Bresnen, M; Edelman, L; Newell, S; Scarbrough, H and Swan, J (2005) Exploring social capital in the construction firm. Building Research & Information, 33(3), pp. 235-244. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Social capital, which derives from the network of social relationships in which people are embedded, has increasingly been seen as a resource that firms can use and which enables them to tap into and exploit their intellectual capital and, thus, release the firm's innovative potential. Yet, in project-based organizations, there remain many barriers and pitfalls in any attempt to exploit human resource potential in this way. In particular, the one-off nature of project tasks and teams and the importance of individuals' embodied knowledge and learning ensure that while social capital may assume greater importance, at the same time its capture becomes more problematic. This paper presents findings from a research project undertaken in the UK that explores knowledge management for project-based learning across a range of industrial sectors, including construction. Drawing upon a case study analysis of project-based learning in a construction firm, it applies an already established framework to examine the paradoxes that arise when attempts are made to mobilize social capital.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | knowledge management; project-based learning; social capital |
| Index terms: | drawing, social capital, project-based organization, construction firm, case study, knowledge management, paradox, human resource, project-based learning |
| Subjects: | sociology, professional development, management, social theory and frameworks, technical documentation, learning methods, data collection methods, organization |
| Topics: | Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Human Resources, Design Practice, Education, Organizational Design |
| 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