Knowledge Management Challenges in Construction

From the project perspective, Egbu (2001) considers KM in all the ways in which projects can benefit from knowledge of individuals and knowledge that has been created from previous projects. Regarding this perspective, KM challenges are classified into two categories. The first is to identify existing challenges in project environment that affects KM. The second is to identify the means of implementing, exploiting, and sharing knowledge of individuals and projects in order to enhance project success and increase the benefits of a project’s clients. Carrillo et al. (2000) consider four main challenges that confront KM in the construction industry. They are:

 Ignorance of the value of the employee  Tacit dimension of project knowledge  Hierarchical organisational structures  Multi-disciplinary teams in project process

Carrillo et al. (2000) support these challenges by presenting ten challenges that affect successful implementation of KM in construction enterprise. These include: Lack of Time, Trying to solve large problems, Converting Knowledge, Large number of SMEs, Multi-

54 | P a g e Disciplinary Teams, Lack of Learning, Lengthy Time Period, Loss of faith and IT support. Furthermore, they developed a theoretical framework (Figure 2.7).

Figure 2.7 – Conceptual framework for Knowledge Management (Carrillo et al., 2000)

This framework illustrates four categories which are internally connected to each other and involved in managing knowledge. The ‘knowledge base’ consists of data, information, and project knowledge that need to be identified and managed. The ‘KM processes’ includes activities, tasks, processes and tools that are required to capture, share, reuse, and manage knowledge. The ‘Process shaping factors’ include issues that clarify the need for knowledge and the way in which it is applied within the organisational structure (the context of use). The last factor, performance measurement, deals with the measurement and assessment of implemented and used knowledge in an organisation and the way in which this knowledge improves business performance.

Some issues do overlap when considering this framework with the challenges of managing knowledge in construction industry, which are identified by Carrillo et al. (2000). In other words, this framework could be useful in managing knowledge in the construction industry. However, the fact that should be considered is that the three categories, KM processes, process shaping factors and knowledge base, are integrated, interrelated to each other, and should not be considered separately in the implementation process of KM. Although Carrillo et al. (2000) presents this framework with the interrelationships between the four categories, it is not possible to clarify and describe the way in which these categories interact in the organisational dynamic context, specifically the usage of KM in construction industry. Furthermore, challenges that were identified by Carrillo et al. (2000) from the construction project context cannot be bridged and overcome by implementing this framework.

According to Wetherill et al. (2002), knowledge is classified into three categories in the construction industry; Domain knowledge, Organisational knowledge and Project knowledge.

55 | P a g e  Domain knowledge refers to the knowledge that is available to all companies like:

technical rules, administrative information, product databases, etc. In other words, this type of knowledge forms the overall information context and could partly be stored in electronic databases

 Organisational knowledge, also called intellectual capital, refers to the specific type of knowledge, either tacit or explicit, that belongs to a specific company. This type of knowledge could be stored both formally in organisation’s documents and informally through the skilled processes of organisation. In other words, it includes knowledge that is achieved by employees from project experience, personal skills, and cross- organisational knowledge that is collected from business relationships with clients, engineering companies, architects, contractors, and with other partners

 Project knowledge is the source of the two types of knowledge that are identified above. It refers to both the knowledge that is created and achieved from communications and interactions between companies and the knowledge that each company has about the project. This type of knowledge cannot be capitalised on for creating knowledge by companies and partnerships because it does not have a form to be reused (e.g. solutions to technical problems or avoiding repeated mistakes). Wetherill et al. (2002) mention this type of knowledge which includes “both project records and the, recorded and unrecorded, memory of processes, problems and solutions”

Wetherill et al. (2002) identify seven limitations and challenges in managing the above knowledge in the construction industry. First, individuals who are working within the domain hold much of construction knowledge. Secondly, decisions are made without recording and documenting the reasons and intent that exists behind them. Thirdly, sometimes individuals may not be aware of the importance of collecting and recording a project’s data and information for other actors who are involved in the project and might use the information. Fourthly, the collected and archived data at the end of the construction stage may not always be managed properly. Sometimes, the knowledge that involved individuals gained during the project is not captured when the project is finished. Fifthly, “Lessons learned are not organised well, and buried in details. It is difficult to compile and disseminate useful knowledge to other projects” (Wetherill et al, 2002). Sixthly, usually the historical reports of projects that are held

56 | P a g e by companies do not include a rich representation of data context and the individuals who prepared the reports are the only ones who can understand the hidden meanings. As people move from one company to another, it is difficult to reach the author of the original report. Finally, managing knowledge between and within firms and companies presents new approaches and challenges. Wetherill et al. (2002) mention that these new approaches “imply major changes in individual roles and organisational processes. While the potential gains are desired, the necessary changes are resisted.”

