Wong, P S P and Cheung, S O (2005) From monitoring to learning: A conceptual framework. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
The demand of attaining sustainable improvements of the contractors' performance has engendered a vast amount of studies aiming at advancing the project monitoring systems and organizational learning (OL) process in construction. Nevertheless, the respective research outputs remain dispersed and disjointed. As such, there is a genuine need to have a systematic framework not only to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the previous studies, but also to explore the future research directions in project monitoring and OL in a holistic manner. The purpose of this study is to develop such framework. Reviewing previous studies, there is a lack of systematic approach to synchronize monitoring results to organizational learning. Further investigations on the ways to transpire learning opportunities from the project monitoring system shall be instrumental to fulfil the industry's demand on attaining sustainable improvements of the contractors' performance.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | monitoring; organizational learning |
| Index terms: | organizational learning, project monitoring, monitoring, conceptual framework, research output, investigation |
| Subjects: | professional development, data collection methods, research products and data, theoretical framing, control systems |
| Topics: | Project Management, Site Management, Information Management, Research Practice |
| 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