Fong, Patrick Sik-wah (2001) Understanding knowledge creation: A study of the processes, interrelationships and contributory factors within multidisciplinary project teams. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, UK.
Abstract
The growing importance of introducing unique products to the market has made firms more conscious of organisational knowledge creation. Knowledge creation is recognised to be important in creating and sustaining competitive advantage as well as in meeting organisational goals in modem societies. Multidisciplinary project teams have gained increased popularity owing to their diversity of knowledge resources, drawing upon different organisational functions and professional disciplines. They are viewed as having high potential to innovate due to their heterogeneous nature. Their activities are fundamental to learning within wider organisations, and not just in the form of temporarily disconnected project units. The research empirically investigates the creation of new technical knowledge and develops a conceptual model of the knowledge creation process. It broadens the organisational knowledge creation theory developed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), into the area of multidisciplinary project teams. This research focuses on three major aspects: the key processes that underlie knowledge creation within multidisciplinary project teams, the interrelationships between these key knowledge creation processes and the factors that influence the processes of multidisciplinary knowledge creation. Empirical evidence was collected from a large property development company, using a qualitative case study approach. Two multidisciplinary project teams, working on infra-structural and residential developments, were selected for the in-depth study. The research reviews existing theories of organisational knowledge creation and team processes. It seeks to contribute to the theory of knowledge creation within multidisciplinary project teams through technological innovation or problem solving, by providing an explorative account supported by empirical evidence. Secondly, it contributes to the development of the knowledge creation theory within multidisciplinary project teams by adopting a social construction perspective and by focusing on its processes and their interrelationship. In addition, factors are identified that affect these processes. The proposed framework provides not only for future research to systematically examine and test knowledge creation processes against different backgrounds, but it also allows management to continuously anticipate and support knowledge creation activities related to the successful management of collaborative team projects within their particular organisations.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Bresnen, Mike and Newell, Susan |
| Index terms: | problem solving, evidence, society, drawing, technological innovation, project team, knowledge creation, social construction, residential development, property development, case study, competitive advantage, contributory factor |
| Subjects: | sociology, data collection methods, risk assessment, project delivery, technical documentation, decision-making and reasoning, economic development, communities and social development, market analysis, evaluation and assessment methods, innovation and technology management, knowledge management |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Urban Studies, Design Practice |
| 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