ASPECTS OF LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE IN
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Patrick S.W. Fong1
ABSTRACT
The construction industry is viewed globally as a project-based industry, as project personnel
move from project to project upon completion. Society is also becoming knowledge-based,
so that knowledge can provide firms with competitive advantage in this age of dwindling
resources. As a result, two important issues arise that require our careful attention, i.e. the
knowledge and learning aspects in construction projects. These issues influence the working
of companies’ employees as well as the quality of service provided to clients. CEOs from
200 top international design firms and 225 top international contractors were selected for this
study in June 2004 with a 15.5% response rate. The study emphasizes that project-based
organizations face many difficulties in ensuring adequate learning and knowledge sharing
within and across projects, as projects themselves do not share experiences with other
projects routinely and naturally. Both personalization and codification knowledge-sharing
mechanisms should be properly deployed to projects in order to prevent employees from
reinventing the wheel and leveraging on companies’ knowledge stocks.
KEY WORDS
Knowledge management, knowledge sharing, learning, project-based organizations
INTRODUCTION
The construction industry worldwide is viewed as a project-based industry. In project-based
organizations, the experience of the firm is accumulated through the execution of projects
(Hobday 2000). Projects are therefore their major business endeavors and the mechanism for
creating, responding to and executing new business opportunities (Hobday 2000). Each
project can be treated as a “temporary organization” (Lundin and Steinthorsson 2003), which
consists of a group of people with diverse skills and expertise who work collaboratively on a
common task over a fixed time duration. Organizations usually draw on different personnel
for each project as every project calls for different expertise. Hence, it is very likely that team
members may not have worked together before and may not work together again in the future
(DeFillippi and Arthur 1998).
The construction industry has such a strong focus on projects that it raises questions
about how project-based organizations, no matter whether professional or technical services
organizations, learn and build up their knowledge assets and establish or maintain their
competitive advantage. After all, these firms are selling their knowledge or services and not
physical products. New interaction and synergy that takes place whenever a new project
begins may create learning barriers between project team members (Prencipe and Tell 2001).
1
PhD, Department of Building & Real Estate, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon,
Hong Kong; PH +(852) 2766 5801; FAX +(852) 2764 5131; email: bspafong@polyu.edu.hk
Each project is non-routine (Abbott 1988). Even though the same building design may have
been used before, different ground conditions or team compositions can render it necessary to
carry out the project in a totally different way. Some of the unique activities in a project may
not be repeated in successive projects. Despite the non-repetitive nature of the projects,
knowledge and skills from one project might be transferred or applied to solve the problems
of another one if relationships between existing solutions and problems can be established
between them.
The study of knowledge and learning is certainly not new. The systematic study of formal
knowledge and learning efforts in project-based organizations, however, is relatively new.
This research examines how project-based organizations in construction can manage their
knowledge resources and learn from the experiences gained by their employees. Examining
this fundamental question will provide an understanding of how construction consulting or
contracting firms who specialize in knowledge work make use of their prime knowledge
resources to solve project task problems and gain competitive advantage despite the nonroutine and non-repetitive nature of projects. Specifically, it will reveal the roles played by
organizational context, individual characteristics, processes used and technology in affecting
the learning and management of knowledge resources in project-based organizations. One
particular aspect that will not be addressed in this research is how knowledge sharing
strategies can contribute to the competitiveness or performance of firms in international
markets, as it will be extremely difficult to isolate the multitude of issues and factors involved.
Knowledge can be shared among individuals by using the personalization or codification
approach (Hansen et al. 1999). If knowledge is shared through a personalization strategy, it
can be closely tied to the person who developed it and be shared mainly through direct
person-to-person contact. If knowledge is shared though a codification means, it is carefully
codified and stored in databases and tangible formats, where it can be accessed, retrieved and
used by employees in the organization.
This paper examines different aspects of how project-based organizations in construction
manage and learn from their knowledge resources, and provides answers to the following
research questions:
1. What are the knowledge-carriers in these project-based organizations? Which of the two
key mechanisms, i.e., personalization and codification, is used more often to facilitate
knowledge sharing?
2. What are the benefits that can be reaped from sharing knowledge and experience in
projects? What incentives are used to encourage staff to share knowledge and experiences
with others?
