Biersteker, E and Marrewijk, A V (2023) Integrating knowledge in infrastructure projects: The interplay between formal and informal knowledge governance mechanisms. Construction Management and Economics, 41(10), pp. 859-874. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
This study focuses upon knowledge governance mechanisms of integrating specialised knowledge on underground utilities in large infrastructure projects. The integration of knowledge is essential for the realisation of such projects. The study explores the formal and informal knowledge governance mechanisms in three large infrastructure projects and compares these mechanisms to reveal their effects on knowledge integration. The findings show that combining reward systems, project culture and trust are targeting the motivation of underground experts to share their knowledge and allocation of authority and project network are mechanisms aimed at the coordination between managers and underground experts to integrate knowledge. We contribute to studies on knowledge governance by enabling further empirical insight in the relationships between formal and informal mechanisms.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | governance mechanism; infrastructure projects; knowledge governance; knowledge integration; underground utilities |
| Index terms: | infrastructure project, large infrastructure project, coordination, utilities, knowledge integration, reward system, governance, project network, manager, motivation, integration |
| Subjects: | organizational analysis, professional development, management, infrastructure engineering, practitioner, business, project planning, construction type, psychology, infrastructure and transport systems |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Governance, Construction Technology, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Organizational Design, Roles and Professions |
| 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