Sage, D J; Dainty, A R J and Brookes, N J (2010) Who reads the project file? Exploring the power effects of knowledge tools in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), pp. 629-639. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Various critical authors have questioned the salience, efficacy and power effects of formal project management bodies of knowledge (PMBoKs). As a result project management knowledge tools are increasingly being conceptualized along more flexible, adaptable, reflexive, democratic and informal terms. A central driver for this shift is that PM knowledge will be more relevant and useful for practitioners if it can be reflexively tailored to fit local project scenarios, emergent problems and different communities of practice, rather than projects being structured to fit generic 'best practice' ideals. Hence new knowledge tools increasingly would appear critical to alleviate various detrimental power effects associated with bureaucratic knowledge practices within project-based industries, not least construction. This assumption is examined through a study of a formal and codified project management knowledge tool-a project file-within a small team of project practitioners in a large civil engineering consultancy. Various concepts of power related to actor-network theory (ANT) are mobilized to understand how non-human artefacts can enact power and knowledge in nuanced ways within organizations. This theoretically informed study will aid both researchers and practitioners interested in the consequences of developing prescriptive or reflexive project management knowledge within construction contexts and beyond.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | actor-network theory; knowledge; power; project management |
| Index terms: | communities of practice, artefact, consultancy, project-based industry, best practice, construction project management, practitioner, project management |
| Subjects: | organization, practitioner, project management theory and practice, business, knowledge management, sociology |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Organizational Design, Information Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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