3. What are the key variables affecting learning within and across projects?
MANAGING LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE IN PROJECTS
The Latham Report published in the UK (Latham 1994) reveals that construction industry
practitioners believe that approaches promoting better knowledge management would help to
overcome many of the constraints inherent in this sector. These approaches are expected to
contribute to improved working conditions and health and safety, to provide methods and
tools to improve learning from experience, to provide a better quality end-product, and to
preserve the environment and natural resources. This will lead, in the long term, to the
empowerment of employees by promoting organizational learning through corporate
information and knowledge bases, making use of the company’s “lessons learned”.
As it is a project-based industry, the management of knowledge in AEC firms revolves
around projects. Thus the capture, transfer and reuse of knowledge are critical success factors
for project performance. Studies on current practices suggest that managing knowledge is
achieved through various means, including the reassignment of people from one project to
the next, the use of standards and best practice guides, contractual arrangements (e.g.
framework agreements), intranets, and specific activities such as post-project reviews (PPR)
(Kamara et al. 2002a). These are embedded organizational arrangements, which are not
necessarily part of a dedicated knowledge management strategy. It is not surprising therefore
that they are sometimes not very effective in capturing lessons learned from project to
project. For example, while PPRs can be effective in the transfer of knowledge to those
involved in a project, they are not considered effective in the transfer of knowledge to nonproject participants. There is also an argument that insufficient time has been dedicated to
PPRs to allow them to be conducted effectively, as those involved have been assigned to new
projects before the current project is completely finished, and lessons learned in the earlier
parts of the project have been forgotten. In this connection, the heavy reliance on
organizational routines, and the assumption that they will transfer their learning from one
project to the next, makes an organization vulnerable when there is a high staff turnover.
(Kamara et al. 2002b: 63)
It is observed from the discussion above that because of the absence of a proactive KM
strategy within AEC firms, current practices in the management of knowledge do not
adequately address the range of issues faced by the industry. People-based approaches are not
robust enough to mitigate against the loss of knowledge when staff leave the organization,
nor can they cope with expansion (Kamara et al. 2002b). Despite the interest and effort put
into knowledge management by leading companies, the discipline is still in its infancy
(Rezgui 2001).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research studies knowledge management and learning issues in construction
organizations. In order to gain a thorough understanding of how professional and technical
services organizations in construction perceive their knowledge and learning activities, a
questionnaire survey is undertaken and sent out to top contracting and design firms
worldwide.
Respondents are chosen worldwide instead of in a single location for two reasons: to
learn from practices and activities being adopted in these groups of “successful” companies
that top the design or contracting league tables, and because it is believed that responses from
a larger sample reaching across national borders may provide us with more significant
findings.
The sample was obtained from the ENR 2003 Global Construction Sourcebook,
published on Jan 5, 2004. This sourcebook contains all the companies included in the lists of
the Top 200 International Design Firms and the Top 225 International Contractors in 2003.
As a number of companies do both design and construction work, the total number of firms
included in the sourcebook is in effect 374. These firms come from a total of 39 countries.
In total, 58 valid replies were received out of a total of 374 organizations. The response
rate is 15.5%. Though this is lower than expected, we consumed all our resources by sending
out three reminders: two by mail and one by e-mail. The low response can be attributed to: 1.
people not being interested in this topic; 2. companies not wanting to reveal what they had
been doing/not doing to their competitors or clients; and 3. people not participating in studies
that do not add value to their businesses. Nevertheless, the research findings reveal the
learning and knowledge issues within this group of project-based organizations.
DATA ANALYSIS
It is interesting to find that over 80% of the respondents strongly agree that knowledge
resides in employees’ heads rather than in documents (see Figure 1). Individuals are effective
knowledge carriers as they are able to reorganize knowledge so that it applies to new content
(Allen 1977). Other knowledge-carriers nominated by participants in descending order
include soft copy documents, processes, IT systems, hard copy documents, and knowledge
residing in products and services. As organizations in construction have a huge number of
documents for each project, it is not surprising that soft copy is considered a better
knowledge carrier than hard copy: organizations are faced with enormous amounts of
documents in their offices or on site. In terms of knowledge embedded in processes, it is fair
to say that within project-based organizations there is knowledge embedded in projectorganizing routines and standard operating procedures that can prove to be useful in later
projects. This type of organizational or project routine contains absorbed knowledge that
prevents people from reinventing the wheel for each project.
100%
Cumulative %
80%
60%
Agree
Strongly Agree
40%
20%
O
s
ste
m
sy
th
er
s
.
