Fuller, P A; Dainty, A R J; Thorpe, T and MacDonald, R (2009) Event-based measurement of learning in projects: A methodology. In: Dainty, A R J (ed.) Proceedings of 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2009, Nottingham, UK.
Abstract
Measuring learning is problematic and there is an apparent lack of research establishing methods of capturing the benefits of learning which may accrue in project based environments. This paper reports on the ongoing findings of longitudinal case study research to explore how learning can be measured. A new approach to measuring learning is being piloted in an infrastructure support services organisation. The focus of the research is on a large scale IT-led business transformation project. A key objective of the approach is to create a learning culture in the project implementation teams that incorporates the measurement of benefits. The case study reveals that there is difficulty in communicating the complex concepts surrounding learning and its measurement. This can be overcome, however, by carefully explaining the benefits of the approach being proposed. The basis of the approach currently being developed is to adapt existing project lifecycle reviews in order to create time and space for reflective learning. The process will be progressively reviewed and evaluated and if it proves to be successful, the aim is for the approach to be adapted for wider implementation on projects across the whole business.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | benefits; events; learning; measurement; projects |
| Index terms: | case study, project lifecycle, transformation, methodology, implementation |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, business, project completion, data collection methods, research methods |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
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