Al-Ghassani, A M; Carrillo, P M; Anumba, C J and Robinson, H S (2001) Software requirements for knowledge management in construction organizations. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
Software vendors are continuously introducing different tools claiming that their products are the complete and ultimate solutions to Knowledge Management (KM) problems. This research investigates the vendors' claims, identifies the weaknesses in existing KM software, and explores the requirements for better KM software for construction organizations. The literature on KM software is first reviewed. Major vendors and users of KM software are then interrogated for a closer investigation of what current KM software can offer. It is found that existing software address only some elements of the KM sub-processes. In addition, they do not address the majority of the requirements of construction organizations. The research concludes that construction organizations need KM software to be more oriented towards the industry by addressing its specific needs. Some of these needs are discussed, in brief, at the end of the paper.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | knowledge management; knowledge management software |
| Index terms: | investigation, knowledge management, construction organization |
| Subjects: | organization, data collection methods, professional development |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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