Se
rv
IT
es
od
.&
oc
es
s
Pr
ft
so
D
oc
.(
Pr
co
p
y)
py
)
co
ha
rd
oc
.(
D
Em
pl
oy
ee
s
0%
Knowledge-Carriers
Figure 1: Knowledge-carriers in project-based organizations
In addition, the results show that it is perhaps more appropriate to use the personalization
approach to solicit employees’ knowledge rather than codify it, as people are the best carriers
of knowledge and it is almost impossible to codify employees’ knowledge into a tangible
format with today’s technology. In addition, a significant component of the knowledge that
organizations possess is tacit in nature and not easily articulated (Nonaka 1991). It is easier to
transfer the tacit knowledge that resides within employees’ heads through tacit to tacit
(socialization), tacit to explicit (externalization) (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995) or other
appropriate personalization strategies.
From Figure 2, it is interesting to note that when people encounter problems in their
work, besides using their own knowledge and experience, they seek help from their peers and
supervisors, discuss with other project team members, and contact people in their personal
networks such as friends, relatives, ex-classmates, ex-project team members or even excolleagues. Personalization allows for discussions and sharing mental models that may lead
to the development of new knowledge (Prencipe and Tell 2001). With the vast amount of
codified information available within or outside a firm, individuals need to have some
personal contact with the authors and/or common experience to reuse what others know.
After various personalization approaches are exhausted, people start to use codification
techniques such as using published sources or data, searching for company databases or
company publications and searching for answers from the Internet.
Search internet for answers
Seeking Help From
Use personal network (e.g.
friends, relatives, etc.)
Search for information from
databases/company publications
Use published sources / data
Agree
Strongly Agree
Use own knowledge and
experience
Discuss with project team during
project meetings
Seek help from supervisors
Seek help from peer colleagues
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cumulative %
Figure 2: Actions people will take when they encounter a problem in their work
Examining learning in construction is important because it encourages the conceptualization
of facilities development not as a single project, but as a recurring process. It focuses on a
long-term perspective, and encourages awareness of how prior activities lead to capability
building within professional or technical services organizations. Participants were asked
about what kind of benefits they can reap from applying knowledge and experience from
previous to current projects, i.e. learning from previous successes as well as failures. Benefits
sought include improved decision making as employees are better informed from previous
projects about what outcomes were reached as a result of the actions taken (see Figure 3).
Secondly, based on past decisions, people can improve the quality of the current project by
knowing what products or methods used in past projects produced satisfactory results.
Thirdly, it can enhance the capabilities of the project team, as team members can reach out to
other projects for information before they make decisions. In addition, past projects can act
as precedents for the current one. Fourthly, although there may be less scope for routinized
learning in non-repetitive construction project work, people who successfully share
knowledge across individuals and projects may be able to recycle their experience from past
projects to similar applications (Davies and Brady 2000). In addition, common problems may
also be encountered across different projects, and effective sharing of knowledge across
projects can minimize the organizational costs of duplicating efforts to invent the same
solutions (Goodman and Darr, 1998). Project-based organizations can therefore develop their
project capabilities through sharing or transferring knowledge across projects (Morris 1994).
Less disagreement
Greater client satisfaction
Better adaptation to client requirement
Benefits
Improved efficiency & productivity
Enhanced project team
Agree
Strongly Agree
Innovation
Improved decision making
Reduced project duration
Improved quality
Lower operating cots
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90% 100%
Cumulative %
Figure 3: Benefits of applying past knowledge and experience to current projects
The survey reveals that monetary incentives are the least used means to encourage
knowledge and experience sharing (see Figure 4). This result suggests that using money as a
reward for knowledge sharing will start to mean that price tags are put on different pieces of
knowledge and it will be hard to determine what is the price for a certain piece of knowledge.
The next least used means is promotion, which probably has a similar negative connotation
as money. People may share knowledge in order to get promoted rather than out of their own
initiative. Using knowledge sharing as a measure in performance review and peer recognition
both received nearly 60% of support from respondents. As construction professionals, people
will only seek knowledge or experience from reliable or trusted sources, so peer recognition
is a good measure of this relationship. The most widely used means, nearly 80%, is informal
encouragement. We do need lots of knowledge and expertise for each project and as a
general rule, people are usually happy to share their knowledge and get the job done.
Informal encouragement is probably sufficient under these circumstances.
Table 1 tabulates the top five reasons nominated by respondents regarding the difficulties
of learning within a project, or intra-project learning. Firstly, within a project, professionals
are busy in tackling problems within the project, which leaves little time for them to learn.
