Kao, C-C (2004) The briefing process: an organizational knowledge-creation perspective. PhD thesis, University of Reading, UK.
Abstract
This thesis develops an organisational knowledge-creation perspective on the briefing process. Briefing is commonly conceived as a process of understanding client requirements. However, the existing literature tends to see briefing merely as an information-collection process. This research contends that the dominant information-processing perspective has severe limitations and is based on unsustainable underlying assumptions. An alternative perspective is offered drawing from the emerging theory of knowledge management. Specific attention is given to the issue of knowledge transfer between organisations and the theory of organisational knowledge creation. Both literatures are argued to be highly relevant to the briefing context and improvements. The research proposition is that client requirements can be understood only in the form of organisational knowledge. In terms of knowledge, it is argued that client requirements cannot simply be codified and transferred from one organisation to another. This is because client requirements relating to organisational knowledge is frequently tacit in nature and embedded in context. The key for the new perspective of the briefing process lies in understanding the nature of client requirements and their formulation. Based upon the theory of organisational knowledge creation, the theoretical basis of the briefing process is established for the proposition of a new perspective. The research methodology is developed on the basis of the interpretive research paradigm in order to investigate the meaning of the briefing process. The implementation of the proposed perspective is justified by means of two empirical studies - semi-structured interviews with practitioners and multiple-case studies - conducted in accordance with the principles of naturalistic inquiry. The empirical evidence shows that briefing can be interpreted successfully as a social learning process, by which client requirements are collectively understood through spiral interactions of tacit and explicit knowledge held by the client and the consultant. The research concludes that the organisational knowledge-creation perspective provides a fresh insight into the briefing process. A number of recommendations for improving current briefing practice are made.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | briefing process; client requirements; knowledge management; knowledge transfer; knowledge creation |
| Index terms: | case study, interaction, implementation, knowledge creation, paradigm, empirical study, research methodology, client requirements, meaning, drawing, interview, explicit knowledge, social learning, briefing, knowledge management, evidence, knowledge transfer, practitioner |
| Subjects: | sociology, behavioral psychology, theoretical framing, education and knowledge transfer, research methods, professional development, technical documentation, contractual arrangements, knowledge management, research dissemination and communication, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, research design and methodology, practitioner, scope management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Procurement, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Information Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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