The Path of Knowledge – Unpacking the ‘Knowledge Transfer box’

While literature has named various KT methods, the process itself is more or less treated as a black box (Berends, 2005). The KT process could be described as the result of defining what knowledge and what amount of it, is transferred from which

source to which recipient, defining its path and direction, how much time was spent, which method was used, which circumstances were facilitating or hindering it, and whether it was a successful transfer. A complete understanding of all these aspects is required to fully analyse and understand one single KT process, as all differ from each other regarding these variables. This can be considered as the actual challenge of this research, as to fully understand every KT occurring in a sustainable construction project in order to enhance it.

When focusing on the KT process it can be argued that the most important aspect are the various methods used in order to transfer the knowledge. There are many different methods to transfer knowledge, some even without the recipient being able to articulate the knowledge he/she has received (Argote and Ingram, 2000). Knowledge does not necessarily have to be articulated for being transferred (Reagans, McEvily, 2003). KT is regarded as a multitude of processes taking place directly with (externalisation) or without language (socialisation). Socialisation is a valuable mode of transferring knowledge in work teams even without language, e.g. through imitation, observation and sharing experiences face-to-face (Fong, 2003). Individual effort and motivation are important factors hereby (Reagans and McEvily, 2003). Moreover through collaboration and by forming long term relationships, construction organisations are able to learn from projects, transfer knowledge to organizational base and along supply chains (Egbu, 2004). An important aspect is that there are open spaces or other environments promoting interaction among employees, as knowledge is developed through social interventions (Borgatti, Cross, 2003).

As argued in section 3.2, the type of knowledge to be transferred has to be considered, since each type is best transferred differently. The dualist framework tacit and explicit co-exists in a synergetic relationship (Gill, 2000). Thomson et al. (2010) emphasize the more significant role of tacit knowledge in sustainable construction projects compared to explicit knowledge in form of e.g. documents. Tacit knowledge cannot be given in lectures or found in databases, textbooks, manuals or newsletters for diffusion. As a result it cannot be managed, hence taught the same way as explicit knowledge (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). Hence the KT process of tacit knowledge appears to be more difficult, than the one of explicit. In working life we find tacit knowledge embodied in intuition, rule-of-thumb, gut feeling and personal skills. These can be classified into two dimensions, the technical and the cognitive dimension. The technical dimension encompasses information and expertise in relation to ‘know-how’, and the cognitive dimension consists more of beliefs and values (Gore, Gore, 1999; in Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). Since individuals are the primary repositories of tacit knowledge, it makes it difficult to transfer it (Haldin-Herrgard, 2000). This is due to the main characteristic of tacit

knowledge, as its difficulty in being coded and shared. However, there are two different approaches in order to solve this: either tacit knowledge must be made explicit for easier sharing, or tacit knowledge will just stay tacit (ibid). This means other sharing methods have to be used in order to successfully transfer this tacit knowledge. Conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit or at least finding ways to transfer it, could offer great value to organizations, but is not the focus of this research. It is rather assumed that the explicit knowledge on sustainable construction is easier to transfer. Thus it is more important to concentrate on KT methods for tacit knowledge.

Methods to share tacit knowledge were identified as follows (Gerber 1998; McDermott, 1999; Haldin-Herrgard, 2000; Snowden, 2003; Egbu, 2004; Lu and Sexton, 2007):

• Interaction with other people • Practical experience • Reflection

• Internalization • Individual talents • Exercise

• Face-to-face interaction/ direct interaction • Apprenticeship/ apprentice systems • Action learning • Networking • Communities of practice • Story telling • Coaching • Mentoring • Quality circles • Knowledge bas

When focusing on construction industry Ugwu (2005) states that there are certain knowledge dissemination mechanisms that require significant improvement. Ugwu’s study is especially important in the context of this research project, as he focuses on the development of sustainable building techniques, though in Hong Kong. He particularly mentions post-project reviews, while Riege (2005) states that in post-project reviews mistakes are normally covered up, blamed on others, explained away, rather than recognised and corrected. Furthermore Rydin et al. (2007) stresses the importance of assigning a knowledge worker who is an expert on sustainable construction. Other mechanisms to transfer knowledge in sustainable construction project environments mentioned by Ugwu (2005) are:

• Mentoring schemes

• On-line delivery of resources

• Provision of IT tools for decision-support in infrastructure sustainability appraisal and assessment

• External training programs and services, e.g. face to face seminars • Self-learning of individuals, e.g. on-line based and formal

• Guidelines and procedures

As a result the following methods were drawn from the previously discussed literature and represent the KT process ‘box’ of the conceptual framework, presented in Chapter 5:

• Communication (spoken, written)

• Pro-active approach (databases, reports, books, manuals) • Practiced experience (internalization)/ Routines/ Repetition • Hands-On/ Action Learning/ Direct Interaction

• Best Practice

• Mentoring/ Apprenticeship • Reflection/ Post-Project Reviews • Assigning Knowledge Workers • Co-Location of Staff

• Adult Learning/ Training on-the-job • Training off-the-job

• Networking/ Face-to-face social interaction • IT (databases, PC programs)