This situation can undermine the learning capability within a project and people can become
‘fire-fighters’ rather than having time to sit back and consider better ways of doing things.
Secondly, in construction projects, project durations are usually short compared with
aerospace or pharmaceutical projects, as people work on a project briefly and will be
transferred to other projects before the project is fully completed. In addition, the nonrepetitive nature of projects makes routinized learning an opposing force. In project-based
work, people rarely reflect on the work they do as the project is progressing along the
timeline. Thirdly, having people work on individual projects reduces the probability that they
will come into contact with others who may have relevant experience for them to draw upon.
Without deliberate social or similar functions, or an informal network amongst employees,
the availability of information about “who knows what” is reduced, and this can prevent
people from locating the person with the right experience.
Others
Means
Informal encouragement
Measures in performance review
Peer recognition
Promotion
Monetary incentives
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Figure 4: Means used by firms to encourage knowledge and experience sharing
“People are not willing to share knowledge” is ranked fourth, as some people still hold the
old belief that “knowledge is power”, and that hoarding knowledge will help them to keep
their jobs during corporate downsizing and help to maintain their “expert” positions within
the firm. From the organizational perspective, when knowledge-hoarders leave or retire from
the firm, the knowledge they possess will leave with them.
Table 1. Difficulties of learning within project.
People are too busy to learn
The lifecycle of a project is too short to enable
learning to take place
There is insufficient social contact for people
to learn from other project participants
People are not willing to share knowledge
The workplace design and layout does not
facilitate learning
Most
Important
19
7
Medium
Importance
13
10
Least
Important
5
3
Rank
5
5
12
3
5
3
2
3
8
3
4
5
1
2
Workplace design has recently come into recognition as an area that can act as the fourth
dimension of knowledge management after people, process and technology. Partitioned
office space is regarded as preventing knowledge flow in comparison with an open plan
office design. In addition, office corridors, water coolers and coffee machines are often seen
as places for people to gather and exchange knowledge.
In terms of difficulties of learning from earlier / parallel projects or inter-project learning,
participants ranked the following key factors in descending order of importance (see Table
2). Firstly, social networks can be a powerful means of storage and retrieval of the
organization’s knowledge for smaller firms where employees are co-located in a few key
offices (Allen 1977), but it becomes problematic in large firms such as those surveyed. A
search for knowledge sources through an informal network is usually limited to coworkers in
regular and routine contact with the individual and possibly possessing redundant
information (Ruggles 1988). It is hard for employees within big firms to reach out to the
potentially large pool of experts who may have the relevant information unless there is some
sort of formal mapping of internal expertise by publishing corporate directories or having
expertise locators that list the expertise and experience of individuals (Ruggles 1998).
Secondly, because of the onerous nature of construction projects, people consider knowledge
from one project to be too context-specific to be of use for other projects. This may be true in
some circumstances, but in other situations knowledge can be assimilated to similar
occasions where the principle of engineering can be applied. It is up to individuals to grasp
existing knowledge and apply it in new situations to become new knowledge.
Thirdly, due to the large sizes of the surveyed organizations, respondents also find it hard
to get to know about other projects within the firm. This may be due to the fact that
considerable effort needs to be made to keep the project list up-to-date, or that the
information is available only to employees of a certain rank, which are usually senior
employees. Even when project information is made available, it may not be thorough enough
for the employee to know whether those projects are related to the current one. Some large
organizations have put project information on their intranet and allow employees to search
through projects using keywords or other methods of categorization. Fourthly, it is true that
knowledge repositories and databases have gained popularity as a way to codify, store, share,
search for and retrieve different kinds of knowledge through computer-based information
technology (Olivera 2000). The old-day scenario of storing knowledge through paper copies
is fading away as computer technologies have a high storage capability and efficient search
facility, occupy less space and can be accessed anytime and anywhere through intranet
technology. If the project database becomes like an individual silo that only approved
personnel can access, people from other projects will not know what lessons other people are
going through in this project, and therefore will be unable to reuse the project document
templates and artifacts produced for prior engagements in a new engagement. If a projectbased organization can achieve the reuse of its knowledge assets, it can build upon previous
experience and invest in making improvements to existing knowledge stocks instead of
wasting effort on reinventing the wheel.
Table 2: Difficulties of learning from earlier / parallel projects.
