hardware), but the initial feedback was negative, and the team pivot to software. Two remarkable events that happened in tandem. One co-founder applied to move to Canada, the other opted out of an existing business to focus solely on the startup. For the startup, the most important learning from the interviews and interactions was they clearly understand (internalize) the process. The team could clearly map the process they followed to go from an idea to the market. On their own, they plan to use the logic of the framework proposed in this paper and company's records to pilot the extraction of a narrative describing the process to be used for communication with the team and to preserve organizational memory. Additionally, and equally important, the founders realized they could relive the process. They also realized how much they enjoyed it (despite the challenges, and natural, daily crisis). The co-founders are eager to repeat it, this time more effectively. They want to become serial entrepreneurs.

The main driving force behind the third development was the founder. Technical and business expertise, and connections were essential. The main challenges were related to onboarding the team and getting them to perform at the level the founder could performance himself. What the interviews revealed was that a lot of it was not technical, it was related to experience and soft skills accumulated over years in the market, all heavily reliant on tacit knowledge, naturally very difficult to share. Finding ways to socialize rich tacit knowledge (from experiences) remains a challenge for the founder and team. They current employ collaboration and project management platforms like Slack, and the idea is to use the framework to design prompting dialogues and exchanges to help with that. One possibility, and they have the technical capabilities to do so is to build an AI agent to be an onboard / project management genie.

The last startup (4) shared the idea of a founder driving the development and the participation in accelerator programs. The team was hired through the founders' network, and they all share a similar background (industry). The company is currently getting ready for a crucial funding cycle and somewhat struggling to get traction in the market. The uncertainties around global trade and economic growth have severely impacted them.

The focus of the interviews, and discussions quickly switched to the need to adapt, and pivot. The challenge has been capitalizing on lessons learned from the process, make the most of the development already made, but also savage what is possible in case the company does not survive in the long-term. The development process appeared to be more concentrated on the founder. In general, the founder was more sceptical about the approach, and the purpose of this study. There is potential for the use of the framework as a learning tool, but in this case, it was difficult to assess the effectiveness of the framework.

Summary of Findings

Knowledge Capture and Dissemination

* The technology startup investigated did not have formal processes to capture project knowledge. Still, they relied in common approaches like meeting minutes, email threads, chats and other types of communication using platforms like Slack and Confluence.

* The startups where already using GAI as part of their development process but have no structured way of prompting or analysing results. As an example of a typical approach, they would generate the gist of a conversation with an early adopter directly from their email platform (e.g. Outlook).

* Mostly, the startups realize the potential of employing the framework to uncover or make sense of what they have learned through completing phases of the development process. In the same way, they realize the importance of doing so for the sake of future developments.

* Analysing startup startups 1 and 2 I found evidence of what Nonaka and Konno (1998) and later Umemoto (2002) proposed as "Ba". A Japanese word that can be loosely translated as place but has a much deeper meaning. For knowledge sharing to happen, teams must be in the same place mentally and physically. In the case of teams investigated shared purpose aligned them mentally, and they had the physical environment (e.g., layout, tools) to facilitate knowledge sharing.

Potential Impacts on Firms ' Innovation Capabilities

* Employing Hero's Journey as template to prompt GAI teams could extract more meaningful reports from their communication platforms.

* Employing Hero's journey, teams could better reflect and extract insights from project events, milestones, and meetings.

* Two of the four project teams claimed employing the framework helped them be more aware of each other capabilities, and personality traits. It helped them reflect and that could lead better communication, team integration, and overall climate. This is also related to the idea of mental "Ba".

* Project teams claimed results obtained through employing a combination of Hero's Journey and GAI were wealthier and more likely to translate into better future developments and more effective efforts by including considerations they would normally ignore.

Discussion

This study examined the use of narratives to enhance project knowledge creation and sharing to foster innovation in technology companies. Employing triangulation, and data from interviews, document analysis, observations, and current literature, the following is a discussion of main and secondary questions.

Enhancing Project Knowledge Creation and Sharing with the Hero 's Journey and GAI

The framework can help automate knowledge extraction from sources like meeting transcripts and documentation, turning them into actionable insights. This approach relates critical project milestones to narrative stages, potentially generating stories that highlight challenges and innovations. It preserves organizational memory and makes knowledge more accessible and useful for future teams, potentially improving their innovation potential.

