Mackley, C J and Milonas, S (2001) Knowledge transfer and green building challenge. Building Research & Information, 29(5), pp. 346-354. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
The degree of knowledge transfer achieved by Green Building Challenge (GBC) on environmental performance assessment (EPA) of buildings is analysed and compared against its initial objectives.A structured survey was issued to each of the 20 national teams which assessed the degree of success achieved against their initial learning objectives. Measures of success were both internal level (micro - within the team) and external level (macro - relative to the wider national interest). The results indicate the GBC 'process' as a good model for an accelerated knowledge transfer vehicle both within teams and at the national level at large. However, some modifications and adjustments are suggested for future global strategies of co-operation.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | action learning; communication; culture change; diffusion; environmental performance assessment; green building challenge; industry improvement; knowledge transfer |
| Index terms: | action learning, survey, strategy, green building, environmental performance assessment, knowledge transfer |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, research dissemination and communication, environmental impact, curriculum design, management, design practice |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Education, Digital Applications, Design 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