Bresnen, M and Marshall, N (2000) Learning to co-operate and co-operating to learn: Capturing knowledge of partnering in construction. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 16th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-8 September 2000, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
Despite the enormous recent interest in partnering, existing research has not delved very deeply into the conditions affecting collaborative contracting over time. Yet many prescriptive approaches emphasise the importance of long term organisational learning and culture change processes. Based upon empirical research on case studies of partnering projects, this paper explores the relationships between partnering strategies, organisational learning and knowledge management practices. It argues that learning to co-operate in the long term is inhibited by problems in capturing project-based knowledge and expertise. The importance of tacit knowledge and individual and team skills further suggests that human resource management practices play a potentially crucial role. However, the research reported here highlights the characteristically informal, unsystematic, pragmatic and short-term approach to managing staff adopted on such projects. The paper concludes that these limitations have obvious implications for the long-term development of partnering strategies.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | human resource management; knowledge management; partnering; organisational learning |
| Index terms: | partnering, tacit knowledge, human resource management, knowledge management, strategy, organizational learning, case study |
| Subjects: | management, professional development, partnership management, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Human Resources, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here