Facilitating the Capture of Tacit Knowledge and Enhancing Innovation

The systematic use of the framework helps externalize tacit knowledge by reframing project milestones as narrative elements. The logic can be used to prompt GAI and make this process more effective. For instance, the "Call to Adventure" stage unveils assumptions and motivations, while Trials foster reflection on challenges and collaboration. The "Return of the Hero" phase formalizes lessons learned into actionable guidelines. This approach prompts teams to codify insights and integrate them into organizational knowledge. Project teams always had things like prototypes, new processes, new designs, patent filings as material evidence of codified knowledge, but the framework helps with insights and sense making. These are much more difficult to codify. Lastly, GAI analyses these narratives to identify recurring obstacles and recommend targeted mitigations for continuous improvement (and innovation).

Current Knowledge Management Practices and Barriers in Tech Startups

Technology startups often use informal knowledge-sharing practices due to limited resources. These include ad-hoc documentation that results in fragmented repositories, oral storytelling through meetings where insights are not formally recorded, and mentorship relationships that concentrate expertise within individuals. These approaches face considerable challenges: time limitations force them to prioritize product development over documentation. It is typical for technology founders and early teams to focus on technology. Also, efficiency (or the need to move forward more swiftly) trumps the need to record the wealth of knowledge generated. Furthermore, there are variations in communication styles in cross-functional and multicultural teams, and that creates an additional barrier for knowledge sharing. Lastly, technology startups may lose essential knowledge during growth or staff changes without structured systems, weakening their long-term innovation potential.

GAPs Impact on Storytelling Frameworks for Knowledge Capture

Not fully verified during this study, GAI has the potential to improve knowledge capturing by automating and scaling key processes to generate narratives. Narrative generation automation has the potential to turn raw project data, such as tasks assigned over project management platforms into stories aligned with the Hero's Journey that highlight significant moments and innovation milestones. What makes the Hero's Journey popular to this day is the potential to increase the retention of stories created by following its premises (and stages). In the case of this study, retention equates to organizational memory. GAI facilitates socialization of tacit knowledge, and later internationalization of tacit knowledge into the team's processes. Lastly, agenţie knowledge bases powered by GAI have the potential to update documentation in real time, connecting new project information to related historical data and providing immediate access to contextualized solutions. In sum, GAI in combination with storytelling has the potential to become a dynamic, intelligent system that maintains organizational memory and enhances knowledge creation. Preserving organizational memory, enhancing knowledge creation are essential to foster continue innovation, and sustainable competitive advantage.

Contributions

Theoretical

This study explores the socialization of tacit knowledge, updating Nonaka and Takeuchi's (1991) theory of knowledge creation. By merging generative AI, storytelling, and innovative product development management, it bridges the gap between tacit and explicit knowledge in organizations. The paper shows how narrative frameworks make tacit knowledge accessible, while GAI enhances knowledge sharing and has the potential to automate the retrieval and recording of complex project insights. This enriches the SECI model by introducing new tools for externalization, and internalization, in particular. It also throughs light into how "Ba" can effectively work in contexts outside the notoriously, culturally homogeneous Japan. Ultimately, this research showcases how tech-enabled storytelling fosters knowledge creation and innovation in dynamic, technology-driven companies.

Practical

This study shows technology startups can boost their project management (i.e., project review), knowledge and innovation management practices by adding a structured, narrative-driven layer to existing project management and collaboration tools they currently use. Essentially, this study provides a framework that can be used to develop the wireframe for the development of custom solution combining GAI and storytelling for project management. Advances in agenţie AI may enable them to go one step further and custom design the perfect aid for a project manager in charge of the company's innovative projects. In brief, using GAI and storytelling, startups can streamline workflows and enhance knowledge creation and sharing in innovation projects.

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research

A main limitation of this study is its focus on a small sample of technology startups located in the Vancouver Metropolitan area in Canada. This regional and sector-specific scope may limit the applicability of the findings, as the results could be affected by local business culture and communication styles. To address these limitations, future research should consider expanding the sample to include a larger and more diverse range of technology companies, both geographically and organizationally. Such an approach would help to validate and extend the findings, reducing the potential impact of regional or cultural biases. Another limitation is the use qualitative research methods. This is also an opportunity for future studies that can benefit from the development, and the application of a conceptual model that can be empirically tested using quantitative methods. That may lead to a more robust hypothesis testing and greater statistical generalizability.

References

References

Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder: Westview Press.

Ashish W., Noam, S., Niki, P., Jakob, U., Llion, J., Aidan, G., Lukaz, K., lilia, P. (2017). 'Attention is All You Need'. 31st Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.

