Barriers to Learning

It is suggested that barriers to learning may take various forms, e.g. individual or professional barriers, organisational barriers, the PMO, the tradition of apprenticeships and practitioners

responsibilities. It is relevant to consider these barriers to learning as they may impact on the effectiveness of the Corpus.

2.6.4.1 Individual or Professional Barriers

Matzdorf et al. (1999) undertook research in 281 surveying practices and found several barriers to learning. These included: the perception that learning equals training (which was interpreted by surveyors as having a lack of knowledge), it is another expense; that training is perceived as more of a vocational idea, not a professional one, and therefore some surveyors felt it threatened their own professional identity. One matter to be considered as part of this research is that PSFs may not regard the Corpus as formal learning and therefore it is of lesser importance than other publications, e.g. text books.

2.6.4.2 Organisational Barriers

Mullins and Christy (2010) highlighted the benefits of learning for individuals, organisations and society, and advised that it was in an organisation's best interest to harness their employee's knowledge and expertise. Reasons why adults want to learn include: they must be convinced of the relevance and value of the learning, and can include their previous experience or knowledge to the new subject matter (Mullins & Christy, 2010).

Schimmel and Muntslag (2009) identified that organisational barriers to learning included: poor feedback being given to employees, the pace of change being too quick to learn, a lack of autonomy over the change process and where there is an absence of dialogue. It is proposed that not learning from projects falls into the domain of an organisational barrier. As noted in Section 2.6.3.3 (Learning from Projects), there are significant challenges to ensure that learning occurring within teams is transferred to other parts of the organisation. Bartsch et al. (2012) noted that new knowledge learnt in teams may be regarded as context-specific with no relevance to universal application, or the team members in other parts of the organisation do not have the ability to benefit from it.

2.6.4.3 The Project Management Office

Pemsel and Wiewiora (2013) identified a significant mismatch between practitioners' expectations of the PMO's role and project managers' knowledge-sharing behaviours. They considered that the PMO may have a useful role in disseminating knowledge from projects and incorporating this information in to the long-term development of practitioners and

improving organisational knowledge. Their research concluded that there was a consistent finding that practitioners preferred to seek colleagues' advice rather than read a PMO's guidelines as these were considered laborious. One significant weakness of the PMO is that it focuses on past performance of projects rather than providing guidance to practitioners on how they can mitigate problems on future projects. Their research comprised interviews with 64 practitioners within seven organisations, including one in the construction sector.

Goussevskaia et al. (2006) cautioned that the implementation of new project management procedures must recognise the existing knowledge bases and power relationships within project-based organisations. Their research focused on four cases studies within the construction industry. It is suggested that the imposition of a top-down approach from the PMO may mean that practitioners are resentful of a universal approach to using project management techniques and tools. It is proposed that the success of the PMO will depend on its support from practitioners, otherwise it may become a learning barrier in its own right. 2.6.4.4 The Tradition of Apprenticeships

It is suggested that there may be a natural barrier to learning for some Early-career Professionals due to the apprenticeship or training period between completing undergraduate education and becoming a member of a PPMPA. Nicolini (2012) observed that an apprenticeship is another way for the tradition of practice to remain and highlighted that it assumes a 'master and pupil' relationship. There are benefits to this arrangement, e.g. under- graduates or Early-career Professionals benefits from the wisdom of an experienced practitioner. However, the under-graduate or Early-career Professionals may be engaging in single loop learning and may not have the experience or willingness to challenge existing theories or practice. In these circumstances, it is suggested that the PPMPS create a risk of adopting a text-book, or worse still, a 'tick box' approach of providing project management surveying services. Hodgson and Cicmil (2006a) suggested that the Black boxing of knowledge and project management procedures may be detrimental to the growth of the profession, i.e. removing the ethical and political dimensions of projects, and that certain long-standing concepts of project management theory may become difficult to overturn. PSFs can vary the level of expertise allocated to projects, e.g. the idea of 'leveraging the fee' so that the PSF makes an increased profit by using inexperienced and/or under-qualified practitioners to provide project management services. Eraut (2007) researched workplace learning by undertaking a longitudinal study that included 38 graduate engineers, 40 newly

qualified nurses and 14 trainee chartered accountants. One of the pertinent findings from his study is the propensity for graduates to refer to their own professional institution's guidelines and/or practice standards. Botham and Vick (1998) highlighted that practitioners possessing knowledge of a specialised subject matter should also be acutely aware of the risk that they do not become so immersed in their subject they are reluctant to explore outside their expertise. It is suggested that PSFs and clients must be wary that their undergraduates and Early-career Professionals are not overly relying on the PPMPS without due regard to the context of the problem in hand.

