Sommerville, J; Craig, N and McCarney, M (2004) Knowledge management as a stress mediator. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
The last decade has seen an upsurge in the recognition of job stress as a significant occupational health problem. Much research has focused on job stress in other industries, but construction lags behind these leading efforts. A key stressor within many organisations may be the accessibility and sharing of knowledge within the enterprise. Within this paper we focus on the link between knowledge management (KM) and the impact of KM approaches on the people within the enterprise i.e. engendering hardiness. The findings from an extensive literature review indicates that within the construction industry we do not as yet fully embrace "soft issues" and therefore extract the full value from them in terms of reducing stress within the enterprise.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | EDMS; knowledge management; stress |
| Index terms: | occupational health, literature review, accessibility, mediator, knowledge management, construction industry, job stress |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, dispute resolution, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, management, inclusive design, professional development |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Human Resources, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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