Asrifan, A., Hasa, M.F., Syafryadin, S. and Pelu, H. (2025). Narrative Machines: The Evolution of Storytelling in the Age of Generative AL In Generative AI Foundations, Developments, and Applications (pp. 81-110). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

Ayas, K. and Zeniuk, N. (2001). 'Project-based learning: Building communities of reflective practitioners'. Management Learning, 32(1), pp.61-76.

Baccarini, D. (1999). 'The logical framework method for defining project success'. Project Management Journal, 30(4), pp.25-32.

Brown-Grant, J. (2022). 'Storytelling strategies as vehicles for knowledge sharing within organizations: Enhancing knowledge management through narrative'. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 20(3), pp.245-260.

Bryde, D.J. (2003). 'Modelling project management performance'. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(2), pp.229-254.

Breu, K. and Hemingway, C. (2002). 'Collaborative Process and Knowledge Creation in Communities-of-Practice.' Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(3), pp. 147-153.

Cagan, J. and Vogel, C.M. (2002). Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from Production Planning to Program Approval. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chaisatitkul, A., Luangngamkhum, K., Noulpum, K. and Kerdvibulvech, C. (2024). 'The power of AI in marketing: enhancing efficiency and improving customer perception through Ai-generated storyboards. International Journal of Information Technology, 16(1), pp. 137-144.

Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. (1995). Mhe Product Development Challenge: Competing through Speed, Quality, and Creativity '. Boston: Harvard Business Review.

Chiocchio, F., Grenier, S., O'Neill, T.A., Savaria, K. and Willms, J.D. (2021). 'The Role of Project Management in Cultivating Learning within Projects: A Social Constructivist Perspective'. Journal of Project Management, 39(2), pp. 123-135.

Chu, E., Dunn, J., Roy, D., Sands, G. and Stevens, R., (2017). 'AI in storytelling: Machines as cocreators'. McKinsey & Company Media & Entertainment.

Cooper, R. G. (1990). 'Stage-Gate Systems: A New Tool for Managing New Products'. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44-54.

Dvir, D., Raz, T., and Shenhar, A.J. (2003). An Empirical Analysis of The Relationship Between Project Planning and Project Success in High-Tech Industries. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 21(2), 89-95.

Dzekashu, W.G., and McCollum, C.J. (2014). 'Integrating quality management into tacit knowledge capture: A pathway to operational excellence and innovation'. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(4), pp.751-764.

Ettlie, J. E. (2000). Managing Innovation Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Fayard, P-M. (2003). 'Strategic Communities for Knowledge Creation: A Western Proposal for the Japanese Concept of Ba'. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 2003.

Figallo, C. and Rhine, N. (2002). Building the Knowledge Management Network: Best Practices, Tools, and Techniques for Putting Conversation to Work. New York: Wiley Technology Publishing.

Hammer, D. and Wildavsky, A. (2018). The Open-Ended, Semi Structured Interview: An (Almost) Operational Guide. In Craftways (pp. 57-101). Oxford: Routledge.

Hansen, M.T. et al (1999). 'What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge'. Harvard Business Review, 77 (2), pp.106-116.

Hargadon, A.B. (2002). 'Brokering Knowledge: Linking Learning and Innovation.' Research and Organizational Behaviour, 24 (1), pp.41-85.

Inkpen, A.C. (1996). Creating Knowledge through Collaboration. In Mintzberg et al. The Strategy Process·. Concepts, Contexts, Cases. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Jick, T.D. (1979). 'Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp.602-611.

Keil, M., Cule, P.E., Lyytinen, K. and Schmidt, R.C. (1998). 'A Framework for Identifying Software Project Risks'. Communications of the ACM, 41(11), pp.76-83.

Kogut, В. and Zander, U. (1992). 'Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology'. Organizational Science, 3(3), pp.383-397.

Koruna, S. (2004). 'Leveraging Knowledge Assets: Combinative Capabilities-Theory and Practice'. R&D Management, 34(5), pp.505-516.

Leonard-Barton et al (1994). How to Integrate Work and Deepen Expertise. In Clark, K.B. and Wheelwright, S.C. The Product Development Challenge: Competing through Speed, Quality, and Creativity. Boston: Harvard Business Review.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Leonard, D. (2000). 'Tacit Knowledge, Unarticulated Needs, and Emphatic Design in New Product Development' In Morey et al. Knowledge Management Classic and Contemporary Works. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Lubit, R. (2001). 'Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Management: The Keys to Sustainable Competitive Advantage'. Organizational Dynamics, 29 (4), pp. 164-178.

