Fernie, S; Weller, S; Green, S D; Newcombe, R and Williams, M (2001) Learning across business sectors: Context, embeddedness and conceptual chasms. In: Akintoye, A (ed.) Proceedings of 17th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2001, Salford, UK.
Abstract
While the construction industry is frequently encouraged to learn from other business sectors, the difficulties of transferring knowledge from one context to another are rarely acknowledged. The problematic nature of knowledge is addressed with particular emphasis on the concept of contextual embeddedness. From this point of view, the process of 'knowledge transfer' depends upon a prolonged process of socialization between actors from both the 'receiving' and 'sending' contexts networking. It is contended that a significant conceptual chasm exists between the exhortations of industry leaders to learn from other sectors and the theoretical complexities associated with knowledge transfer. An ongoing research project is described that seeks to facilitate knowledge sharing between construction and aerospace. A novel approach to knowledge sharing based upon soft systems methodology (SSM) (Mode 2) is described and justified. Initial findings from the first cycle of the research are discussed and used to highlight the importance of context in the implementation of supply chain management.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | embeddedness; knowledge sharing; supply chain; aerospace; soft systems methodology |
| Index terms: | complexity, construction industry, implementation, knowledge transfer, embeddedness, knowledge sharing, networking, soft systems methodology |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, knowledge management, communication, research dissemination and communication, systems engineering, industry analysis, sociology, research methods |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Procurement, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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