Evaluation Results

Table 8.2 shows the ratings for each question from all respondents using the rating scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). On average, the framework scored 3.9 out of 5.0 in the evaluation. The average ratings of the various sections are presented in subsequent sections.

Table 8.2 Ratings of the framework

Sections Average Rating

(Out of 5) Section A: Representation of the framework

A1 How useful do you consider the overall framework? 4.1 A2.1 Relevant to issues highlighted at each project stage 3.8

A2.2 Relevant to the Action Plan 3.5

A2.3 Relevant to the Implementation Plan 3.8

A3 How well does the framework represent the knowledge shared? 4.1 A4 To what extent does the framework achieve the aim of sharing

knowledge? 4.1

Section B: Methodology in solving issues

B1 How well do the examples of issues in the framework represent

the actual problems in your organisation? 4.3

B2 Do the contents of the framework address issues at the right

level for FM organisations? 4.1

B3 How appropriate are the categories of People, Process and

Technologies for the Action Plan? 4.8

B4 How well does the framework help in identifying the source

(from) and destination (to) of knowledge? 4.0

B5 How well does the framework help in developing the action plan

required for solving the PFI-FM related issues? 3.8 B6 To what extent does the framework help in developing a

Knowledge Management (KM) implementation plan for a specific issue?

4.0

Section C: Sharing and learning of knowledge

C1 To what extent does the framework achieve the concept of

knowledge sharing and learning among the FM personnel? 3.7 C2 How reusable is the shared knowledge for transfer to another

project stage or on another project? 3.7

C3 To what extent does the framework represent an improvement

in facilities management practices? 3.5

C4 To what extent can the framework be adapted to your

organisation? 4.1

Total Average rating 3.9

181

8.4.1 Results for section A - Representation of the framework

Overall, the evaluators rated the framework as representable and the features or elements of the framework as high. A high average rating of 4.1 was given to this question. The evaluators were also highly satisfied with the relevancy of the issues addressed, the Action Plan, and the Implementation Plan in the framework during the evaluation process. They gave ratings of 3.8, 3.5 and 3.8 for these sections, respectively. The ratings were above satisfactory due to the fact that most of the issues highlighted were very similar and relevant to all evaluators‟ experiences. The responses highlighted for some of the evaluators included“…mostly very close to and relevant to our current experiences, “...some good learning tools” and “…examples issue match real practice”.

On how well the framework represents the knowledge shared, the framework scored a rating of 4.1. Related to this, the evaluators also gave an average of 4.1 for whether the framework achieved the aim of sharing knowledge. In some of the feedback related to knowledge sharing, the evaluators highlighted that the framework was able to illustrate the need for mechanisms to aid knowledge transfers across different project phases among facilities management personnel, clients and the construction team.

8.4.2 Results for section B – Methodology in solving the issues

A rating of 4.3 was received on how well the examples of issues shown in the framework represent the actual problems in the evaluators‟ organisation. The content of the framework was also found to address the relevant issues at the right level for facilities management organisations. This was evident by the average rating of 4.1 for this question.

182

The highest average rating of 4.8 was received on appropriateness of the Action Plan used in the framework. Evaluators described the framework “as a structured approach to manage facilities management knowledge”, “...well identified the concept of People, Process and Technology embedded within PFI-FM practice”, and “very beneficial from continuous Action Plan”. These responses revealed that the evaluators were confident that once categorised, People, Process and Technology in the framework could help to solve PFI-FM related issues in their organisations.

The framework was also found to be useful and appropriate in identifying the Action Plan. This was evident by the average rating of 3.8 given by the evaluators to this question. In terms of how the framework could help an organisation to develop a knowledge management Implementation Plan, most of the evaluators rated this question at average rating of 4.0, with one evaluator rating it at excellent (average rating of 5.0).

8.4.3 Results for section C - Sharing and learning of knowledge

To assess whether the framework achieved knowledge sharing and learning among the facilities management personnel, question C1 was asked to all evaluators. A rating of 3.7 was subsequently given by the evaluators. As reiterated by one of the evaluators, “…the framework has highlighted what knowledge is required to share amongst the FM team”. Moreover, the evaluators also gave an average rating of 3.7 if the framework enabled the knowledge to be shared and transferred to another project or stage.

The lowest average rating of 3.5 received for question C3 on the possibility of the framework representing an improvement in facilities management practices. This result may reflect that the framework is limited to the „After Hand-over Stage‟ and

183

„Commissioning Stage‟ of the PFI-FM practice. However, a high average rating of 4.1 was received on whether this framework could be adapted to evaluators‟

organisations. This indicated that most of the evaluators were confident that the adopted framework could help their organisation adopt the knowledge management solution and optimise their knowledge through learning and sharing across project stages and organisations. According to the one of the evaluators on his feedback of this question, he acknowledged the framework “…provides structure and guidance to FM team and organisation on what knowledge required for sharing and learning”. As a result, the idea of adopting the framework in his organisation was very feasible.