McMahon, C. et al (2004). 'Knowledge Management in Engineering and Design: Personalization and Codification'. Journal of Engineering Design, 15(4), pp.307-325.

Müller, R. and Turner, R. J. (2007). 'The Influence of Project Managers on Project Success Criteria and Project Success by Type of Project'. European Management Journal, 25(4), pp.298-309.

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B. and Strange, J.M. (2002). 'Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships'. Leadership Quarterly, 13(6), pp.705-750.

Newell, S., et al (2002). Managing Knowledge Work. New York: Palgrave.

Nimo, J. A., Ravishankar, K., & Rajagopal, N. K. (2024). AI for Character Creation and Storytelling in Marketing. In Balancing Automation and Human Interaction in Modern Marketing (pp. 39-58). Hershey: IGI

Global.

Nonaka, I. (1991). 'The Knowledge Creating Company'. Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, pp.96-104.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. 'The concept of "Ba": Building a foundation for knowledge creation' California Management Review, 40 (3), pp. 40-54, 1998.

Nonaka, I. et al (2000). 'SECI, Ba, and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation'. Long Range Planning, 33 (1), pp.5-34.

Nonaka, I. et al. (2001). A Theory of Knowledge Creation: Understanding the Dynamic Process of Creating Knowledge. In Dierkes, M. et al Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (2004). Hitotsubashi on Knowledge Management. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.

Olin, T. and Shani, A.B. (2003). 'NPD as a Sustainable Work Process in Dynamic Business Environment'. R&D Management. 33 (1), pp.1-13.

Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987). 'Critical Factors in Successful Project Implementation'. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1), pp.22-27.

Polanyi, K. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Prakash, D., Bisla, M. and Rastogi, S.G., 2021. 'Understanding authentic leadership style: The Satya Nadella Microsoft approach'. Open Journal of Leadership, 10(2), pp.95-109.

Salimimoghadam, S., Ghanbaripour, A.N., Tumpa, R.J., Kamel Rahimi, A., Golmoradi, M., Rashidian, S. and Skitmore, M. (2025). 'The Rise of Artificial Intelligence in Project Management: A Systematic Literature Review of Current Opportunities, Enablers, and Barriers'. Buildings, 15(7), p.l 130.

Schindler, M. and Eppler, MJ. (2003). 'Harvesting Project Knowledge: A Review of Project Learning Methods and Success Factors'. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), pp.219-228.

Schulze, A. (2003). Knowledge Management in Innovation Processes. In Von Zedwitz et al. Management of Technology: Growth through Business Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Elsevier.

Sherman, J.D. (2004). 21st Century Organizations and the Basis for Achieving Optimal CrossFunctional Integration in New Product Development. In: Gupta, J.N.D. and Sharma, S. K. Creating Knowledge Based Organizations. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.

Smith, B. (1993). 'Six-sigma design (Quality Control)'. IEEE spectrum, 30(9), pp.43-47.

Vogler, C. (2007). The Writer's Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese Productions.

Westerveld, E. (2003). 'The Project Excellence Model: Linking Success Criteria and Critical Success Factors'. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), pp.411-418.

Takeuchi, H. and Nonaka, I. (1986). 'The New New Product Development Game'. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, 137-146.

Tranfield, D. et al. (2003). 'Knowledge Management Routines for Innovation Projects: Developing a Hierarchical Process Model'. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), pp.27-49.

Umemoto, K. (2002). Managing Existent Knowledge Is Not Enough: Knowledge Management Theory and Practice in Japan. In Bontis, N. and Choo, C.W. The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.

Von Zedtwitz, M. (2002). 'Organizational Learning through Post-Project Reviews in R&D'. R&D Management, 32 (3), pp.255-268.

Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model: Linking Success Criteria and Critical Success Factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), pp.411-418.

Williams, T.M. (1999). 'The Need for New Paradigms for Complex Projects'. International Journal of Project Management, 17(5), pp.269-273.

Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1992). Revolutionizing New Product Development. New York: The Free Press.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design Methods. London: Sage Publications.

Yin, R.K., 2018. Case study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Zhang, Wuwen et al. (2024). 'Enhancing Computational Thinking and Innovation through ProjectBased Learning: A Meta-analysis of Educational Practices'. Educational Technology & Society, 27(1), pp.45-58.