A comparative study of three international construction firms: Knowledge management infrastructures for optimising organisations' learning

This research has addressed the gap in Knowledge Management research in Construction Project Management Organisations. In comprehensively reviewing and critiquing research literature, the writer asserts that construction organisations are currently incapable of effectively learning from their past projects for application in their new/future projects (i.e. inability to learn across projects), and hence require more robust Knowledge Management infrastructures to enable the organisations and their staff to manage the knowledge they had accumulated by learning from their past projects, so that they may be able to improve new/future project performances. In addition, 'uniform' definitions that may be used in KM discourse have been rationalised and proposed. Data and information gathered by 'embedding' the researcher in industry has generated sophisticated insights into KM operation in three construction firms of different scales from different countries. A cross-cultural comparison of three firms has shown the necessity of aligning the context of an organisation (e.g. size, structure, culture, business strategies, objectives and priorities) with the strategies and objectives for the development, implementation and maintenance of a proposed KM infrastructure. More specifically, the research has shed light on the regularity of use and effectiveness of the tools, methods and mechanisms employed by the case study firms to manage knowledge (in particular, their effectiveness in enabling learning between projects within a firm and/or between project phases within a project, in enabling the resolution of generic and recurrent and/or specific and less-recurrent problems, and in enabling staff to experience learning at the individual, division and/or corporate levels of a firm) as well as the impacts of the KM initiatives on the firms' ability to deliver projects, portfolio and program, and the critical success factors and key performance indicators of the KM initiatives employed in the firms. [The information arising from the detailed analysis and findings of each firm is too extensive to be situated in the body of this thesis, and may be found in Appendices I] The comparative analysis of the data and information collected from the study has not only suggested to the author two models of KM relating the 'vertical' and 'horizontal' transmission of data, information and knowledge through a Project Management (PM) organisation, as well as some guidelines and issues for consideration should an organisation which to develop, implement and maintain a new KM infrastructure or simply to improve their existing one. In addition, the study has also revealed that there is no tool, method or mechanism that can single-handed manage the plethora of data, information and knowledge available within the organisation and its staff, and that it would be a fallacy to solely emphasise and employ the use of information technology to manage knowledge. The above findings enable PM organisations to analyse the need for KM in their organisation, and what strategies, and tools, methods and mechanisms might be best suited to improve their KM and project performance. The two KM models have also been applied to the case study organisations to accentuate the gaps in the organisations' KM initiatives that need addressing. The research has also developed a measure that allows firms to compare their intentions (how important they think KM is to their core business and the ability of the KM initiatives implemented in their organisations to learn across projects and deliver projects) with the reality of what really is occurring. The research, whilst limited to a select few case studies, has established the start of a benchmarking system against which other organisations can compare themselves.