Hartmann A, D e A (2013) Messages in bottles: The fallacy of transferring knowledge between construction projects. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
Although learning from projects in construction has gained much importance in research and practice, progress in understanding and improving inter-project learning appears to be slight. We argue that the adoption of a sender/receiver approach limits the learning effectiveness in construction. Drawing upon the notion of learning as social activity embedded in organisational context, we develop the argument that learning from projects takes place within projects rooted in the historical, organisational and cultural context of previous and current projects. We underpin our argument with results from a multiple-case study on learning in construction organisations.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | case study; knowledge transfer; learning |
| Index terms: | effectiveness, knowledge transfer, construction project, case study, construction organization, drawing |
| Subjects: | research dissemination and communication, organization, data collection methods, production management, technical documentation, performance management |
| Topics: | Project Management, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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