Implementing IT technology for managing knowledge has become popular in the construction industry. Researchers believe that IT technology could be used for capturing, storing, indexing and retrieving project information and knowledge which will enhance and develop KM in the construction industry. Some of these technologies are; Collaborative Construction Information - CCIN (Sun et al., 1999), e-Cognos infrastructure (Wetherill et al., 2002), Cross Organisational Learning Approach - COLA (Orange et al., 2005), Dynamic Knowledge Map (Woo et al., 2004), Event Database – Audio Diary (Lee & Egbu, 2005). In fact, most of these frameworks focus on IT support within KM.

Having said that the existing frameworks highly based on IT support within KM, they did not consider the tacit and social dimension of knowledge as two critical issues and elements within the application context in managing knowledge in the construction industry. The lack of considering these issues will lead to failure of managing knowledge properly. In other words, the existing frameworks fail to address the way in which knowledge should be retrieved from information. Knowledge can be captured and stored as information by an IT infrastructure and then knowledge can be retrieved and used in working practice only when individuals can understand it. These frameworks presume that once individuals get information then they can get knowledge. In fact, two concepts of ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’ are mixed in the statements of frameworks. In reality, for transferring and transforming information to knowledge individuals need assistance. As IT tools alone cannot efficiently perform the conversion process of knowledge, other conditions are required to be in place. McDermott (1999) points out these conditions: face-to-face contact, common language, trust, and time to interact between participants. According to Kogut and Zander (1992), the degree of codification and complexity are two important factors that affect transferability of knowledge

57 | P a g e between organisations. It would be better to mention that these factors affect the transferability process of knowledge both between organisations and projects.

According to Sveiby (1997), social interaction plays an important role in knowledge creation, due to the fact that knowledge is embedded in people. Furthermore, Egbu et al. (2005) point out that all existing models mentioned above ignored the impact of social interaction, human- to-human, on the process of transferring and sharing knowledge. The existing models emphasise information technology (IT) and less about people (Scaborough, 1999). It can be concluded that there are more proper and efficient means of solution. Therefore, Egbu (2001) and Cross et al. (2006) suggests different methods and activities for transferring and sharing tacit knowledge such as coaching, quality circles, networking, mentoring, communities of practices (CoPs), and storytelling. In fact all of these methods and activities are social networking activities.

Many researchers (Hari et al., 2005; Bessick & Naicker, 2013; Ekambaram et al., 2014) have investigated the major drivers and challenges of KM in the construction industry. Kamara et al. (2002) and Carrillo et al. (2004) state that the need to improve performance and the need to share valuable tacit knowledge are the main drivers in the UK construction industry. Therefore, implementing KM in construction organisations presents challenges such as capturing, sharing and transferring information and knowledge across projects, due to the nature of construction projects which are unique, short-term, project-based, or task-oriented. People who work on these projects, both in design and construction teams tend to disperse after the project ends. This means their acquired experiences and knowledge obtained from the project will be wasted and not be used in future projects (Kasvi et al., 2003). This issue is seen more common in the traditional-based construction projects because they are based on the separation of design and construction process. Aziz et al. (2014), state that the traditional construction process approach has been criticised for several issues:

 Failure to form effective teams

 Separated approach to project delivery  Time delay

 Lack of communication and coordination  Rising costs

58 | P a g e  Rework and Wastages

However, it is necessary to put in place the structure that facilitates participation and interaction of involved people in the design and construction process to integrate knowledge, in terms of capturing, sharing, and transferring across the traditional-based construction project in order to improve project performance. Therefore, project manager needs to consider challenges that are involved in these processes.