There is insufficient social contact for people
to learn from others
Knowledge in a project is too context-specific
to be applied in other projects
There is little knowledge of other projects
within the firm
There are insufficient technologies to enable
knowledge to be transferred from one project
to another
Design solutions, skills and technical
knowledge learned become obsolete very fast
Most
Important
9
Medium
Importance
10
Least
Important
2
Rank
9
5
11
2
8
6
7
3
8
7
4
4
4
8
3
5
1
The fifth reason nominated for the difficulties of learning across projects is that the design
solutions, skills and technical knowledge learned become obsolete very fast, which renders
inter-project learning ineffective. This is true in some sense but may not be in its entirety as
construction is different from the IT or computing industries where new technologies or
products are delivered to the market everyday. The innovation cycle in construction usually
takes longer. In terms of product delivery, knowledge of existing as well as new products is
important as not every designer jumps on the bandwagon of new products: people are
concerned about the performance of new products and whether they can meet the owners’ needs.
CONCLUSIONS
This study examines how project-based organizations in construction manage their
knowledge resources and build up their capabilities. For these organizations, employees’
knowledge is an essential resource and a primary source of competitive advantage. In fact, it
is the employees themselves who are the major knowledge carriers. A key finding in this
study is that personalization approaches are used extensively in our industry for knowledge
sharing when problems are encountered. People also see the benefits of knowledge and
experience sharing, as it can prevent employees from reinventing the wheel and leveraging
on their companies’ knowledge assets. Unlike other industries, where money can be an
incentive for encouraging knowledge sharing, professionals in this industry value recognition
from their peers as well as informal encouragement from their superiors. Various difficulties
are identified as impediments to learning within and across projects, but none of them seem
to be non-rectifiable.
Given the poor image of the construction industry in terms of its poor learning culture
and repeated mistakes, it is important for construction organizations to adopt a long-term
perspective in learning from their experience and ensuring knowledge sharing amongst
employees.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author would like to thank the Hong Kong Polytechnic University for its funding of
research project G-T745.
REFERENCES
Abbott, A.D. (1988). The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Allen, T.J. (1977). Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the
Dissemination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Davies, A. and Brady, T. (2000). “Organisational Capabilities and Learning in Complex
Product Systems: Towards Repeatable Solutions.” Research Policy, 29 (7) 931-953.
DeFillippi, R. and Arthur, M. (1998). “Paradox in Project-based Enterprise: The case of Film
Making.” California Management Review, 40 (2) 125-139.
Goodman, P.S. and Darr, E.D. (1998). “Computer-aided Systems and Communities:
Mechanisms for Organizational Learning in Distributed Environments.” MIS Quarterly,
22 (4) 417-440.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999). “What’s your Strategy for Managing
Knowledge?” Harvard Business Review, 77 (2) 106-116.
Hobday, M. (2000). The Project-based Organization: An Ideal Form for Managing Complex
Products and Systems?” Research Policy, 29 (7) 871-893.
Kamara, J.M., Anumba, C.J. and Evbuomwan, N.F.O. (2002a). Capturing Client
Requirements in Construction Projects. London: Thomas Telford.
Kamara, J.M., Augenbroe, G., Anumba, C.J. and Carrillo, P.M. (2002b). “Knowledge
Management in the Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industry.” Construction
Innovation, 2 (1) 53-67.
Latham, M. (1994). Constructing the Team: Final Report, July 1994: Joint Review of
Procurement and Contractual Arrangements in the United Kingdom Construction
Industry. London: HMSO.
Lundin, R.A. and Steinthórsson, R.S. (2003). “Studying Organizations as Temporary.”
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 19 (2) 233-250.
Morris, P.W.G. (1994). The Management of Projects. London: Thomas Telford.
Nonaka, I. (1991). “The Knowledge-creating Company.” Harvard Business Review, 69 (6)
96-104.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Olivera, F. (2000). “Memory Systems in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation of
Mechanisms for Knowledge Collection, Storage and Access.” Journal of Management
Studies, 37 (6) 811-832.
Prencipe, A. and Tell, F. (2001). “Inter-project Learning: Processes and Outcomes of
Knowledge Codification in Project-based Firms.” Research Policy, 30 (9) 1373-1394.
Rezgui, Y. (2001). “Review of Information and the State of the Art of Knowledge
Management Practices in the Construction Industry.” The Knowledge Engineering
Review, 16 (3) 241-254.
Ruggles, R. (1998). “The State of the Notion: Knowledge Management in Practice.”
California Management Review, 40 (3) 80-89.