Carrillo, P (2004) Managing knowledge: Lessons from the oil and gas sector. Construction Management and Economics, 22(6), pp. 631-642. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Knowledge management (KM) is of increasing interest to a number of leading UK construction organizations. Companies are keen to find out what other organizations are doing both within the construction and other industry sectors. There are important lessons to be learned from Canadian oil and gas organizations on how they manage their knowledge. A case study is used to explore the KM activities of eight leading organizations and investigate the opportunities for construction organizations to adopt some of their ideas. Three areas are covered: KM strategy and implementation, people aspects of KM and metrics for KM performance. There are several potential lessons for UK organizations: the need for KM to be driven by senior management if it is to have any notable success; the use of people-centred techniques for sharing tacit knowledge and IT tools for sharing explicit knowledge; the importance of selling solutions to project teams to obtain employee support for KM; peer recognition has a more sustainable impact than financial reward; and KM measurement should be considered as a way of improving its impact, rather than justifying expenditure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; knowledge management; oil and gas sector |
| Index terms: | strategy, explicit knowledge, industry sector, tacit knowledge, knowledge management, construction organization, case study, implementation, oil and gas, project team |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, knowledge management, project delivery, data collection methods, organization, industry analysis, management, professional development |
| Topics: | Procurement, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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