2.6.4.5 Practitioners' Learning Responsibilities

The concept of the "iron triangle" is relevant to practitioners' learning responsibilities. Previous studies have suggested that this long-standing concept of delivering projects on time and on budget to a specified quality has influenced practitioners' approaches to long-term learning and the transfer of knowledge. Foos et al. (2006, p. 15) concluded that project managers were not interested in the long-term transfer of tacit knowledge as they perceived they are rewarded only for delivering the project's iron triangle requirements also known as the project manager's "execution realm".

The issue is whether project managers can or want to transfer tacit knowledge acquired from undertaking projects. Foos et al. (2006, p. 15) highlighted that "very few managers differentiate between technology transfer and tacit knowledge". Swan et al. (2010) found that constant pressures on time and milestones mean that project managers would make decisions that were acceptable but had little regard to the long-term development of the organisation. They introduced the concept of "experience accumulation" meaning "the reliance on individuals moving from project to project, taking their accumulated experience with them" (Swan et al., 2010, p. 339). Their research found that projects can be seen as barriers to innovation due to the preference for short-term gain over long-term development.

Pemsel and Wiewiora (2013) concluded that the nature of projects as temporary organisations can impede knowledge sharing among practitioners as their focus is on delivering their current project with little time for reflection before the next one. Lientz and Rea (1995) argued that practitioners are not prepared to learn from projects as it would mean hearing criticism so they feigned that they did not have the time to participate in this reflective task. Frame (2007) highlighted another example of this approach and noted that most organisations do not undertake sufficient project completion reviews due to factors that include project

managers focusing on the next project. Bordass and Leaman (2013, p. 1) presented a view that "designers and builders are trained to ... hand over the keys, not to look in to what happens afterwards".

Tacit knowledge is likely to emerge in micro-communities undertaking routine work over time, rather than during project work (Von Krogh, Ichijo, & Nonaka, 2000). They proposed that there is more time for members to get to know each other and their personalities and rituals, etc. and to establish the micro-communities as a stable group rather than being disbanded as soon as a project is finished. Kreiner (2002) argued that while there was substantial material on knowledge management, he contended that it is not an easy task to manage tacit knowledge.

The nature of the construction industry (with its emphasis on competitive tendering, especially in the public sector for design services and works), does not encourage design teams and contractors to remain in teams for sufficient length of time to create long-term and sustainable relationships.

McCann and Kulatunga (2015) proposed that it was important for practitioners to allow specific time for reflection between projects, so they can learn lessons that will be useful for future projects. It is argued that it is the decision of PSFs, clients and practitioners themselves to allow sufficient time and resources to use projects as learning entities in their own right, reflect on how project management services can be improved and transfer this knowledge to others as part of their professional development. The lead author of the RICS's "Lessons Learned" Guidance Note has posed a similar challenge to practitioners (Schofield, 2016). Some of the lessons learnt from projects can be captured in formal documents and this research will explore if practitioners use their own In-house standards to capture this knowledge.

2.6.4.6 Practitioners' Identity

Hodgson and Paton (2016) considered the way in which practitioners rely on their expertise and knowledge from the PPMAs and employers and highlighted two distinct group: "locals" and "cosmopolitans". The locals are described as project managers who see project management as bound together with their workplace experience in a specific industry, focused on in-house training or expertise that is valued by their employer and have a low commitment to a professional body or PPMA. In contrast, the cosmopolitans can be

considered as the opposite, i.e. they have a high commitment to skills that they perceive as transferable in the market-place, tend to be strategically focussed and have a preference for project management qualifications that can be regarded as pan-sector. Employers provide project managers with job security and promotion and, therefore this inherently and overtly supports the local rather than the cosmopolitan type of project manager (Hodgson & Paton, 2016). This research will explore if the phenomenon exists of PSFs or clients encouraging the growth of the "local" project manager.

2.6.5 Research Question 7

The seventh research question of "How do professional project management practice standards contribute to the development of project managers competencies in the workplace?" was posed to interviewees to seek PSFs' and clients' views on whether the PPMPS contribute to learning in their organisations and elicit their approach on the development of their employees' competencies.

The seventh research question is linked to the fourth research objective: to analyse how professional services firms and clients use the Corpus in the workplace when providing training and development for their employees.