Yu, W D; Lin, T C; Liu, S J and Chang, P L (2013) Is the knowledge management system truly cost effective? Case study of km-enabled engineering problem solving. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(2), pp. 216-224. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Managers of construction organizations have long been faced with the essential question of whether the knowledge management system (KMS) is truly cost effective. Very few empirical studies have been conducted to measure the effective benefits of implementing knowledge management initiatives. A lack of quantitative measurement models, the difficulty of differentiating knowledge management (KM) from non-KM activities, the difficulty of evaluating the resultant KM activity values, and an unwillingness of organizations to reveal insights (aimed at shielding these insights from their competitors) are critical reasons for their absence from empirical reports. This paper reveals a five-year comprehensive benefit survey on the implementation of a specialized KMS, KM-enabled problem solver, at a major engineering consulting firm. In total, 868 emergency problem-solving scenarios recorded in the KMS were analyzed. Three that were most concerned with benefit indexes (time, cost, and staff hours) selected by the KM managers were measured. Results showed timeliness to be the most remarkable tangible benefit. Both staff hours and cost benefits were negative. Qualitative benefits were identified and addressed through focus group meetings with the KM managers. The KM approach was not suited to solving all types of engineering problems. Strategies should be taken to facilitate engineering problem solving, including development of a more proactive approach.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | engineering consulting; knowledge management; problem solving; quantitative benefits |
| Index terms: | strategy, survey, manager, focus group, knowledge management, problem solving, construction organization, knowledge management system, case study, shielding, implementation, empirical study |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, organization, practitioner, contractual arrangements, management, decision-making and reasoning, safety engineering, research methods, professional development, information systems |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Procurement, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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